THE ECOFEMINIST MOVEMENT: THE POWER
OF INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
by
WILLIAM A. EDWARDS, B.A.
A THESIS
IN
COMMUNICATION STUDIES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
August, 2001 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writing of this text would not have been possible were it not for some very special people. These people lent support when it was needed, criticism when necessary, and had the knowledge to distinguish which was appropriate at the time. It is necessary to mention some of these people here. I would first like to thank my committee members. They deserve a large credit for the finished product of this document. Dr. Williams has remained a mentor and friend for many years now. His ability to point one in the right direction while still allowing one to explore with adequate autonomy has proven invaluable to my educational experience. Dr. Bliese first introduced me to the study the environmental movement. Though we diverge on the methodological approaches we employ, he aroused my interest in many academic areas of which I would have otherwise been ignorant. Dr. Hughes, while a late addition, provided some excellent insight and further directions for the present study. Thanks to all of you. I only hope that you realize how profound the impact is that you have on your students. Please keep doing what you are doing. I would also like to thank my family for their love and support (especially financially). My parents, Don and Mary, are wonderful. I love you both. Thanks to my brother as well for making me a stronger person. Thanks to the rest of my family for your smiles, your kindness, and most importantly your love. I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students. Too often we forget that most of our education comes from the other students around us. You all have been great and I hope that I have given you only a portion of what you have given me. Finally, I would like to thank my wife for being the most wonderful person in the world. Your love, support, and your brilliance made this possible. Every day I think I am more understanding and compassionate because of you. This text is written about those who attempt to make this world a better place. I wish to applaud all those who try to make positive changes in this world. Without them I
11 would be lost. Because of them I find myself simply inspired and in awe of their achievements. I can't imagine not having such love. Thanks to all of you!
ill CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii CHAPTER L INTRODUCTION 1 n. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 5 Ecofeminism 6 The Ecofeminist, Environmental, and Feminist Movements 9 Power 13 m. INVFTATIONAL RHETORIC AND POWER 23 The Artifact 23 Invitational Rhetoric 29 Foucaultian Power 46 The Present Study 53 rV. RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ECOFEMINIST MOVEMENT 54 Critique of Dualisms 54 Embracing a New Spirituality 63 Reweaving Narratives 71 Ecofeminist Rhetoric as Power 80 V. DISCUSSION 90 Ecofeminism 90 Invitational Rhetoric 94 Power 97 Limitations of the Study 99
REFERENCES 102
IV CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In her essay, "Evolution of 'The New Frontier' in Alien and Aliens: Patriarchal
Co-optation of the Feminine Archetype," Rushing (1989) concludes that the "old heroic myth...simply cannot accommodate feminine consciousness without corrupdng it." She argues that it is time to construct a "new myth for humankind," which "needs to be a quest, not a conquest; its purpose, to search rather than to search and destroy" (p. 508).
Rushing's essay highlights the necessity to reconceptualize our reality to allow the inclusion of feminist ideals. The dominant culture has too often ignored the feminine perspective in favor of the masculine. How can this culture be changed and a new understanding formulated which accounts for both masculine and feminine ideals? The answer is certainly not simple. Any chance of altering the dominant culture requires a complete overhaul, one that alters not just minor details, but that changes the very fabric that the culture is built around.
At the core of any such transcendence is the issue of power. In terms of gender relations, power has become convoluted across a myriad of academic fields and finding any concrete answers has seemed to elude most researchers. Current accounts of power exclude one particular facet or another and never fully attain a comprehensive theoretical account of what power is. It may be the case that power is not one thing, but that it is multiple things in a multitude of forms. Foss (1996) argues that women, in particular, experience the world in a distinctly different manner than men. Foss explains, "this experience, along with the knowledge and discourse it generates, is submerged, devalued, and generally not heard in the male-dominated culture" (p. 205), The manner in which oppressed groups seek empowerment must start with the abandonment of the current discursive structure and lead to the formation of a new discursive structure around their own experiences.
In the field of communication, this abandonment of the current discursive structure is made explicit by Foss and Griffin (1995) with their call for a reconceptualization of rhetorical theory to include invitational rhetoric as an alternative to the predominant view of rhetoric as persuasion. "Invitational rhetoric is an invitadon to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination" (Foss & Griffin, 1995, p. 5). In contrast to the view that rhetoric is the art of persuasion or influence, Foss and Griffin contend that the current view is patriarchal and fails to account for the feminine perspective. Instead, they offer invitational rhetoric as a means of understanding rather than influencing. This new form of rhetoric does not entail the complete abandonment of the old, but rather a reformulation of rhetoric to be inclusive of invitational rhetoric as an effective means of communication. Accepting invitational rhetoric as a viable means of communication will begin to tip the scale so that one day masculine and feminine ideals are valued equally.
Invitational rhetoric is best illustrated in the rhetoric of ecofeminism.
Ecofeminism is a blending of the feminist and environmental movements. At the core of ecofeminist thought is the belief that all forms of oppression are interconnected and in order to liberate any marginalized group or thing, all marginalized groups and things must be liberated. Thus, aU oppression is linked and one form cannot end undl all other forms end (Kheel, 1993). Ecofeminism began as a philosophical movement, but is starting to formulate its own empowerment group based on the philosophy of ecofeminist thinkers and writers (Spretnak & Capra, 1986; Somma & Tolleson-Rinehart, 1997).
Within empowerment groups the issues of power and legitimacy become paramount
(Foss & Griffin, 1992). In any given society the dominant institutions can possess one of many forms of power and empowerment groups, in order to achieve their goals, must attempt to access their own form of power (Stewart, Smith, & Denton, 1994). Viewing an empowerment group from a power perspective involves examining their discourse to understand how the movement attempts to reformulate social reality.
The present study will examine the way that power functions in the discourse of the ecofeminist movement as an example of invitational rhetoric. The task of the feminist and environmental movements as well as other oppressed groups has been to overthrow the dominant structure and to empower marginalized voices. Invitational rhetoric could be a means to that end for oppressed groups. Discovering the potential of invitational rhetoric could provide a mechanism for marginalized voices to be heard and to alter the underlying structure of the social fabric.
Communication studies as a field has largely ignored the ecofeminist movement and has only recently explored invitational rhetoric. While there has been theorizing, no one has used invitational rhetoric as a means for conducting a rhetorical analysis. The current study attempts to break this void and hopefully offer new direction for the study of power, rhetoric, and ecofeminism. Using invitational rhetoric as outlined by Foss and Griffin (1995) to provide a theoretical framework for the analysis, the present study hopes to generate themes from ecofeminist texts that illustrate the power potential of invitational rhetoric and its ability to foster a new communicative environment for movements of emancipation to thrive in.
This initial introduction provides an adequate background for the present study.
The second chapter will offer a review of the literature that will explore ecofeminism and power. The third chapter will present the methodology by examining the use of invitational rhetoric as a conception of power. The fourth chapter will present the analysis of ecofeminism. Finally, the fifth chapter will offer a discussion and will hopefully draw out promising conclusions as well as some thought for future study into the areas at hand. The present study contends that invitational rhetoric is a viable altemative to the traditional view of rhetoric as persuasion, especially for oppressed groups. The project of emancipation for groups like the environmental movement and the feminist movement can benefit from invitational rhetoric as a means toward reformulating their position and reconceptualizing the power structure to end the oppression of all. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In examining the literature on ecofeminism and power, one is confronted with several tasks that have been difficult for the researcher. First, there are different types of ecofeminism. Even though the movement shares the belief that all forms of oppression are interconnected, the similarities end there. Different branches of ecofeminism attribute the cause of oppression to different factors. This makes a rhetorical analysis of the entire ecofeminist movement difficult. The present study will attempt to account for the variations, but admittedly does not attempt to fully give each branch of ecofeminism its own independent analysis.
With regards to power, the extant literature on the topic has proven to lead to more questions than answers. A complete account of every type of power or even adequate account of every type of power could not be found. Instead, different accounts of power have been pooled together from across many different disciplines and the literature will reveal a particular theory to be preferred over others. While several theories will be discussed, the list is not designed to be completely comprehensive.
However, every attempt was made to include theories across many different disciplines.
Reaching a comprehensive account of power was beyond the scope of the present study, but the theories of power explicated here do represent primary theories across disciplines that could be uncovered. Ecofeminism
The environmental movement is one that has been dissected and examined by many theorists and scientists alike. Today's environmental movement, though, is much different than it was ten years ago. New theories and perspectives have emerged in the past few decades that have given insight to activists and politicians in attempting to solve ecological problems. Theories such as deep ecology and social ecology have brought about acceptance from many environmentalists as well as criticism from many groups, including environmentalists.
At the same time that the environmental movement has evolved, the feminist movement has developed new strands that have given a new resurgence to an ongoing movement. This resurgence has been called the "third wave" of feminism, which exhibits many different faces and beliefs (Gaard, 1993). In the same spirit, a new form of feminism that attempts to emancipate both women and the environment has emerged.
This new form of feminism has been embraced and renounced by many, making it socially significant from any standpoint (Sheer, 1994). This movement offers a large breadth of issues from a rhetorical perspective that requires further examination.
The Historical Development of Ecofeminism
When French feminist Frangoise d'Eaubonne first coined the term
"ecofeminisme" in 1974, only a few Western intellectuals were open to the idea that the feminist and environmental movements shared something in common (Mellor, 1997). In
1980, the concept became a movement at a major conference on "Women and Life on Earth: Ecofeminism in the '80s" (Merchant, 1992; Sturgeon, 1997). Since that time, ecofeminism has come to new prominence among environmentalists, theologians, feminists, and sociologists, to name only a few.
While ecofeminism primarily is a North-American philosophical movement, it has gained wide recognition from people around the globe (Plant, 1997). Ecofeminist philosophy is grounded in the belief that the forces that oppress women are the same forces that oppress nature and ail "others" that are oppressed. The philosophy adheres to the notion that every thing on the earth is interconnected and that we need a new consciousness that respects all life (Kheel, 1993).
Types of Ecofeminism
There are four major branches of ecofeminism: liberal, cultural, social, and socialist. Liberal ecofeminists attempt to work within existing structures to solve resource problems. They believe that better science, conservation, and laws are the proper approach for women to take. Liberal ecofeminists accept the dominant paradigm, but believe that equal educational opportunities can help women overcome the social stigma of their biology and join men in environmental protection (Merchant, 1996).
Cultural Ecofeminists have a different approach. They question the dominant paradigm of oppressing women, nature, classes, races, and ages, and so on. Cultural ecofeminists believe that men and women are biologically different, but they view these differences as beneficial to women because they place women in a better position to care for the environment than men. Cultural ecofeminists believe that when patriarchy is overthrown all oppressed groups will be emancipated, including women and nature
(Merchant, 1996).
Social and Socialist ecofeminists place capitalism as the cause of all oppression.
Thus, economic and hierarchical structures are the cause of oppression. They reject the notion that men and women are biologically different and attempt to persuade the public that women and nature are not passive, but rather active agents who should be considered as equal to men (Merchant, 1996). Economic forces lie at the root of this particular branch of ecofeminism. Social and socialist ecofeminists contend that once oppressed groups gain equality within the economic sphere, they will in turn gain equality in all social realms.
Even though there are major differences of opinion between the branches of ecofeminism, all four branches share several things in common. First, to the issues of sexism, racism, classism, and heterosexism that concem feminists, all ecofeminists would add naturism - the oppression of the rest of nature (Adams, 1993). Kirk (1995) adds that the "central idea connecting them is the way White-centered, Western patriarchy creates otherness - in women, people of colour and the earth - to be objectified, dominated, and used" (p. 80).
Secondly, as Sturgeon (1997) contends, "ecofeminism aims to be a multi-issue, globally oriented movement with a more diverse constituency than either of its environmentalist or feminist predecessors. Ecofeminism is thus a movement with large ambitions and with a significant...constituency" (p. 24). Sturgeon also points out that even though ecofeminists have many differences, they still unite around the goal of ending the oppression of nature and women.
The Ecofeminist, Environmental, and Feminist Movements
How does ecofeminism differ from a larger environmental movement or feminist movement? This question is difficult, but must be answered in order to articulate the unique characteristics of ecofeminism. Ecofeminism should not be viewed as a group within the environmental movement or a group within the feminist movement. There are major philosophical differences between these groups that are incommensurable. With this in mind, it is necessary to examine these differences further to establish ecofeminism as its own independent group. Deep ecology represents the most progressive form of environmental thought within the environmental movement and provides a definitive contrast with ecofeminism.
Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology
Deep ecology was first introduced by the Norwegian philosopher Ame Naess in his 1973 article "The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement." Naess explains that shallow ecology is typified by movements that fight exclusively against pollution and resources depletion. Shallow ecology views environmental protection as only a means to better human's lives. Deep ecology is a theory that is based on biocentric, or life-centered equality. Deep ecology rejects anthropocentrism, or human- centered, thinking and views the environment, or nature, as having intrinsic value (Naess 1973). Deep ecology is not reformist on a political level, but rather encourages a shift in mindset of humans' attitudes toward the nonhuman global biota. This approach has received widespread acceptance from many environmentalists around the globe (Cuomo,
1998).
The problem that ecofeminists have with deep ecology is that it fails to recognize androcentrism as a cause of the domination of nature by humans. Instead deep ecology claims that anthropocentrism is the sole cause of environmental problems and prescribes solutions only to end anthropocentrism. Ecofeminists feel that anthropocentrism is certainly a cause of environmental problems, but this anthropocentrism is caused by androcentrism, or the control of men. Thus, because men dominate government, science, and other fields that deal with environmental problems, they also cause destruction and use technology to solve the problems. Ecofeminists wish women to be more involved in government and science because they are better able to solve the problems in the environment, especially without the use of high technology (Cuomo, 1998).
Ecofeminism criticizes deep ecology for reconnecting with nature through the violent means, for omitting the analyses of feminists from the construction of its theories, and for constructing a theory that functioned merely as the unfolding of white middle- class environmentalism in its regard for wilderness. Deep ecology shows an utter disinterest in social justice and the functioning of capitalism both in the United States and internationally. Ecofeminists sought to change the attitudes of deep ecologists so as to include feminist thought into their works, but they were denounced with claims that deep ecologists had already articulated everything the ecofeminists had to say. So, the
10 ecofeminists demonstrated how deep ecology was flawed and began to distinguish the ecofeminist movement from deep ecology. By creating this separation, ecofeminism became more visible (Gaard, 1993).
This distancing from deep ecology has sparked many debates on whether anthropocentrism or androcentrism is the root cause of environmental degradation.
Neither side has been willing to compromise, which has split a larger environmental movement into two different movements over the issue. While the larger goal of ecofeminism is ending all oppression is not incorporated by deep ecology, they do have the same environmental goals. Ecofeminists do not reject all the claims made by deep ecology, but because deep ecologists refused to accept ecofeminism as a new perspective, ecofeminists immediately became opposed to the concept of deep ecology as a whole
(Cuomo, 1998).
Ecofeminism and Feminism
Though many environmentally minded feminists have embraced ecofeminism, it has also garnered much criticism from many feminists who feel that some of the images created by ecofeminists only help to subjugate women. Because cultural ecofeminists accept traditional assertions that there are biological differences between men and women that lead to different characteristics they accept the label as being closer to nature than men. Feminists believe that accepting this mentality can only lead to the promotion of these stereotypes (Sachs, 1997). Feminists feel that it is precisely this loaded truism that men have used over the centuries to keep women in their place as "closer to nature."
11 "They fear that drawing any attention to any gender differences will play into men's hands, reinforcing the standard repressive move" (Salleh, 1997, p. 2). While feminists challenge the theory of ecofeminism, ecofeminists challenge feminist theories as well.
Again, because feminists often fail to address the role that the environment plays in the entire web of oppression, ecofeminists reject much feminist theory as not being truly comprehensive (Salleh, 1997).
Social feminists have a general hostility toward nature because of the belief that freedom for women can only be found in the social realm of culture. Furthermore, because feminists already have many issues to deal with, many feel that adding nature on top of those issues just increases an already overburdened agenda. Feminists fail to see the connection between women and nature. They believe that women can be liberated without ending the oppression of nature (Gaard, 1993).
Many feminists have specifically critiqued the use of "Mother Earth" or "Mother
Nature" by ecofeminists to create a positive metaphor for women and nature. They claim the use of mother associated with nature only helps to link women with characteristics of inferiority. Thus, these associations only contribute to stereotypes that have led to the oppression of women for centuries (Murphy, 1994). Zimmerman (1994) points out that many cultural ecofeminists avoid using the term "Mother Earth" because of the stereotypes that it could possibly enforce, but also because it projects a human category on nature, thereby preventing nature from showing itself to us in its own terms. Steamey
(1994) suggests that ecofeminists refrain from using the matemal archetype because of the potential for stereotypes to be reinforced. Ecofeminists believe that the use of the
12 archetype will help emancipate themselves and nature from white-male domination.
Furthermore, "Mother Earth" is an archetype that is often accepted and used by men when referring to nature. It is an age-old archetype that has been used by many scholars and ecofeminists believe it is exactiy this type of transformation and use of female empowering terms that will lead to true equality between men, women, and nature.
Even though there are similarities between ecofeminism and the deep ecology and feminist movements it is necessary to treat them as distinct groups. The inclusive nature of ecofeminism is a rhetorically significant distinction from other movements.
Furthermore, ecofeminists consider themselves as distinct from the deep ecology/environmental and the feminist movement (Gaard, 1998). These fundamental philosophical differences create a solid background for the present study.
Power
Acknowledging that it was difficult to reach any comprehensive account of the types of power does not begin to explain the complicity that surrounds the study of power. The problem arises out of the vagueness of the term, not because it has not been studied extensively by scholars, but rather that many scholars have studied power, at least indirectly. Many scholars have written on the subject of power, but without ever calling it power. When a scientist speaks of the forces that drive gravity, s/he is speaking of some form of power. When the dictator says that he or she has the ability to punish anyone who questions his/her authority, he or she is speaking of a form of power.
Though completely opposite representations of power, both examples exhibit power in
13 practice. The complication is brought out of the lack of solidifying one concept or
manifestation of power. Instead, everything can somehow be brought back to the issue of
power (Allen, A., 1999; Dowding, 1996; Foucault, 1980; Hoy, 1986; King, 1987;
Ransom, 1997). Thus, it is not that the issue is underdeveloped, but it is rather so
developed that it has ceased to be one thing, but is a multitude of things to many different
people in various forms. The current exploration of power will first look at several
definitions of power and then explore the three primary theories of power.
Many scholars writing about power have taken on the task of trying to define
power. Defining is very distinct from theorizing. Defining attempts to say that this is
what something is while a theory, in terms of power, says this is how it functions or
manifests itself. A definition is usually a concise explanation of some term that is easily
explained in a few sentences. A theory may take an entire book or even a series of books
to fully explain. Take the concept of utilitarianism. Mill (1914) provided a concept of
rule utilitarianism, which claims that we ought to act in accordance with those rules that
will produce the greatest overall amount of utility for society as a whole. We can take
this definition and discuss it and apply it. As a definition it is very functional and ahows
for an easy conceptualization. As a theory though, utilitarianism becomes much more complex and brings into light other concepts such as hedonism and ethical egoism, which demand a definition themselves. Theories can be made up of a multitude of concepts and require more of a building block structure to understand. One concept leads to another concept until one has a comprehensive account of the particular theory. Mill required a book forty pages in length to describe the theory of utilitarianism.
14 Power shares this characteristic with utihtarianism. Scholars (Arendt, 1958;
Leibniz, 1965; Russel, 1938; Weber, 1957) have defined power and these definitions allow us to speak about power as well as to apply it, but they are either too narrow to include all forms of power or to vague to allow any use of such a definition. Let us examine some of these definitions in order to view their "utility."
Russell (1938) defines power as "the capacity to realize our desires" (King, 1987, p. 137). Russell's definition is adequate enough for some perspectives, but fails to account for more than just an individual. Power often manifests itself within social realms involving other people who are truly the ones with power, in terms of power as commodity, but yet you are able to obtain your desires even without the power. Thus, one's capacity to realize one's desires is constantiy being altered by the actions of others.
Russell also fails to account for perception in his definition. While someone who is hearing impaired may not have the capacity to hear, he or she may have mixed thoughts on how that ability would function is his/her life. Once a member in the hearing impaired culture, a person might still desire to hear, but at the same time not wish to be apart from the hearing-impaired culture. Our desires are sometimes more complicated than
Russell's definition can account for. We often have competing desires that cannot reveal a predominant desire. Instead, we allow someone else or pure chance to decide the course of action that will be pursued.
Leibniz (1965) defines power as "the possibility of change" (van Ginkle, 1999, p.
22). This definition fads to account for any agent enacting the change or an object for change. Much like Russell's definition it gives no particular focus to an agent and allows
15 for the possibility of change to come from other people or things. Van Ginkle (1999) amends Leibniz's definition to state, "power is the ability of agents to change or control specified objects" (p. 22). The problem with van Ginkle's definition is that it is too inclusive. This definition assumes that all power is intentionally exercised. If a person unintentionally drops a banana peel on the ground and a few minutes later another person should come and slip on that banana peel, is that power? Maybe it could be considered so, but the desire of the person was most likely not to injure someone else. Instead, they were simply being careless. This carelessness can cause accidents, but being outside of the person's desires negates the person's active use of power. Power in our first definition was the capacity to realize our desires. Our intentions or desires must be highlighted in a concept of power. Carelessness and ignorance can be powerful, but under van Ginkle's definition any change, whether intentional or not, is included as power. This is similar to the "butterfly effect." Under this theory a butterfly could conceivably cause a tidal wave on the other side of the planet, but can the butterfly be said to have the power to cause a tidal wave? Put in this light under this definition anything could be considered power.
Weber (1957) defines power as, "the possibility of forcing one's own will on the behavior of others" (p. 152). Weber's definition runs into the same pitfalls as Russell and van Ginkle in some respects, but is probably the most damaging concept of power that has been explicated. Forcing one's own will on others may not be the only goal of someone exercising power. One could find power in allowing others to determine their behavior without force. For instance, a parent who constantly determines a teenager's
16 decisions for them instead of letting the child make his/her own decisions in many cases might find resentment from the child. On the other hand, a parent who establishes respect for and trust in the child might find the child more responsible and trusting of the parent. Thus, the parent is able to communicate with the child more openly and the child is responsible enough to self-discipline him or herself This need not apply in every case to demonstrate that force may not always be the path to power. Power does not only take the form of force even though force can be considered a type of power. So, Weber's definition fails to be comprehensive as well.
Finally, Arendt (1958) defines power as "the ability to agree upon a common course of action in unconstrained communication" (Habermas, 1977, p. 369). This altemative definition could possibly be the star hghting the way for such a feminist account as the present study. It is difficult at times to consider it inaccurate because it applies to the object of ecofeminism so well. It highlights the unnecessary battie that seems to be waged by many and the opportunity to view communication and power as something that should lead to agreement rather than force or reaching one's will. Even though Arrendt's definition adds a new dimension to the previous constructs it is incomplete as well. While it allows for power as consensus it fails to account for the previous versions of force and control. Even though these concepts are too often viewed as the true meaning of power, it would be an injustice to deny their presence or to pretend that they are something else besides power. So, they must be included in any functional definition.
17 What has been achieved by this examination of definitions? One could have easily stated that the definitions are not good enough for the sake of simplicity, but our understanding would be far less. It is necessary to view these definitions in order to understand why a definition cannot be formed. Each definition is incomplete in some way or another. The problem is that they are all correct in some way or another. Each definition favors a particular kind of power while it excludes others. One could even say that we should merely combine all of the definitions and claim that power is all of the above. In one instance it may be Russell's definition and in another Arendt's definition.
However, if one were to view the combination of definitions they no longer remain a definition, but instead become an archeology of the forms of power, which as Leibniz's definition illustrates could include almost anything. So, the only way to accurately define power is to say that it is anything. Obviously this definition is not sufficient for practical purposes. This constant abyss leaves any scholar with no direction to look at power or to study power. So, how does one study power without being able to define it?
This is where a theory of power comes into play. A theory can be much more complex than a definition and is capable of responding to its shortcomings unlike a definition. A theory is even capable of being incomplete because its fundamental basis is not to claim that something is this, but rather to provide a way to look at something. Any theory can be deemed vahd, functional, or enlightening depending upon the perspective in which the theory is viewed. Some theories are given more praise and subscription than others, but even the most ridiculous theories may provide an accurate depiction for
18 certain people and serve a functional purpose in one's life. It is here that power must be explored. Dowding (1996) states that:
The problem for studying power is that we may have to discover the power of actors without actually seeing them wield that power. This is partly because they do not always use all their power, and partly because, even when they do, the nature of the political process and the social world means that some actors may try to exercise that power away from the prying eyes of those trying to study them. Dispositional properties are theoretical in character, and we have to approach power in society theoretically, though we shall want to corroborate our hypothesis empirically whenever we can. (p. 4)
It is impossible to truly grasp the very essence of all of power because it does come in so many forms and is often not seen by anyone. The butterfly may have the power to cause a tidal wave, but who would attribute such power to the butterfly? So now that the definitions of power have been put aside we can look at several different conceptions of power on the theoretical level.
Power can be condensed into four conceptualizations that attempt to formulate a theory of power. This first conceptualization is power as resource. The power as resource conceptualization views power as a social good or something that is distributed among people in unequal amounts. Under this vantage point power is something that one possesses because they have more resources than other people do (Allen, A., 1999).
Many theorists have contributed to this notion of power as resource including C. Wright
Mills (King, 1987), Hobbes (Kiros, 1998), Carl Marx, Steven Lukes (Hoy, 1986), and
Robert Dahl (Haugaard, 1997). Social theorists such as Talcott Parsons, Karl Deutsch, and Niklas Luhmann all describe power as a type of currency that circulates much like money does within society (Barthes, 1992). Each of these theorists have contributed to the theory of power as being something that someone can possess and use as one uses any
19 other tool or resource, h is this view that many emancipation movements have used to empower themselves. Taking the perspective that whites, men, animal abusers, the wealthy, and so on have more resources than they do, these emancipation movements call for a redistribution of resources so as to allow for the equality of those oppressed. Under a functional perspective this conceptualization serves a valuable purpose. It allows a movement or individual to clearly identify enemies or devils and to make them known to all whom receive the group or individual's discourse (Allen, A, 1999). The rise of the
Communist Party relied on such a perspective to cast capitalism as a plague on society due to the resources that allow it to oppress the proletariat.
The second conceptualization of power is power as domination. Under this view power is not something that certain people possess and others do not. Instead, the domination viewpoint claims that it is power that produces a hierarchy, which places some people as dominant and others as subjugated. In order to resolve inequalities under this theory, one should not attempt to give more power to the oppressed, but should instead reexamine the very structure of power. In American culture there is a stereotype of what a beautiful women should look like. While there will always be minor distinctions, one could make some generalizations and point out the characteristics that are generally associated with beauty. The question is why is thin associated with beautiful. Is thin a resource that produces power in women? Under the power as resource perspective one should try to become thin in order to gain more power. Under the power as domination perspective one should instead question why thin means beautiful. It is because society has constructed this belief that thin then becomes equated
20 with power and the only way for those who are not thin to achieve power is to reformulate the meaning of thin and not to become thin.
The third conceptualization is power as empowerment. Developed primarily within feminist circles, this particular perspective views people, namely men and women, as different, but begins to assign different values to their abilities and actions.
Empowerment theorists hold that women can empower themselves by clinging to and celebrating the activities and beliefs that are already close to them. There is no need to talce anything away from men or to try to become like men. Instead, empowerment theorists contend that women should use their skills as child caretakers, nurtures, and relationship focused individuals as a positive source of pride. Gilligan (1982) first developed this theory with the claim that women through education are more oriented toward a responsibility to and concem for others. These traits are frequently viewed in misogynist and patriarchal cultures as a sign of weakness or even the explicit "feminine."
Empowerment theorists wish to end the negative connotation that is associated with these qualities of women and begin to look at them as a productive force that privileges women in one particular area over men. This view has been used by some feminists such as
Ruddick and Held (Allen, A., 1999) as a basis for a feminist revisioning of society that could overturn the dominant stmcture and allow society to begin to accept the differences between men and women without hierarchalizing the two genders.
The final conception was made famous by the work of Michel Foucault. This view claims that power is a set of mobile force relations that operate throughout the social body. For Foucault, power is omnipresent, h exists at the top, which we are
21 traditionally used to in that it is capable of oppression and domination. However, power can also come from the bottom or even the sides. One does not gain power or lose power. Instead, power is something that is extemal to the person as a force. One is always within a social network of power whether s/he knows it. Foucault (1978) explains, "power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything but because it comes from everywhere.. .Power comes from below.. .There is no binary and all encompassing opposition between mles and serving as a general matrix" (pp. 92-94). Foucault (1980) further states that "power is always already there.. .one is never outside it.. .there are no margins for those who break with the system to gamble in" (p. 141).
Within the other conceptualizations of power, it is almost exclusively viewed as a negative force that leads to the domination, control, or oppression of a group or class of individuals. Foucault's version of power allows for power to be productive more than repressive. People may not be productive, but power is always functioning and always producing something. It is not stagnant and must always be productive. Foucault perceives power as something that is exercised rather than something that is possessed.
For Foucault power is always there. The question is only how do we use that power and how does it manifest itself within society.
22 CHAPTER III
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC AND POWER
Combining the forces of invitational rhetoric and power has yet to be explored
within rhetorical studies. Those who have developed, critiqued, and explored invitational
rhetoric certainly speak about power indirectiy, but no one to date has focused on the way
that invitational rhetoric functions as a manifestation of power. Ecofeminism becomes an
excellent place to view invitational rhetoric in action and thus to see the power of such
rhetoric. Within this chapter the selection of the artifact will be revealed, invitational
rhetoric will be explained, the methodological lens of power will be exphcated, and the
process of the present study will be discussed.
The Artifact
The extant literature that has been produced by ecofeminist thinkers is enormous.
One would find in a search through any major research library upwards of seventy books
written by or about ecofeminists. The present study aims to focus on a smaller body of
texts to focus an analysis on. The daunting task of selecting works from this body is
difficult at best. There is much overlap between some texts and others that can be
considered ecofeminism or not based on how loosely one defines ecofeminism. These
are just a few of the problems encountered. Because the selection process was complicated, the criteria for the selection of artifacts need to be explained in depth here.
23 The current study is primarily interested in understanding how power functions within ecofeminist rhetoric. In order to reach this understanding texts should be selected that aim at achieving power. This is very difficult to determine though. What constitutes rhetoric with the aim of exercising or achieving power? Every attempt has been taken to let the authors themselves determine what that is with the use of their own language. Starting with sixty-two books and 3 online articles, an initial review was conducted. Ecofeminists texts often come in the form of anthologies. From the sixty-two books, seventeen were anthologies. Texts were eliminated based on the following criteria.
First, texts were examined for the explicit use of power or empowerment. From the initial search ten texts were eliminated because they were not explicitly or implicitly concerned with power. These texts dealt with a host of very important issues, but failed to deal with the issue of power. They included advice for literary criticism, historical accounts of the movement, and current practices of women being active in environmental problems, but made no arguments about ecofeminism being a way of empowering women or nature.
The second criteria involved eliminating texts that failed to hold a particular position. Many of the texts examined were more of a literature review than an essay of arguments. Because ecofeminism is still a relatively new movement, it is no surprise that many of the texts are dedicated to explaining what the movement is and has been about.
These are very valuable texts, but are once again descriptive instead of taking a particular point of advocacy. Any account that failed to take a position on a matter was excluded.
24 which eliminated seven more books, one online article, and many essays inside of anthologies. At this point the field of texts had been eliminated to forty-five books excluding some chapters in anthologies and two of the online articles.
Third, the texts were examined for geographical or ethnic slants. The current study is targeted at looking at a very general picture of ecofeminism. This is not to say that specific branches within particular cultures should not be studied, but it is necessary to look at the general picture first before one can look for nuances that exist in different cultures. The ecofeminist movement is an excellent example. First, the movement had to reach general conclusions about the role of women and nature in order to build a strong basis of thought. Now the movement explores many issues that allow scholars to examine particular parts or branches of ecofeminism. Because the current study wishes to view the general communicative nature of the movement, only texts that exhibit this general nature were accepted. Texts that focused on a particular culture or group within ecofeminism were excluded from the analysis. This eliminated four books and forty- three essays found in anthologies.
Next, texts were examined for works by the same author in which the same arguments were made in different texts. Many of the texts simply reemphasize earlier works and fail to contribute any new arguments or knowledge to the ecofeminist movement such as Warren (1999). These works by the same author only take a new approach to explain an older argument of the author's own. These texts could be used for an analysis, but it was determined that the analysis could be more focused on a smaller number of texts and result in a better study. In some cases multiple authors presented
25 very distinct arguments in different texts. These texts were left in the field. Overall, seven books were eliminated as well as a few more chapters in anthologies.
After all of these criteria were applied, thirty-four texts were remaining. This included seven books and thirty-seven chapters within anthologies. Some of these were anthologies that had chapters that had been eliminated from the previous criteria. Still, the texts needed to be narrowed down to allow ample time and attention to conduct such an analysis. Texts were once again examined for originality. This time the texts were compared to texts by other authors. Many texts only duplicated the thoughts of previous works by other people. Once again, these failed to contribute any new knowledge to the movement and were eliminated in order to better focus an analysis. One example is
Mellor (1997). Her book entitled Feminism and Ecology is a very compelling and comprehensive of the ecofeminist movement, but it lacks originality in many respects.
Mellor primarily reiterates and rewords arguments made by other ecofeminist works published earlier. This particular book would be an excellent artifact for an analysis of ecofeminism, but it would neither add much to this analysis nor take anything away with its absence in the selected texts. Finally, twenty texts remained. There were four books and sixteen chapters in anthologies left. The two online articles were eliminated from this last process.
The twenty remaining texts were reviewed one final time to assure that each branch of ecofeminism was represented in a significant way in proportion to the other branches. The study needed to be designed so that no bias was given to any specific branch of ecofeminism and the review demonstrated a fair representation of each branch.
26 Furthermore, much emphasis has been placed within the ecofeminist movement on avoiding silencing the voices of third world scholars. When the movement first originated it was largely dominated by white women from the "North" (Gaard 1993).
The present study needed to include a variety of voices in order to avoid such biases. The selected texts revealed three authors from developing countries and four authors who particularly take up the notion of ecofeminism outside of the developing world. These authors make arguments about the nature and need for ecofeminism to thrive and speak out within developing countries. Unfortunately, all of the authors included were women.
Every effort was made to include the voice of men, but the few men who have published on the topic of ecofeminism are either not ecofeminists or failed to meet the most important criteria, such as the incorporation of power or failing to be persuasive. The selected texts also failed to include some of the major works that ecofeminists recognize as the "major works" on ecofeminism. These texts failed to meet at least one of the selection criteria and were excluded from the study. However, the arguments made in these texts are presented by other authors within the selected texts.
The following texts remained to represent the data set for the present study: Carol
J. Adams with her introduction to an anthology she edited entitled Ecofeminism and the
Sacred, published in 1993, Chris J. Cuomo with her book entitled Feminism and ecological communities, pubhshed in 1998, Riane Eisler with her essay entitled
"Messages from the Past: The World of the Goddess," pubhshed in This Sacred Earth:
Religion, Nature, Environment in 1996 and edited by Roger S. Gottlieb, Ivone Gebaras with her essay called "Ecofeminism and Panentheism" in Readings in Ecology and
27 Feminist Theory, published in 1995 and edited by Heather MacKinnon and Moni
Mclntyre, Lori Gmen with her essay entitied "Revaluing Nature" in Ecofeminism:
Women, Culture, Nature, published in 1997 and edited by Karen J. Warren, Marti Kheel in her chapter entitled "From Heroic to Holistic Ethics: the Ecofeminist Challenge" in
Ecofeminism, published in 1993 and edited by Greta Gaard, Gwyn Kirk in her essay
"Women resist ecological destmction" in A Diplomacy of the Oppressed: New
Directions in Intemational Feminism, published in 1995 and edited by Georgina
Ashworth, Sallie McFague in her chapter called "An Earthly Theological Agenda" in
Ecofeminism and the Sacred, published in 1993 and edited by Carol J. Adams, Maria
Mies and Vandana Shiva in their book entitied Ecofeminism, published in 1993, Judith
Plaskow in her chapter "Feminist Judaism and Repair of the World" in Ecofeminism and the Sacred, published in 1993 and edited by Carol J. Adams, Judith Plant in her chapter
"Leaming to Live with Differences: The Challenge of Ecofeminist Community" in
Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, published in 1997 and edited by Karen J.
Warren, Anne Primavesi in her essay entitled "A Tide in the Affairs of Women?" in
Ecotheology: Voices from the North and South, published in 1994 and edited by David
G. Hallman, Eleanor Rae in her book Women, the Earth, the Divine, published in 1994,
Ariel Salleh in her book Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx and the Postmodem, published in 1997, and Deborah Sheer in her essay "Wrongs of Passage: Three
Challenges to Maturing of Ecofeminism" in Ecological Feminism, published in 1994 and edited by Karen J. Warren. There were two authors with more than one text selected.
Rosemary Radford Ruether authored three texts that were selected. They included "The
28 Biblical Vision of the Ecological Crisis" in Readings in Ecology and Feminist Theology, published in 1995 and edited by Heather MacKinnon and Moni Mclntyre, "Eco-
Feminism and Theology" in Ecotheology: Voices from the North and South, published in
1994 and edited by David G. Hallman, and "Ecofeminism: Symbolic and Social
Connections of the Oppression of Women and Domination of Nature" in This Sacred
Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment, published in 1996 and edited by Roger S. Gottiieb.
Karen J. Warren contributed two texts examined for the current study. This first being
"A Feminist Philosophical Perspective on Ecofeminist Spiritualities" in Ecofeminism and
The Sacred, published in 1993 and edited by Carol J. Adams and "Toward and
Ecofeminist Peace Politics" in Ecological Feminism, published in 1994 and edited by
Warren herself.
Invitational Rhetoric
Invitational rhetoric was developed by Foss and Griffin (1995) even though the origin of this particular type of rhetoric hold roots weU before their work (Edson, 1985;
Foss & Foss, 1994; Foss & Griffin, 1992; Gearhart, 1979; Shepherd, 1992). hivitational rhetoric is rooted in feminist philosophy that values "equality, immanent value, and self determination" (Foss & Griffin, 1995, p. 5). In order to come to a full understanding of what invitational rhetoric is, this section will first address the conception of traditional rhetoric as persuasion, then view the divergent conception of invitational rhetoric, and finally look at the criticisms of this perspective.
29 Foss and Griffin (1995) characterize the traditional perspective of rhetoric as one that is focused on persuasion (Shepherd, 1992). They explain, "as far back as the
Western discipline of rhetoric has been explored, rhetoric has been defined as the conscious intent to change others" (p. 2). The assumption underlying rhetoric as persuasion is that people are alive to affect changes on others as well as the environment
(Gearhart, 1979). The ability to affect change has largely been associated with power and in this light rhetoric becomes a means of power because it can persuade. Foss and Griffin
(1995) take contention with this view claiming that rhetoric as persuasion is merely a representation of the patriarchy that enforces the ideals of "change, competition, and domination" (p. 4). They claim that this vantage point devalues the communication of women because it is a manifestation of the same patriarchal stmcture that has caused the oppression of women throughout Westem culture. Foss and Griffin (1995) explain "the act of changing others not only establishes the power of the rhetor over others but also devalues the lives and perspectives of those others. The belief systems and behaviors others have created for living in the world are considered by rhetors to be inadequate or inappropriate and thus in need of change" (p. 3). Under rhetoric as persuasion, audiences are typically viewed as in need of assistance in finding the right way, the way of the rhetor (Gearhart, 1979; Foss & Griffin, 1995).
Invitational rhetoric attempts to make up for the shortcomings of rhetoric as persuasion. Foss and Griffin (1995) explain that invitational rhetoric is an invitation to the audience to see the rhetor's worldview in the same manner that the rhetor does. The invitational rhetor expresses his/her point of view without judging or belittling contrary
30 perspectives. The ideal situation would result in the rhetor expressing his/her thoughts and feelings and allowing the audience to do the same. At the end of the exchange, an understanding would occur. This is not to be confused with an agreement. Because invitational rhetoric does not seek change in another person, the goal must not be to solve matters or to alter the other's thinking. In invitational rhetoric, the message is the means and the ends. Ideally, understanding would occur, but it makes no difference to the invitational rhetor whether the audience understands or accepts the message. The invitational rhetor understands that some will not understand and some who understand will not accept the position. Still, the relationship between the rhetor and the audience remains the same.
How is it possible to have no expectations of the audience understanding or accepting the rhetor's position? Foss and Griffin (1995) explain that
Invitational rhetors do not believe they have the right to claim that their experiences or perspectives are superior to those of their audience members and refuse to impose their perspectives on them. Rhetors view the choices selected by the audience members as right for them at that particular time, based on their own abilities to make those decisions...The result of the invitational rhetor's stance toward the audience is a relationship of equality, respect, and appreciation, (pp. 5- 6)
Under invitational rhetoric, change is certainly possible, even if it is not the goal. At times audiences will hear altemative perspectives from their own and will be moved by them, thus affecting their own experiences. In other instances change may not occur.
Under traditional conceptions of rhetoric, if change occurs power is given to the rhetor for successfully winning the conversation, debate, or battle. Under invitational rhetoric, if change in the audience or the rhetor should occur, it is viewed as a positive experience
31 in most cases. Under traditional conceptions of rhetoric, one may feel devalued or less
worthy in accepting the position of another rhetor. This is often characterized as being
wrong or losing, but in invitational rhetoric the audience's perspectives are valued
equally to that of the rhetor. The rhetor does not assume that his/her perspective is the
better approach and if the rhetor should change his/her mind it is only in favor of a
different perspective that was always valued as equally as the previous held perspective.
This is not to mean that invitational rhetoric has no pain associated with it. At times,
participants may be uncomfortable accepting or letting go of perspectives that were
previously held, but have been abandoned. Change is often a source of grief for people
and such discomfort can occur under invitational rhetoric as well.
Foss and Griffin (1995) contend that invitational rhetoric assumes two primary
rhetorical forms. The first is the form of offering perspectives and the other is "the creation of extemal conditions that allow others to present their perspectives in an
atmosphere of respect and equahty" (p. 7). Offering perspectives is the mode by which the rhetor puts forward his/her perspective for the audience to consider. In offering, rhetors present their worldview to the audience and explain how it looks and works for them. The goal of offering is nothing more that to present a perspective. Under traditional conceptions of rhetoric, a narrative is generally used as a means of seeking adherence to that viewpoint from the audience. Offering also dictates that the rhetor is willing to yield to the audience so that the audience members may have the chance to express their perspectives as well.
32 The second form that invitational rhetoric takes on is the creation of an environment that allows others to offer their own perspectives while offered respect and equality. Foss and Griffin (1995) explain that in order to achieve this goal the invitational rhetor must create an environment characterized by the extemal conditions of safety, value, and freedom. Safety results from the feeling that an audience member is able to articulate his/her feelings and thoughts without fear of criticism from the rhetor or other audience members. Value results from demonstrating to the audience that the rhetor believes he/she has "intrinsic or immanent worth" (p. 11). When a rhetor values his/her audience under invitational rhetoric, it is done with the belief that each person is a unique individual and that no individual is valued above another, but yet each individual is valued with respect and affirmation. Freedom is achieved by allowing the audience members to choose their own decisions with no particular emphasis on the viewpoint of the rhetor or others. In invitational rhetoric no ideas are excluded and each person may contribute any matter they wish to the interaction. From these different perspectives that are articulated, an audience member can choose what is best for them, which may in fact be nothing that has been said by other interlocutors.
The perspective that Foss and Griffin have put forth adds a new dimension to the realm of rhetoric. While the current study uses invitational rhetoric as a methodological framework, it would be haste to ignore some very well intentioned criticism that has been targeted at invitational rhetoric. Gondii (1997) has been the primary figure in presenting the criticisms of invitational rhetoric. Gondii's critique of invitational rhetoric is
33 misdirected at times and, while she makes some valid points, is the result of some fundamental differences between the two parties.
Gondii (1997) classifies Foss and Griffin's work as a part of dichotomy feminism.
Condit claims that this view accepts biological differences between men and women without realizing that people can transcend these genders if they are able to break the social constmction that force us into gender roles. Condit claims that Foss and Griffin relegate rhetoric to the realm of male, which only serves to devalue the power of women to participate in rhetorical discourse. Condit claims that the criticism that Foss and
Griffin express regarding rhetoric as persuasion:
presumes both that individuals are incapable of choosing among persuasive messages what they wish to believe, but also that all aspects of audience members' beliefs are integral to their identity, and therefore ought to be treated as authentic and correct, regardless of how egregious their character, (p. 93)
Gender dichotomists, Condit claims, believe that there is a "pre-given quality to gender and that this gender quality determines central features of one's own identity and therefore one's interests" (p. 93). Condit points out that if our qualities are predetermined by our gender then rhetoric is unnecessary and may be problematic. Condit favors the view that language and culture are socially derived and constmcted rather than simply given from birth. Mathison (1997) also contends that Foss and Griffin dangerously create a distinction between the biological differences between women and men and place women closer to nature because of their sex. Mathison also contends that Foss and
Griffin assume that all positions are equally valuable, even though history has repeatedly proven this false. How does one determine the value of a particular belief? Mathison must assume that this value either comes from some objective reality or through social
34 consensus. A modernist position that recognizes an objective reality would deserve some consideration in another arena, but with regard to beliefs, there can hardly be one objective reality. One person may believe that it is wrong to steal while another may not.
Objective reality has little to do with determining the rightness or wrongness of such an action. Whether an action is right or wrong entirely depends on the philosophical position that one comes from.
Condit (1997) calls for a gender diversity perspective in which male and female ai-e not the only two categories to be included. Instead, Condit holds that there are many different genders that cannot be reduced to merely male and female. She argues that grouping genders together like this only helps to marginalize groups that have traditionally been ignored or denigrated by society. Condit further argues that rhetoric has been viewed in more recent times as interactional instead of as coercive. She goes so far to argue that rhetoric has often been viewed as a feminine activity instead of a masculine one, which would deny Foss and Griffin's claim that rhetoric as persuasion is typically representative of patriarchal stmctures.
Foss, Foss, and Griffin (1997) responded to Gondii's critique in the same year.
Foss et al. respond to Gondii's critique on biological dimorphism by questioning the practicality of a woman being able to take herself out of the category of "woman."
Society will continue to call her a woman, treat her like a woman, and expect a woman.
It is certainly possible for a woman to rebel against these notions, but there is no doubt that expectations will be placed on this individual to be a woman even if she were to decide that she is not. Condit even acknowledges that cultures associate certain
35 characteristics with women and men (pp. 99-100). Foss et al. continue to argue that even if many genders were recognized instead of just two, there is no guarantee that liberation will occur for these individuals. Oppression could still be the end result. Foss et al.
(1997) wish to de-emphasize gender so that feminine traits are valued equally in society.
They desire to reach the point where men can possess feminine traits and women can possess masculine traits without any assessment or expectations being placed on them. It is important to note that feminine does not necessarily denote female or women. Foss et al. (1997) point out that women do not own exclusive rights to invitational rhetoric. All genders can use invitational rhetoric. Even though it is grounded in feminist theory, women are not the only group who have or can use invitational rhetoric (Foss & Griffin,
1995).
Foss et al. agree with Condit that differences between women and men are primarily socially constructed. They argue that given these social constmctions, women and men exhibit certain different characteristics. It does not matter to Foss et al. where the difference comes from (even though they agree with Condit). What matters is the way these differences are viewed by society. Foss et al. use the differences as a means of altering the perspectives on feminine and masculine traits in order to end the privileging of the masculine. The agreements tend to end with this point.
Foss et al. contend with Gondii's gender diversity perspective on several points.
First, they contend that Gondii's claim that rhetoric is considered a feminine concept is false. Foss et al. argue that patriarchy is a system of power relations that privilege the white, heterosexual male. Anyone outside of that group is devalued under a system of
36 patriarchy. So, Foss et al. contend that it is not just women who have been oppressed but
all others' including gay men and men of color. Foss et al. (1997) also contend that it is
patriarchy that controls much of the rhetoric that Condit espouses. Condit uses a statue of
a busty woman in pearis as an example of the valorization of women that is common
practice within contemporary rhetoric. Foss et al. contend that this busty woman should
not be perceived as a positive representation of women because it uses the conceptions of
patriarchy that only serve to oppress women. This highlights the balance and difference
that can exist within empowerment movements. Some individuals may find power in
statues of busty women, while others will not. There is no one way to approach
empowerment, but rather, individuals must decide what forces, concepts, and statues are
empowering to them.
Second, Foss et al. point out that Condit also suggests that a rhetor can determine
which beliefs are fundamental to the audience and which ones are not. Once determined,
the rhetor can persuade about beliefs that are "egregious" (p. 93) to the audience. Foss et
al. (1997) believe that they, as rhetors, do not have the right to determine that feature for
the audience. Individuals should be allowed self-determination and allow the audience to
decide what is fundamental to each of their beings.
Third, Foss et al. (1997) contend with Condit's contention that rhetoric only
happens in the public sphere. Condit contends that communication can occur in the private sphere, but that rhetoric cannot. Foss and Griffin contend that this distinction lacks support in the literature and that the primary difference between the two terms lies in their background. Those who subscribe to the humanistic tradition refer to our area of
37 study as rhetoric and those who subscribe to the social sciences refer to our area of study as communication (Foss et al., 1997).
In reconciling these two perspectives it is important to understand both perspectives because each contribute something to gender communication theory.
Downey (1997) asserts that she simultaneously agrees with both positions and sees no reason why the two cannot be reconciled. That seems to be the case for the most part.
When Foss et al. (1997) agree that gender is mostiy constmcted most of Condit's criticisms are resolved. As for Condit's claim that there are many more genders than just two, Foss et al. essentially agree with this claim as well. Foss et al. wish to "de- emphasize" gender and allow individuals to use communicative resources that are characterized as both feminine and masculine. Women are not the only people with the knowledge or ability to use invitational rhetoric. Other marginalized groups and even those within the dominant group can use invitational rhetoric as it serves their needs.
Foss et al. (1997) also contend that invitational rhetoric is not always the best choice for a rhetor. Given the instance of a person who is sexist, it may be the best choice to make use of traditional modes of rhetoric depending on the desired outcome.
Invitational rhetoric is merely an alternative conception that could be used by a rhetor.
Condit (1997) contends that invitational rhetoric, as an option, is incongment with the view that the traditional view of rhetoric is patriarchal. This overlooks the larger scope however. The problem with the traditional view of rhetoric is that it often favors white, heterosexual men and denigrates women and men outside of the dominant group. There is not one way of communicating that is better or correct, but instead multiple ways to
38 communicate which are all valuable (Foss et al., 1997). It is only when one type of communication is given supremacy that other perspectives begin to become marginalized. Thus, with the acceptance of invitational rhetoric and possibly other forms of rhetoric, rhetoric as persuasion could cease to be patriarchal as long as invitational rhetoric and/or other forms are given equal value from rhetors. Persuasion does not necessarily involve control or domination, but in many instances it can and does (Foss &
Griffin, 1995). Promoting, using, and accepting altemative conceptions could balance these problems and allow persuasion to take place that places litde emphasis on control, dominance, or power.
Foss and Griffin's (1995) criticism of the traditional conceptions of power are overly harsh. While attempting to admit potential merit in rhetoric as persuasion, which must be done to stay consistent with invitational rhetoric, Foss and Griffin tum around completely from their position that traditional rhetoric is patriarchal. In all of Condit's criticisms, this one seems to be the most important for the purpose of this study. While invitational rhetoric has the potential to add a new realm to rhetoric and to transcend the traditional patriarchal structure, it is neither the only way nor the best way, which Foss,
Foss, and Griffin (1997) admit. Rhetoric as persuasion may often reflect patriarchal values, but in a departure from Foss and Griffin (1995), persuasion might not exhibit such negative connotations as is charged by Foss, Foss, and Griffin. Feminists often embrace the mother-daughter role within society as a source for empowerment for women. This can certainly be one such source. Many mothers may choose to use invitational rhetoric
39 when speaking with their daughters. This approach will likely yield the results that Foss,
Foss, and Griffin indicate.
However, in some instances a mother may choose to use traditional rhetoric or persuasion. Attempting to convince a young woman of the dangers of drinking and driving might call for such tactics. The desired end and the means to get to that end are the determining factor. A mother who has felt little achieved through invitational rhetoric might persuade her daughter through the use of a narrative with the purpose of seeking adherence to the mother's point of view. Is this mother controlling or a responsible mother? Are there times in which persuasion can be used without the gratification of winning, getting one's way, or controlling another person? It seems that the potential is there. Admitting this does nothing to mitigate the worthiness of invitational rhetoric. It serves a very different purpose; a purpose that is rooted in values that all people can share in order to enrich our experiences as people.
It is important to note that ecofeminist discourse does not lie solely in the realm of invitational rhetoric. At times, ecofeminist authors use traditional rhetorical practices in their writing. This is the case when the movement creates distinctions between itself and the deep ecology and feminist movements, which was discussed in chapter two. The aim is to create distinctions and difference, which falls outside of the scope of invitational rhetoric. Instances of rhetoric as persuasion can be found in many places within ecofeminist writings. This need not take away from the viability of invitational rhetoric.
Rhetors can use varied rhetorical strategies that employ both traditional and non- traditional modes of rhetoric. Foss and Griffin (1995) claim that persuasion is necessary.
40 but that invitational rhetoric is also a choice for rhetors that privileges certain goals over others. Foss and Griffin (1995) explain, "although we believe that persuasion is often necessary, we believe an alternative exists that may be used in instances when changing and controlling others is not the rhetor's goal; we call this rhetoric invitational rhetoric'^
(p. 5). Ecofeminist writers primarily use invitational rhetoric, which will be demonstrated in chapter four, but they do use persuasive rhetoric at times when the goal is to persuade others.
While Foss and Griffin (1995) claim that persuasive rhetoric is oppressive and favors the white, heterosexual male, it is important to realize that persuasive rhetoric need not always be oppressive. In many instances, persuasive rhetoric will add to the audience's capacity to make informed decisions as Condit (1997) suggests. For instance, persuading someone to wear sunscreen when they are outside for prolonged periods of time in order to prevent skin cancer might be beneficial to the audience member. In this context, it would be hard to consider the persuasive appeal oppressive unless some form of coercion or deceit was used. Foss and Griffin (1995) fail to account for the positive aspects of persuasive rhetoric. The present study wishes to emphasize that the criticisms of Foss and Griffin are not universal to all persuasive rhetoric. Instead, persuasive rhetoric is often beneficial and can combat oppression when used by empowerment groups. Invitational rhetoric is merely an alternative conception that while not perfect creates a wider spectrum of choices for rhetors to choose from. Supporting invitational rhetoric does not entail denouncing the use of persuasive rhetoric. To do so would oppose the point of invitational rhetoric and ecofeminism.
41 Ecofeminist texts highlight the need to avoid dualisms within society. This will be further explicated in Chapter IV, but for now, it is important that the present study avoid creating such dualisms between traditional rhetoric and invitational rhetoric. To do so would violate the principles of ecofeminism. While Foss and Griffin (1995) seem to privilege invitational rhetoric over traditional rhetoric, the present study adamantly opposes such a stance. Such hierarchies must be avoided to prevent intemal contradictions. Cuomo explains this predicament when she states that:
Dichotomies exist in the natural world. Describing them is not problematic. Nevertheless, sometimes we make (or inherit) choices about whether to conceive things dualistically, or whether linguistically to mark distinctions as noteworthy at all. Dichotomous distinctions can become ethically problematic when they form and fuel social hierarchies, but they also are damaging in so far as they become paradigms for all reality, or the basis for describing, classifying, and evaluating almost everything, (p. 136)
McFague (1993) claims that:
The times are too perilous and it is too late in the day for such games. We need to work together, each in his or her own small way, to create a planetary situation that is more viable and less vulnerable. A collegial theology explicitly supports difference. One of the principal insights of both feminism and postmodem science is that while everything is interrelated and interdependent, everything (maple leaves, stars, deer, dirt - and not just humans beings) is different from everything else. Individuality and interrelatedness are features of the universe; hence, no one voice or single species is the only one that counts, (p. 87)
The principles of ecofeminism rely on the ability to blend individuality and interdependence. The same must hold tme for a rhetorical analysis that supports such discourse. How can one adequately critique a culture outside of its own terms? The current analysis views the principles of ecofeminism as essential to understanding the rhetoric of the movement and attempts to remain within the confines of these principles.
Thus, creating hierarchies and failing to recognize the interrelated, yet independent
42 properties of traditional and invitational rhetoric would be unconsciously falling into the same pitfalls that the ecofeminist movement fights against. Gebaras (1995) further illustrates the point.
We must break with our dualistic constmcts of God and of the worid - constmcts that are hierarchal and tend to exclude the 'other' as less valuable; for example, God is separated from the worid; man from woman; heaven from Earth; good from bad. If one is good, one cannot be bad; if one is master, one cannot be a slave, and so on. (p. 211)
Many find persuasive or traditional rhetoric as a valuable tool within specific communication settings, including ecofeminist authors. To denounce such a practice is to ignore the reality of the situation and the practical uses of such rhetoric. Furthermore, because traditional rhetoric does not always, or even mostly, take oppressive forms, it should be given credit as a viable form of rhetoric, which has great potential in and of itself
However, though ecofeminism does use persuasive rhetoric within its discourse, the present study only wishes focus on the use of invitational rhetoric within the ecofeminist texts selected. The amount of persuasive attempts made by the ecofeminist writers included in the selected texts was minimal. Out of the twenty texts, two demonstrated clear cases of persuasive rhetoric, while three demonstrated possible cases of persuasive rhetoric depending on one's perspective. In each of these cases, the persuasive discourse was overshadowed by invitational rhetoric. It is necessary to examine some examples in order to delineate the two. The following are a few examples of traditional rhetoric used within the selected texts.
We need to recognize our utter dependence on the great life-producing matrix of the planet in order to learn to reintegrate our human systems of production,
43 consumption, and waste into the ecological patterns by which nature sustains life. This might begin by revisualizing the relation of mind, or human intelligence, to nature. Mind or consciousness is not something that originates in some transcendent worid outside of nature, but is the place where nature itself becomes conscious. We need to think of human consciousness not to enable us to learn how to harmonize our needs with the natural system around us, of which we are a dependent part. (Ruether, 1993, p. 21)
Ruether speaks in absolutes and for others in the previous quotation. The use of such rhetoric marks one of the most direct instances of traditional rhetoric. Kirk (1995) provides another example.
An ecological feminism in industrialized countries should be involved with sustainable agriculture and restoration ecology; genetic engineering as it applies to the production of seeds, plants, and animals, as well as human reproduction; health, in the broad sense of well-being; stmctural/social adjustment policies of our own governments; violence against women in all its forms; militarism and the culture of violence it generates and requires, and so on. (p. 81)
Kirk uses the same type of persuasive rhetoric as Ruether. Neither of the previous examples, however, dlustrates persuasive rhetoric at its worst as Foss and Griffin (1995) make it out to be. Cuomo (1998) provides another passage. Ecological feminism demands much from a basic ethical conception of the good. It should be applicable, at least in a very basic way, to a variety of sorts of entities, including human individuals, human groups and communities, nonhuman sentient individuals, species, and ecological communities. It should be useful for thinking about the interests of technologically and linguistically advanced beings, as well as plant life and systems of organic and inorganic matter. It should be naturalistic - grounded in (though not necessarily identical with) facts about people, societies, animals, and ecosystemic processes - but should not be teleological - based on the assumption that there exists a determinate final end to which things and processes inevitably aim. If we begin with these criteria, and the fundamental claims stated above, it begins to become clear why flourishing is a primary focus of the ethics described here. (p. 63)
Cuomo allows little room for alternative views within the previous passage. Her rhetoric highlights the necessity for things to be this way, her way. Ecofeminism exists as an emancipation group, whose goal is to overthrow oppressive institutions and empower
44 those voices that have been silenced. When speaking of the direction of the movement, it
becomes appropriate to use persuasive rhetoric in order to make one's case. This is the
context, in which the persuasive rhetoric was found. Does the use of persuasive rhetoric
diminish the power potential of invitational rhetoric? The previous passages suggest that
there is no clear dichotomy between persuasive rhetoric and invitational rhetoric. While
the rhetoric used in the above passages have persuasive tendencies, they are not stated
with the intent to control or oppress others. They do not prevent the authors from
speaking their minds, while still creating an atmosphere of respect and equality for their
audiences. Thus, while these passages exist with persuasive tendencies, they should not
be viewed as incompatible with or incongment with invitational rhetoric. Cuomo (1998)
seems to highlight the ability to blend persuasive and invitational rhetoric together. She
explains that:
There is a tension in this book between my aim to describe an existent worldview, and my desire to present it persuasively as a useful ethical altemative. While I aim to create a coherent picture of ecological feminist thought, I move between a descriptive presentation of ecofeminism as it is and normative arguments for ecological feminism as it ought to be. Put differentiy, part of my project entails sifting through various ecofeminist approaches in order to illuminate their strengths and weaknesses, though I want also to build upon the strengths and suggest fmitful directions for further development, (pp. 7-8)
Rhetors move in between persuasive and invitational modes of rhetoric often
(Foss, Foss, & Griffin, 1997). This fluidity occurs within most discourse and writing.
Ecofeminism marks a group of people, who through their writings provide an example in which invitational rhetoric is predominantly used. It is not the contention of the present study that ecofeminist authors employ only invitational rhetoric. Rather, the present study wishes to highlight the invitational rhetoric used by ecofeminist authors to examine
45 the power potential of this mode of rhetoric. Kheel (1993) highlights the different mode in which ecofeminist authors predominantiy take.
It is significant that ecofeminists have, by and large declined to join the 'hunt' for and environmental ethic or 'savior theory.' The writings within ecofeminism have largely ignored the heated debates engaged in by (predominantly) male philosophers over what should constitute the basis of an appropriate ethic for the natural world. A glance at the vast majority of ecofeminist writings reveals, instead, a tendency to concentrate on exposing the underlying mentality of exploitation that is directed against women and nature within the patriarchal world. Whereas nature ethicists have tended to concentrate of 'rescuing' the 'damsel in distress,' ecofeminists have been more likely to ask how and why the 'damsel' arrived at her present plight, (p. 243)
Ecofeminism provides a unique case in which invitational rhetoric can be studied, not in isolation, but with a predominant use by rhetors.
Foucaultian Power
The perspectives of power addressed earlier provided an orientation to the subject of power. The perspective proposed by the current study is that of Foucault's power as everything. This is a rather simplified way of naming Foucault's perspective, which requires some further explanation at this point. In order to discover the advantages of this perspective, it is first necessary to revisit the other perspectives on power with a critical lens.
The power as resource perspective describes power as something that a person possesses in different quantities in relation to other people. The problem with this perspective is that it views power as a thing instead of a relation with other people. If you have more of this thing then one should be more powerful, but this view is overly simplistic and fails to account for the dynamic forms of power. The resource perspective
46 also brings power into two groups: those who have it and those who do not. However,
the level of power that an individual has must not so easily be cast into one of these
categories, h is possible for someone to be powerful in one area and powerless in the
other such as the home versus business. Finally, the power as resource perspective leaves
littie room for those subjugated to gain power. The most likely route toward such an
empowerment, under this perspective, is with help from the state, which saps the
individual agency from an individual.
The power as domination model claims that society has created a hierarchy that
places all men above all women, all humans above nature, etc. It is this societal
constmction that allows men to use power for purposes of domination. The biggest
criticism of this perspective is the universality of the theory. The dominance perspective
claims that all men have more power than all women do. However, there are certainly
women who have more power than some men and not all men exhibit the same power
relations as others. One's relationship with a coworker will be largely different from the
boy who carries out the groceries. To group these two relations together and claim that
they are the same ignores the dynamic nature of power. Furthermore, it must be the
contention of the current author that men have the ability to not dominate women, but
instead can help in the cause of achieving equality for all. Furthermore, this perspective
claims that men are powerful and women are powerless leaving women with little
resources to transcend this notion. If one is powerless, how can one achieve power
without the resources necessary? In order to gain power, one must have some power potential or give granted power by an outside source. Finally, this perspective ignores the
47 fact that women are just as capable as men to wield domination on others. The
domination perspective assumes that men are the only ones who can exercise this power
that has been granted to them, but in many cases women can use power over other
women within the same traditional and patriarchal fashion as men.
The power as empowerment perspective claims that women can achieve greater
power by altering the cultural meanings that are placed on activities usually relegated to
women such as childbearing. This view considers the caring nature of women as an asset
instead of a hindrance. This particular view shares very similar characteristics with
ecofeminism. Cultural ecofeminists subscribe to this view of power. However, this view
must be examined as weh. Allen (1999) contends that the problem with this perspective
is that the privileging of relationships and caring by women is only a representation of the
patriarchal stmcture that has placed them within that role. Women are taught to be more
nurturing, caring, patient, and sdent. The adherence to these teachings only helps to
reinforce male dominance. While the empowerment perspective does have some merit, it
cannot be assumed that it is the correct perspective. The critique that this perspective
only contributes to patriarchy is a valid issue and one that cannot be answered easily. It
appears that both sides have a point. It may be that for some people, individual
empowerment is achieved by changing the value assigned to certain "feminine" activities
such as sewing (Foss, 1996). For others these may not be a source of empowerment.
Either way the view of power as empowerment certainly fails to meet any comprehensive standard of explaining the function of power.
48 The final perspective shall be the one advocated here. The Foucaultian power version views power as a force of social relations that is always present. It does not view power as a negative force, but as a productive force. Even in a position of inferiority there is always power present within an individual. Foucault (1980) explains that:
Power must be analyzed as something that circulates, or rather as something which only functions in the form of a chain. It is never localised here or there, never in anybody's hands, never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth. Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organisation. And not only do individuals circulate between its threads; they are always in the position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power. They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are also the elements of its articulation. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application, (p. 98)
Under Foucault's perspective, power can be all of the other three forms that have been discussed: resource, domination, or empowerment, but it is not always any of these three.
Power takes on many different forms and is impossible to limit to one concise description. Foucault claims that power is everything and everywhere. If this is true, how can one speak about power given that it seems translucent and exists only within relation to others? This is why Foucault chooses to focus on the way that power is exercised and produced (Foucault, 1980). He has been described as discussing power on the micro level (Hoy, 1986). He does not try to estabhsh a totalizing theory of power that accounts for all cases. Instead, Foucault wishes to describe power in order to see how power functions within society. Foucault directly calls for the abandonment of the focus of power on domination or repression while he claims that power is productive. Power produces tmth and reality for us, which Foucault finds more worthy to look at than domination or repression. He believes that the focus on negative forms of power have overshadowed the positive forms that are often ignored (Foucault, 1978). For Foucault,
49 power has a specific scheme that is employed by society, which then determines what power is (Ransom, 1997).
At the heart of the formation of power is discourse for Foucault. Although he is not the only scholar to place discourse at the core of power relations, it is important for the present study to address this issue in order to link rhetoric and power. Foucault
(1980) explains that:
In a society such as ours, but basically in any society, there are manifold relations of power, which permeate, characterise and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse, (p. 93)
Foucault holds that a relationship exists between power and knowledge. For Foucault the two are not one and the same, but are so intertwined that it is hard to separate them. How does one achieve knowledge? Foucault claims that knowledge only comes from discourse (Allen, B., 1999; Kiros, 1998; Krippendorf, 1995; Layder, 1997). Foucault is joined by Barthes (1982) and Lakoff (1990) who hold discourse or communication at the root of power relations. Orbe (1998) illustrates the role that communication plays within the power stmcture of the dominant versus the oppressed within society. Orbe explains that:
...in every society a social hierarchy exists that privileges some groups over others. Those groups that function at the top of the social hierarchy determine to a great extent the communication system of the entire society. Over time, the stmctures of this system-that reflect the "world-view" of dominant group members-are reinforced as the appropriate communicative system for both dominant and nondominant group members, (p. 8)
Foucault does not escape criticism though. There have been several who have critiqued Foucault's conception of power, which should be addressed here. Layder
50 (1997) points out that Foucault seems to assert that new (positive) forms of power have replaced old (negative) forms of power. Foucault does wish to shift the focus from the negative to the positive and may indeed wish to remove the negative forms from our discourse. These negative forms are certainly prevalent within society and should not be ignored. Foucault's inclusion of new forms of power does not necessitate the removal of the old. Accepting Foucault's position that power can be a positive and productive force does not negate the fact that power can also repress and dominate. Foucault (1980) does point out that power takes many forms including the negative.
Soper (1999) contends that Foucault fails to address women as subjects in his discussions of power relations. She asserts that Foucault ignores women altogether by choosing not to discuss the power relations between patriarchy and power within society.
Foucault's focus is certainly not on gender differences and the ways that patriarchy isolates women within society. For this one might say "it would have been nice for him to have given us his insight on the matter," but it is a far cry from viewing Foucault as patriarchal, which seems to be the implicit assumption behind Soper's argument.
Foucault's conception of power often can undermine the purpose of an empowerment group if accepted. The belief that no person is powerless and that power exists everywhere fails to illuminate the differences that do exist within society. Some might perceive the results of Foucault's position as an abandonment of the goal of emancipation by marginalized groups. However, Foucault accepts that some people are repressed and even examines the dynamic process of domination that existed within
French prisons, schools, and hospitals. Foucault believes that power can be domination. but it can also be empowerment. Power can be many things and should not only be viewed in the negative.
Some feminists have come to embrace the Foucaultian perspective. Diamond and
Quinby (1988) and Spivak (1988) both explore the perspective advanced by Foucault and conclude that feminism can benefit from such a perspective. Under this view it is possible to examine the central role that discourse plays in power relations, stressing the importance of marginalized voices, emphasize the local nature of power, and begin to tear down the Westem universals of tmth, freedom, and human nature (Diamond &
Quinby, 1988, p. 290).
Foucault's perspective provides a basis to examine power, not on the macro level, but at the micro level; looking for the ways in which different people exercise power.
Building large theories must not be the goal in terms of power. This agenda only leads to incomplete concepts that will necessarily ignore and segregate. Instead, examinations of power should occur by examining the particular ways that power is used. The present study attempts to examine the power that is present in the discourse of ecofeminism.
Ecofeminist rhetoric, it is argued, is an example of invitational rhetoric, which has the capacity to be a source of power for many people. The present study wishes to avoid privileging invitational rhetoric as a form of power production over other forms of power production. It will be argued that invitational rhetoric is merely one possibility within a realm of multiple possibiHties. Nonetheless, the use of invitational rhetoric by groups like the ecofeminists could prove to be an effective means of overthrowing the traditional
52 power stmctures that are assumed by many and raising the voices of marginalized groups to an equal basis with those in the privileged group.
The Present Study
The present study aims to look at the power of invitational rhetoric by examining ecofeminism as a case study. To do this, selected texts were analyzed for primary themes that illustrate the power of invitational rhetoric. Within any empowerment group many issues will surface that have meaning to the members of that movement. Ecofeminist writers consider many issues in their writings. Some of these issues are tangential to the major focus of ecofeminism such as animal rights, styles of writing, or personal praise or attacks. The present study seeks to examine the larger issues that the ecofeminist movement stmggles with. Thus, primary themes represent not only reoccurring themes, but also themes or threads of discussion that lie at the core of ecofeminist thought. Three themes emerged from the ecofeminist texts that exhibit these characteristics: critique of dualisms, embracing a new spirituality, and a reweaving of all narratives. The present study wishes to examine invitational rhetoric by looking at the case study of ecofeminism to see the power potential that exists within invitational rhetoric. It will be argued that invitational rhetoric is a valuable rhetorical tool for groups like ecofeminism and an explanation of the implications of the invitational rhetoric used by ecofeminists will be examined.
53 CHAPTER W
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ECOFEMINIST MOVEMENT
Within the texts examined, ecofeminist authors consistentiy used three rhetorical strategies to empower women and nature: critique of dualisms, embracing a new spirituality, and a reweaving of all narratives to create the feminist woridview. While these three strategies are usually used independently of one another, it is important to note that many authors use more than one strategy in combination in arguing for empowerment. These strategies unite to form an ecofeminist worldview that is absent of value dualisms, embraces ecofeminist spirituality, and denounces patriarchal narratives in favor of omnicentric and inclusive narratives.
Critique of Dualisms
While feminists often critique the dualism that has been created to separate women from men, ecofeminists critique many dualisms that have been used to separate different things and people within society. Rae (1994) contends that dualism is "that theory which admits in any given domain, two independent and mutually irreducible substances" exist. She explains that the key to ecofeminists' critique of dualisms is the hierarchical system in which they are used, "where one term would be regarded as normative and the other as derivative and/or defective" (Rae, 1994, p. 32). Adams (1993) explains that dualisms "reduce diversity to two categories: A or Not A" (p. 7). This dichotomy promotes exclusion rather than inclusion. One is either part of the in-group or
54 the out-group. Adams points out many of the dualisms that ecofeminists attempt to dismantie. They include independence/interdependence, heaven/earth, male/female, culture/nature, mind/body, white/"non-white," humans/animals, and humans/nature
(Adams, 1993). To this hst, Rae (1994) would add God/worid, creation/redemption, and pubhc/private. Furthermore, Warren (1993) contributes the dualisms of reason/emotion and masculine/feminine.
The Function of Power
These value dualisms are what give domination its legitimacy. Because only one out of the pair is viewed as the up, or right, or better, society views the opposite as inferior. It is a social constmct that evolves over time and is legitimated through our discourse and practices. Each of these value dualisms comes down to an issue of power, or power-over. The dominant member of the pair becomes superior, having power over the other member, which then justifies subordination of the opposite member. Therefore, when we think in terms of dualisms, we will pass some type of judgment on which one is above the other. Giving power or privilege to one member will necessarily lead to the subordination of the other member. The critique of dualism remains one of the fundamental concepts of ecofeminist thought (Warren, 1993).
Inter-relatedness
The function that these value dualisms play is not isolated to the pair, however.
Ecofeminists contend that each of these value dualisms is interrelated. They can be
55 broken down in the most basic sense to what is perceived as masculine and what is perceived to be feminine. The masculine members would be independence, heaven, male, culture, mind, white, humans, God, Creation, public, and reason. The feminine counterparts would be interdependence, earth, female, nature, body, "non-white," animals, worid, redemption, private, and emotion. Therefore, not only do the members interact with the other member in their pair, but also all the feminine and masculine traits are now associated with all the other members in their category. When feminine is viewed as inferior, then so must all the other "feminine" members. Let us trace one example for illustration purposes. The dualism of feminine/masculine wdl serve well.
The two constmcts our considered to be opposites, thus the term dualism. With each constmct, a generalization about what these terms mean are formed within the human mind. Feminine becomes associated with other constmcts such as women, domestic, private, nature and so forth. These constmcts are grouped together by social forces that link these together, but the association is merely a human constmct (Kheel, 1993). Are women more private than men? Are women more feminine than men? Many people would answer yes to these questions and that answer is most likely formed through observation. However, the question that ecofeminists pose is, "are there biological reasons that women are more feminine and private than men." One could ascertain that
African-Americans and Hispanic Americans are more violent than Anglo-Americans because one could observe these happenings or at least the statistics that would lead to such a conclusion (Taylor and Whitney, 1999). But when one asks if minorities are predisposition to be more violent than Anglo-Americans, the answer cannot be based on
56 observation. Concluding that minorities ar^ inh^ro«.i • , 6 ai minuriues are inherentiy more violent is a dangerous decision because it then breeds reactionary forces such as racism and ethnocentrism. The fight against dualisms is an attempt by ecofeminists to prevent such discrimination. Only if the dualisms of feminine/masculine, nature/heaven, public/private, etc. are dismantied will the oppression of the "inferior" pair of the dualism end. This inteirelationship between the members of dualisms has led ecofeminists to challenge each and every one of these value dualisms. Allowing one to go unexamined would ultimately do damage to the goal of dismantling the rest (Mies and Shiva, 1993; Kheel, 1993).
Complementary Dualism
While the dualisms that have been discussed here are value-oriented, many ecofeminists contend that it is possible to have dualisms where each member is valued equally. This approach is commonly known as complementary dualism. The empirical proof that such an approach is possible can be found in the dualisms of yin and yang and winter and summer. If these dualisms can successfuUy exist with one being no better than the other is, ecofeminists contend that all other dualisms can as well (Rae, 1994).
This approach involves valuing each member as separate yet interdependent of the other member in the pair and all other members (Murphy, 1994). Primavesi (1994) contends that what this amounts to is a "form of knowledge that grants the worid around us its independent integrity but in a way that remains cognizant of, indeed, relies on, our connectivity with that worid" (p. 193). Sheer (1994) contends that:
Even though we may be able to cite evidence of prior or even contemporary cultures in which these oppressions are extricable from one another, in this culture
57 at this stage in our social evolution these forms of oppression are so inextricably connected that we cannot adequately understand one without understanding the role of the others, nor eliminate one and not the others, (p. 32)
Because ecofeminism is seeking to overthrow the dominant paradigm enforced by the dominant institutions it must seek empowerment while delegitimizing the dominant institutions. Within the framework of invitational rhetoric, this can only be achieved by reaching outside of the traditional mode of discourse. Persuasive rhetoric, in the ecofeminist worldview, has been used to oppress and subjugate "others." To step outside of this framework, the ecofeminist movement must also step outside of the discursive stmcture. Stewart, Smith, and Denton (1994) explain that confrontational strategies emphasize dissimilarities, diverse experiences, and conflict with target audiences.
Usually, the dominant institutions involve individuals who are highlighted and then targeted by the movement to become a representative of the dominant institution. In the case of ecofeminism, individuals are not isolated, but rather the ideals and goals of the dominant institutions are questioned rather than the people who make up the institutions.
Plant (1997) contends that it is important not to treat the dominant member within a dualism as the enemy. Ecofeminist rhetoric promotes the acceptance of everyone and believes that every member of society must be an active participant in eliminating oppression. For some it is harder, but they must be included for an effective solution to the problem of value dualisms. If one's behef stmcture dictates that everyone and thing must be treated as equal, it can become possible to avoid the normal dichotomization process that occurs within empowerment groups.
58 This point comes into direct contention with Stewart, Smith and Denton (1994) because it eliminates the need for an individual, institution, or devil to be signified for dichotomization. Ecofeminism isolates the ideals and attitudes of contemporary society and targets no specific person or institution, histead, ecofeminists view the goal of empowerment as involving the dominating, such as men, as a necessity. The empowerment cannot come unless the ideals of the dominant institutions are altered as well. The following are examples of ecofeminist authors critiquing the institutions without attacking individuals. Kheel points out, "many feminists would argue that it is not possible to transform the current world view of patriarchy without understanding the disease that has infected the patriarchal mind" (p. 244). Warren (1993) also demonstrates the point.
What, then, is the philosophical significance of ecofeminist spiritualities? As I shall now show, ecofeminist spiritualities are or can be life-affirming, personally empowering, and collectively constmctive challenges to patriarchy conceived as a dysfunctional social system. They are attempts to heal the wounds of patriarchy in contemporary culture, where patriarchy is a pervasive, intmsive, historical, and material reality in our daily lives. Their philosophical significance is not only that they challenge patriarchy at its core by challenging the oppressive conceptual framework that fuels the dysfunctional patriarchal engine; they do or attempt to do so in ways which genuinely empower its practitioners. Ecofeminist spiritualities provide one way to think and act oneself out of 'patriarchy and as a conceptual trap.' (p. 124)
Cuomo (1998) adds a final example.
As some feminists have tried to make clear through their rejections of essentialist notions of 'woman,' ecological feminists need not be committed to the view that there exists some metaphysical or ontological tmths about 'woman' and 'nature' - that there is stuff out there that necessarily fits into the categories, or that the categories are anything other than fictions that fuel our contingent, historically- bound conceptions of reality. Ecological feminists are committed to the view that people, beings, and stuff are defined and made meaningful within discourses which name them as, among other things, 'woman,' and 'nature.' These are
59 powerful discursive and-practical categories and constmctions that we cannot ignore, because the value and treatment of things and beings depends in part on the ways in which they become associated with them. Still, our theoretical attentions should not amount to appropriating concepts and categorizations that have been historically damaging to exactiy what we aim to protect. Nor should efforts to deconstmct influential relationships amount to merely ignoring them theoretically, or leaving them practically untouched, (p. 117)
While any empowerment group wishes to change the ideals of the dominant institution, not labeling them as devils or as the opposition is quite unique to the ecofeminist movement.
One of the few attempts made to break down value dualisms and replace them with complementary dualisms is the use of women and nature as agents. Kheel (1993) explains that:
As we disengage from patriarchal discourse, we begin to hear larger and fuller stories. Hearing these bigger stories means learning to listen to nature. The voice of women and the voice of nature have been muted under patriarchy. Women and nature are considered objects under patriarchy, and objects do not speak, objects do not feel, and objects have no needs. Objects exist only to serve the needs of others. But despite our society's refusal to listen, nature has been increasingly communicating her needs to us...the question is whether we are willing or able to hear. (p. 260)
By giving nature the ability to communicate to us, Kheel regards nature as an agent. This breaks down the feminine dualistic character of passivity that has been socially constmcted toward nature. Gebaras (1995), in similar fashion, views women and nature as having the capacity to change the negative environmental situation we now find ourselves in. She views women as agents of change that have a unique ability to resist and overthrow dominant, oppressive institutions.
...we look at the air, the water, the Earth. We look at all the gaibage surrounding us, and we sense deep within ourselves that our planet is not just a place - it is our
60 body. Ecofeminism proposes a new relationship with the Earth and with the entire cosmos, (p. 210)
Cuomo (1998) adds to this point that:
Ethical systems and values bom out of conceptual universes that relegate what is considered feminine or natural to an inferior status help justify and implement both that relegation and the mistreatment of those groups and entities. The most obvious examples are ethical systems that allow for no moral consideration of those entities, that specifically claim that women, nature, tribal people, foreigners, or slaves are not included in a given moral universe. But it is also tme that moral systems based on deeply rooted and exclusionary conceptions of moral agents and objects can import problematic beliefs in more clandestine ways. Ecological feminist ethics therefore follow in the footsteps of feminist ethics in exploring values and practices that derive from a foundation that takes women, nature, and other commonly excluded beings or groups seriously as morally relevant. This might include focusing on their particularities as (for humans) moral agents, or as objects of ethical decision-making, (p. 38)
Ecofeminists such as Cuomo contend that it is necessary to view women and nature as moral agents in order to also see them as equal within society. This is possible because these constmcts are created culturally and hold only the tmth-value that is assigned to it by society. Cuomo (1998) goes on to point out that:
'Woman' and 'nature' are socially created concepts. Each referring to highly varied categories of beings and objects. The concept do not belie essential or necessary tmths about beings and objects, but their definitive power helps constitute and regulate material realities. In Western and other hierarchal dualistic cultures, women and nature are linked to each other and identified with femininity and corporeality - opposite and inferior to masculinity, reason, and their associates. These definitions render the realm of the feminine suitable for domination, although the strange mechanisms of oppressions sometimes place the feminine in glorified positions imbued with purity, mystery, and fertility. These and similar false generalizations are also made concerning other groups who come to be metaphysically or practically associated with femininity and/or nature, including 'primitives' and sexual 'deviants.' (p. 39)
Describing women and nature as agents is an effective rhetorical tool toward dismanthng these dualisms. It shows women in a position of power, yet does not try to
61 establish power-over any other group. This type of invitational rhetoric can build a framework to attack the dualisms at their hearts. Placing women and nature in a position to enact change directiy contradicts and opposes the dominant dualistic paradigm while still maintaining an invitational tone.
Ecofeminism uses invitational rhetoric to overthrow the dominant institution while still being inclusive of those within the dominant institution. A focus on the institution instead of the people within the institution is intended to create extemal conditions that allow others to present their perspectives in an atmosphere of respect and equality, which is the second form of invitational rhetoric outlined by Foss and Griffin
(1995). Within empowerment groups, an individual who subscribes to the beliefs of the dominant institution is usually grouped with the dominant institution and labeled as the enemy by the empowerment group. In the case of ecofeminism, the two remain separate.
In fact, ecofeminists such as Plant (1997) contend that all people are necessary, no matter their gender, to liberate the world from all oppression. Cuomo points out the need for diversity within ecofeminism.
Because ecofeminism is not a single-issue politics...it calls for a 'plurality of resistance' which would target abuses of power on a multiplicity of levels and in many locations. This kind of resistance also originates from diverse perspectives, includes a variety of consistent goals, and takes many shapes, (p. 139)
An empowerment group that can at one time denounce the forces that it feels oppresses it and at the same time wish to include them in the cause instead of merely degrading them through discourse or other means is unique and has the potential to be powerful.
62 Embracing a New Spirituality
One interesting rhetorical strategy that ecofeminists employ is a call for a new spirituality that empowers women, nature, and all other oppressed "others." There is not one definitive spirituality or religion within ecofeminism; however, most ecofeminists take on some form of spirituality as a rhetorical tool to empower the oppressed. Some use mainstream contemporary religions like Christianity or Judaism, while others attempt to rekindle ancient religions that embrace women and nature. No matter what form of spirituality is used, the rhetorical consequences are equally intriguing.
Denouncing the Religions of Patriarchy
Ecofeminists trace the roots of patriarchy within religious institutions and forms of spirituality in an attempt to form a reconception of spirituality that embraces oppressed groups. They claim that every major contemporary religious institution is entrenched in patriarchy due to various reasons. Ruether (1995) explains discusses the perceptions of
God that contribute to patriarchy. She claims that:
The earth and its nonhuman inhabitants are regarded as possessions or property given to 'man' for 'his' possession. 'Man exempts 'himself (and I use the male generic advisedly) from the community of nature, setting himself above and outside it somewhat as God 'himself is seen as sovereign over it. Humanity is God's agent in this process of reducing the autonomy of nature and subjugating it to the domination of God and God's representative, man. (pp. 76-77)
Rae (1994) takes this one step further explaining that:
The cosmic duahsm...is at odds with the biblical accounts, which show the divine Spirit forming Cosmos out of chaos. The dualism created between God and the World is rather philosophical in it roots, coming from Plato and, more recently, Descartes. Theologically, it is grounded in teachers as diverse as Origen and
63 Augustine, who held that man's creation in God's image pertained to his mind only and not to his body. (p. 34)
Kheel (1993) adds one specific example that shows the devaluation of nature within different cultures. She contends that:
The triumph over the demonic beast has been a reoccurring theme throughout the mythologies of the patriarchal worid. Typically, the slain Beast is a former divinity from the earlier matriarchal worid. The serpents, dragons, and horned gods, who were at one time worshipped as divine, are transformed in patriarchal mythology into devils and monsters that must be slain. Thus, Apollo slays Gala's python; Perseus kills the three-headed Medusa (the triple goddess), who is described as having snakes writhing from her head; Hercules defeats the terrible multiheaded Hydra; and the pharaohs of later Egypt slay the dragon Apophys. In the Middle Ages, there were countless renditions of St. George's prowess in killing the dragon - again, to rescue the 'damsel in distress.' (p. 245)
Ruether (1994) demonstrates the connection between women, nature, and religious patriarchy.
The theology of eco-feminism brings feminist theology into dialogue with a culturally based critique of the ecological crisis. Patriarchal ideology perceives the earth or nature as a female or as a feminine reality. As such, nature is considered to be inferior to men. As a material being having no spirit, no life in and of itself, nature is only a tool to be exploited by men. The cultural roots of the ecological crisis can be found in this common perception of both women and nature as realities without spirit and tools to be exploited by the dominant males, (p. 199)
Some ecofeminists believe that the religions themselves are patriarchal, while others claim that the human constmction of religion during times of male domination have led to the patriarchal nature of these religions. In both cases, ecofeminists attempt to rethink our conceptions of religion and abandon patriarchal spirituality.
This tracing involves trying to find the origins of patriarchy if they can be found.
Many ecofeminists contend that in ancient times, humans worshipped the Earth Goddess and then later the Sky Goddess. Both were given a spiritual level that is equivalent to the
64 Judeo-Christian God that dominates Westem rehgions today. In much the same spirit,
some ecofeminists use the Gaia hypothesis for the foundation of this new spirituality.
Lovelock (1988) first promoted the Gaia hypothesis in his book. The Ages of Gaia: A
Biography of Our Living Earth. The Gaia hypothesis supports the concept that the Earth
is one living organism. In ancient times, Gaia was worshipped as the Supreme Being and
viewed primarily as feminine, although typicahy masculine traits were associated with it
too. This new spirituality has been adopted by many within the environmental movement
over the last decade.
The destmction of these ancient spiritualities has been the focus of most
ecofeminist interest in religion. Ruether (1996) contends that the origins of this
abandonment date back to pre-Hebraic times and the Babylon creation story. The story
dates back to the third millennium B.C.E when Marduk, the warrior champion of the
gods of the city-state, was seen as creating the cosmos by conquering the Mother
Goddess Tiamat, pictured as a monstrous female animal. Marduk kills her, splits her in
half, using one half to form the starry firmament, and the other half the earth below. This
story formed a basis for the domination of women and nature.
The Hebraic society continues the same patriarchal view of nature. The natural
world is viewed as created, shaped, and controlled by God. The patriarchal male is entmsted as a steward of God's wishes to have dominion over the natural world (Ruether,
1996). Since the account of the Garden of Eden, men have been viewed as the controllers of nature and women have been viewed as having the same status as nature: passive. In other words, women and nature supposedly exist for the sole purpose of serving "Man"
65 (Kheel, 1993). Plato is given credit for creating the God/worid dualism that ecofeminists fight strongly against (Rae, 1994).
Building Ecofeminist Spiritualities
For some ecofeminists, building this new spirituality means a kind of religion, like the religions of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, but with a major shift away from patriarchal domination (Mies and Shiva, 1993). Some ecofeminists want to reconceptualize God, not as distinct from humans or nature, but as the spirit of all life.
This conception has gained increasing support over the years (Primavesi, 1994). Mies and Shiva (1993) contend that this spirituality is inherent to who they are. They explain that:
The spirit is inherent in everything and particularly our sensuous experience, because we ourselves with our bodies cannot separate the material from the spiritual. The spiritual is the love without which no life can blossom, it is this magic which is contained within everything. The rediscovered ancient wisdom consisted of the old magic insight into the existence of these all-embracing connections and that through these, powerless women could therefore influence powerful men. This at least informed the thinking of the women who, in 1980, surrounded the Pentagon with their rituals and who formulated the first ecofeminist manifesto, (p. 17)
Eisler (1996) summarizes some of the ecofeminist spiritualities that can be found throughout the cultures of the world.
In many of the earliest known creation stories from very different parts of the world, we find the Goddess-Mother as the source of all being. In the Americas, she is the Lady of the Serpent Skirt - of interest also because, as in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, the serpent is one of her primary manifestations. In ancient Mesopotamia this same concept of the universe is found in the idea of the world mountain as the body of the Goddess-Mother of the universe, an idea that survived into historic times. And as Nammu, the Sumerian Goddess who gives
66 birth to heaven and earth, her name is expressed in a cuneiform text of circa 2000 B.C.E. (now in the Louvre) by an ideogram signifying sea. (p. 373)
Ruether (1994) is the primary proponent of this reconception of God within ecofeminist writings. She explains that because the Judeo-Christian God is such a prominent figure in the Westem worid, one cannot eliminate patriarchy without taking it out of all major institutions, including religion. Ruether (1995) goes on to explain that a careful examination of the Bible yields specific scriptures that promote the type of omnicentric version of religion that ecofeminists demand. She explains that Isaiah 24 offers such insight. The scripture points out the devastation of the Earth that we are now experiencing and the effects that it will have on all people equally, including "men."
Along the same lines, Plaskow contends that Judaism must discover a new rehgious order that conceptuahzes God as pro-feminist (Plaskow, 1993). Although the
Judeo-Christian God has received the most attention from Western ecofeminists, Gebaras
(1995) argues that "Christianity is marked by patriarchy...but the other great religions are also riddled with patriarchy: Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism are all marked with patriarchy.
It is not a question of throwing out these religions, but of stripping them of their patriarchal constructs" (p. 213). McFague (1993) contends that the one way is to view
God as a "continuing creator," that includes human beings as partners in the further process of creation (p. 94).
Some ecofeminists argue that contemporary religious institutions are so wrought with patriarchy that it is impossible to dismantie male domination within them, without dismantiing the entire religion. They call upon a renewed spirituality centered on the ancient Earth Goddess. Some have characterized this spirituality as nothing more than a
67 "fertility cult." Though most of these women find spirituality within their reproductive capacity, this characterization is far too simplistic. Eisler (1996) explains that this would be the same as "characterizing Christianity as just a death cult because the central image in its art is the Cmcifixion" (p. 375). This retum to an ancient spirituality has received mixed reviews by ecofeminists, yet it does serve as an interesting rhetorical strategy to eliminate patriarchy and end the domination of nature.
Warren (1994) explains that reconceptualizing spirituahty is an excellent tool to achieve empowerment. Because religious institutions are often legitimated through the process of faith, a new ecofeminist spirituahty could harness a belief stmcture that emphasizes the need to abandon patriarchy. She contends that "ecofeminist spiritualities can be life-affirming, personally empowering, and collectively constmctive challenges to patriarchy conceived as a dysfunctional social system" (p. 124). Warren (1993) further explains that:
It is not surprising that ecofeminist spiritualities are often explicitly earth based. For many ecofeminists, the experience of nonhuman nature as intrinsically valuable provides one avenue for getting outside patriarchy (however, temporarily or intermittently), at least in how one conceives oneself and one's relation to others (including nonhuman nature). Such attempts to get outside patriarchy are philosophically significant. They represent personal empowerment strategies individuals and groups use at particular times and in particular places to challenge and replace the basic behefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions of patriarchy with nonpatriarchal and feminist ones, to challenge and replace the thinking and behaviors of patriarchy with nonpatriarchal and feminist ones. In short, they are offered and practiced as antidotes to patriarchy. So conceived, the philosophical significance of all ecofeminist spiritualities, is that they attempt to function to dismpt, challenge, and replace patriarchal practices with ones that do not perpetuate sexism and naturism and in ways that empower individuals within patriarchy. In this respect, ecofeminist spiritualities do not function simply or merely to provide an ideal or Utopian vision; they provide immediately useful empowerment strategies that can be exercised by individuals within contemporary
68 patriarchal culture. They function in the prefeminist present to break the cycle of patriarchy conceived as a dysfunctional social system, (pp. 130-131)
Ecofeminist spiritualities provide one way to break down patriarchy from within as well as outside religious institutions, h puts theory into action and forms belief stmctures that are recognizable and capable of uniting ecofeminists and others around the cause of emancipation.
Within this second theme, ecofeminist writers again use invitational rhetoric, stating their opinions while providing an environment based on respect and equality.
Religion or spirituality for ecofeminists marks a major departure from the environmental and feminist movements. This is not to imply that the philosophy of religion has not been thoroughly explored by feminists or environmentalists, but ecofeminists generally hold spirituality as the core of the movement. However, the magnitude of such beliefs is less important than the rhetorical significance of the message. Every major civilization throughout time has formed one or more spiritual conceptions that guide the people in secular and non-secular ways. Today, most people claim to believe in a higher power
(Jantzen, 1999). Religion has been the reason for holy wars, terrorist attacks, and the explanation for "miracles." With such a social force it is not surprising that an empowerment group such as ecofeminism would use spirituality as a means to further empower the movement.
Jantzen (1999) argues that a new reconceptualization of modern religions or some new rehgion must occur in order to break down the dominant structures that group religion and patriarchy together. When major religions justify the subordination of women through the rhetoric of ancient religious texts, feminists or ecofeminists must question
69 this oppression and use rhetoric that counters the oppressive discourse. One way of doing this is to denounce contemporary religions and formulate or reformulate other religions and spiritualities. Ecofeminism addresses the issue from all sides. The movement has covered most major religions and has revised ancient religions and even invented new religions as a means to provide an institution of faith that is inclusive of women. Contemporary religions generally place religious faith at the core of human existence. To ignore this aspect of humanity would be to ignore the essence of a large majority of people. Ecofeminists seek to overthrow all forms of oppression wherever they occur. Ending the patriarchal and anthropocentric views present within contemporary religions today is a major step toward the acquisition of power. This rhetorical movement forms the basis for a comprehensive worldview that is inclusive of all in every aspect of life.
Reweaving Narratives
Having covered the critique of dualisms and the incorporation of spirituality, it is important to examine the narratives used by ecofeminism. In a broader sense, what ecofeminism attempts to do is take all the social constmcts and stories that serve to oppress women and tear them apart, while building new stories that reframe oppressed groups as equal. This process is typical of empowerment groups. The building of narratives to chaHenge dominant power stmctures is necessary to empower the ecofeminist movement. This entails critiquing current narratives and forming new narratives that promote ecofeminist causes. The critique of dualisms and the formation of
70 new spiritualities are specific narratives that ecofeminism attempts to destroy and build anew. There are many other narratives, though, that ecofeminists challenge.
Omnicentrism
The premise of ecofeminist narratives is the belief that all hfe is interrelated.
They call, not for a reversal of patriarchy to matriarchy, but instead, believe that the worid must be omnicentric. Only in this system where all life is valued equally can harmony exist between humans and nature. The narrative creates a picture where everyone is valued equally and the rest of nature is allowed to thrive. This interrelatedness of all life contributes to the ideology that is presented in the narrative. It conceptualizes the ecofeminist Utopian vision in a manner that appears achievable. For instance, Rae (1994) constmcts an analogy that represents this omnicentric viewpoint.
She claims that:
On a more mundane level, the same model of balance may be seen in the markings of my cat, Russell. The orange and white pattemings on either side of his body are thoroughly dissimilar, yet together, mysteriously, they form a balanced whole; they hold creativity and order in a delicate balance, (p. 35)
This example further illustrates the narrative that is assembled by ecofeminists.
They believe that we must, at the same time, embrace our differences and our potential for unity to achieve this harmonious state of existence. Because the cause of oppression is rarely agreed upon by ecofeminists, they critique all forms of oppressive institutions and their narratives. Some ecofeminists deconstmct the institution of capitalism and come to the conclusion that ecofeminists must build a new narrative that tries to
71 overthrow capitalist institutions (Adams, 1993). Gmen contends that it is necessary to empathize with non-humans in order to achieve this omnicentrism.
The ability to empathize does not seem to require that the community be only human. The ability to empathize with nonhuman animals, for example, is not only possible but widely practiced. Our ability to empathize with other beings need not be based solely on anthropomorphic projection. That is to say, empathy does not require that our response rests solely on a being's likeness to us. This way of understanding empathy suggests that we can empathize with animals that are not close to us, either in their physical makeup or in their relational proximity. An aardvark, for example, with whom I have no relationship and from whom I consider myself very different, may nonetheless be a being I can empathize with, (pp. 362-363)
Even though the causes are in dispute, all ecofeminist authors call for more critiquing of patriarchal stmctures as well as the building of ecofeminist fiction in order to constmct ecofeminist narratives. Ecofeminists argue that everything is interrelated.
This leads Salleh (1997) to point out, "Ecofeminists make no particular claim for themselves, but a claim in general. An emancipation of the relational sensibility of women and its reclamation by men will release earth's energies" (p. 14). Thus, ending the oppression of women will in tum end the oppression of nature. Warren (1993) explains the relation between different forms of oppression.
Ecofeminist philosophy grows out of and expresses a wide range of ecofeminist concerns. Included among these concems are important interconnected gender, race, class, affectional orientation, religion, and age issues (to cite a few). Conceptually, the concern for interconnections among 'isms of domination' (sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, anti-Semitism, adultism) is cmcial. Ecofeminist philosophers insist that the logic of domination used to justify the twin dominations of women and nature also has been used to justify the domination of humans by race or ethnicity, class, affectional orientation, religion, and age. Sexism shares with racism, classism, heterosexism, anti-Semitism, and adultism the five aforementioned features of an oppressive conceptual framework, (p. 123)
72 It might appear that ecofeminists primarily focus on challenging the oppression of women, but Cuomo (1998) points out that:
Some ecofeminists, including many spiritual writers and activists, look primarily at the connections and similarities among other objects of oppressive and exploitative thought and action. This approach might be thought of as object- attentive, because of the way it zooms in on women. Unfortunately, this tight focus too often results in false universahzations about women, based on the experiences and interests of women with privilege and power, (p. 6)
Cuomo (1998) continues:
Interdependent relationships within the biota are incredibly numerous and complex. Though we know relatively littie about the intricacies of these relationships, we do know that biota usually flourish when a great deal of species diversity exists. When this diversity is dismpted, far-reaching adjustments become necessary, and each readjustment is increasingly taxing on the biotic community as a whole. With a sensitivity to the complexity of the biotic web, and awareness of human ignorance regarding the subtieties of species, community, and interpersonal interdependencies, ecofeminists affirm the importance of diverse communities. They aim as well to create theories that reflect this humble appreciation of diversity and the subtleties of symbiosis. Given the extent to which human manipulations of environments tend to result in the eradication of whole species and ecosystems, and given that healthy ecosystems usually include a high number of different species and forms of life, ethical interactions within environments often involve the preservation or restoration of natural diversity, (p. 134)
Rae (1994) describes this omnicentric world that ecofeminism desires to achieve.
We are now at a point in history where we can see the consequences of an overemphasis on the individual: in the homeless that wander our streets; in the species whose lives are forever gone so that some humans may have more than enough; in the destmction of the water and air which belong to our children's children. Even if we are able, which we are not, the answer would not lie in a retum to a matricentric society. Rather, we must develop a world that recognizes not only the individual - the individual in other species, as well as the human - but also the fact that all are united in that all are a part of one Earth. This new age would be neither matricentric nor patriarchal, but rather omnicentric - a tme honoring of unity and diversity in all of the creation, (p. 37)
73 The Narrative of Empowerment
The primary narrative that has been created by ecofeminism is certainly helping to empower women. The essentiahst argument is that women are more biologically and culturally in tune with nature and therefore hold a unique ability to care for the environment. This approach has taken the old narrative that was used to oppress women and nature and turned it into an empowering technique for both agents. Zimmerman
(1994) argues, "women's embodiment, including the capacity for childbirth, makes them intrinsically more relational, gentle, nurturing, creative, life-affirming, and connected with nature" (p. 237). Rae (1994) contends "women do not have to leam that they are a part of nature; because of our biological properties-menstmation, pregnancy, birthing and nurturance-we recognize ourselves as part of nature rather than as 'other'" (p. 29). This is not to say that these traits are any more valuable than other traits. Because women are regarded as more caring and nurturing does not entail any more worth. These traits can be viewed as forces to further oppress women as well. However, ecofeminists view these traits as positive forces for them. It does not make them inherently better people than men, but is merely one positive characteristic that they possess that can be empowering.
Kheel (1993) contends that because women and nature have both been subjected to subordination and oppression, women have the obligation to not only free themselves, but nature as well. She recounts the myths that have led to this association and oppression and uses this relationship as grounds toward building a new narrative of women and nature working together to achieve equality.
74 Kheel (1993) also contends that not only are current stories inaccurate, but they are also tmncated so that humans never get the tme reality behind the story. Kheel points out that:
What, for example, is a mother to say when she is told that the only way that her child can be saved is through the 'sacrifice' of animal life? The urgency of the situation leads the mother to believe what she is told and to feel that it is 'righf that the animal should die to save her child's life. It is understandable that the mother would choose the daughter's life over that of an anonymous animal, h would also be understandable, however, if the mother chose the life of her daughter over that of an anonymous child. This, however, is not the ethical dilemma that she is asked to consider. No one has asked her to juxtapose the life of one human against that of another. Although it would clearly be more helpful to experiment on a human child to help save the life of another child, no one is proposing this. Animals, however, have been relegated to the status of objects or property. As such, their bodies can easily be conscripted into this tragic human story, (pp. 255-256)
Kheel (1993) takes animal rights as a major issue within her ecofeminist worldview. She further explains that:
Patriarchal society is adept at tmncating stories and the adapting them to its own needs. It is tme, for example, that some animals are predators; however, the vast majority are not. Most of the animals that humans eat are, in fact, vegetarian (cows, pigs, chickens). We are asked, under patriarchy, to model our behavior not after the vegetarian animals but after the predators. The narrative of predation thus becomes a convenient 'pretext' to justify a wide range of violent acts. No other species of animal confines, enslaves, and breeds other animals to satisfy its taste for flesh. Yet, under patriarchy, this story remains untold. Nor are we told that predatory animals generally kill other animals only for survival reasons; that, unlike humans, these animals would not survive without eating meat. The story of predation is wrenched out of the larger context and served to us to consume, (pp. 257-258)
Kheel believes that once we hear all of the details of these narratives we will regard animal life higher than is currentiy done and will share in ecofeminist values. She argues
"only when we have all the details of this and other stories will we be able to act holistically with our bodies, minds, and souls" (p. 258).
75 Salleh (1997) suggests that we need to reach a new level in order to resolve issues such as these. She contends, "the way of any double blind is to recontextualise or reframe the problem, thinking it through dialectically. This is what a paradigm shift means. By moving to another level of abstraction, the contradictory tension between two static options can be resolved. Ecofeminismisjust such a synthesis" (p. 13). Kheel
(1993) suggests thinking critically in uncovering these tmncated narratives and evaluating how the narratives could be completed. She contends that once we see the whole story there will be no other view than that of the ecofeminist narrative(s). This view might be overstating the case, but telling the whole story is one way that ecofeminists have been able to re weave narratives.
The Narrative of Inclusion
With the rise of postmodem thought in the field of phdosophy, ecofeminists have embraced a philosophy of inclusion and difference in recent years. Plant (1997) points out that the goal of ecofeminism is the survival of the planet, which has drawn many men to the ecofeminist movement. She explains, "more and more men are embracing ecofeminism because they see the depth of the analysis and realize that in shedding the privileges of a male-dominated culture they do more than create equal rights for all. that this great effort may actually save the earth and the life it supports" (p. 129). Because ecofeminists believe that different forms of oppression are intertwined, everyone can be included in the overthrowing of these oppressions. Sheer (1994) explains that:
It is my view that we must examine the historical, experiential, symbolic, and theoretical connections between our culture's multiple dominations without
76 privileging one over any other. I do realize that there are times when as individuals an oppression may seem to be or even in fact be more oppressive that others, that an analysis of oppression may well have to focus for any depth on a single form of oppression while only acknowledging the other strands of this very complex tapestry, and that our actual energies as activists are hmited so that we may well have to choose our battles rather than exhaust ourselves fighting them all. And even though we may be able to conceptuahze to some significant degree one type of oppression without the other - for example, a patriarchy without racism or anthropocentrism, or a culture that is not androcentric but profoundly anthropocentric - and even though we may be able to cite evidence of prior or of even contemporary cultures in which theses oppressions are extricable from one another, in this culture at this stage in our social evolution these forms of oppression are so inextricably connected that we cannot adequately understand one without understanding the role of the others, nor eliminate one and not the others, (p. 32)
Warren (1994) points out that ignoring oppressed voices is counter-productive to the goals of ecofeminism. She asserts that:
It is stmcturahy pluralistic, rather than stmcturally reductionist or unitary: it emerges from a multiplicity of voices, especially women's voices ( and women's ITK), across cross-cultural contexts. As such, it affirms difference in an inclusivist and nondominating way by making a central place for difference that does not breed domination and inferiorization. Recognizing and honoring the voices of the disenfranchised (dominated, oppressed) is one step in redistributing power and privilege, since it recognizes that who has voice and the privilege to exercise their voice in their own voice is about who has what power. In environmental contexts, this condition requires that the perspectives of local, native, and indigenous peoples be taken into account in the formation of any adequate environmental action; to over look such perspectives is to engage in non-peacemaking, (p. 188)
Furthermore, ecofeminists have begun to realize that "they need not be committed to the view that there exists some metaphysical or ontological tmths about 'woman' and
'nature'" (Cuomo, 1998, p. 117). Even those who make claim to universal tmths about women, like Salleh (1997), realize that there are differences among women and nature that provide them with separate experiences. Salleh contends that anything that hurts one woman will, inevitably, hurt all "others." This outdated conception assumes that the
77 position of every women or even "other" is the same, histead of trying to universalize,
Primavesi (1994) argues that:
Difference empowers, offering potential for innovation, for new stmctures, concepts and combinations. Something which does not fit or appear to fit within our own experience challenges us, not only to create a larger multi-dimensional pattern into which it might fit but also to see possibilities not available to us within our own context. Differences then offer understanding of ourselves and of others while allowing for the preservation of the individual, (p. 196)
In order to constmct a narrative based on inclusivity, ecofeminists have argued that we must simultaneously embrace difference and similarity. While, this practice is not unique to ecofeminism, it is an effective rhetorical strategy that helps broaden the scope of the movement while not sacrificing its stance. This new conceptualization based on difference is founded in the belief that people have their own direct experiences that form their worldview. Gmen (1997) contends that "a conceptualization of values which focuses on chosen communities, direct experience, and inclusivity is a starting point from which to build an ecofeminist moral theory that does not leave one in a relativist abyss"
(p. 434). Some contend that without grouping the experiences of various ecofeminists, there can be no attainable goal within reach (Zimmerman, 1994). However, the direct experiences allow others to leam from them. This is the function of the narrative. One experiences and then recounts the experience. Others receive the narrative and hopefully learn from it. This rhetorical strategy has enormous possibilities as long as inclusivity and difference are the focus when constmcting ecofeminist narratives (Primavesi, 1994).
Reweaving narratives is a central theme among many empowerment groups. The reweaving for ecofeminists must not be exclusionary, however, which eliminates the
78 possibility of leaving out individuals associated with the dominant institutions. How is it possible to denounce and at the same time embrace the dominant institutions? The answer is in the focus of the empowerment. Attacking current narratives and ideals within the dominant institutions does not necessitate blame on the institutions or individuals themselves. Instead, most ecofeminists contend that biological, cultural, or economic forces have led to oppression. Simply deconstmcting our present belief stmctures and forming new narratives will allow all of society to realize the destmctive nature of the dominant paradigm.
This view separates people from their ideas allowing for a thorough critique of the system without isolating individuals as contributors of oppression. Labeling a person as oppressive defeats the purpose of invitational rhetoric. It fails to allow individuals to feel entitled to their opinion. Instead, this type of blame can lead to a backlash in which individuals within the dominant institution attempt to rationalize their beliefs instead of questioning them. The use of this type of invitational rhetoric, which will be referred to as disassociation, allows individuals within the dominant institution the opportunity to hear an altemative conception in an atmosphere of respect and equality. Ecofeminism views all people equally regardless of their views. This has major rhetorical implications with regard to power.
Generally, an empowerment group ties the beliefs of the dominant institution to the members of the dominant institution so that a tangible body can be blamed for the wrong that the empowerment group wishes to right. The deontological stance taken by the ecofeminist movement requires that individuals within the dominant institution not be
79 the point of contention for they are just as valuable as anything else in the worid.
Traditional conceptions would pit individuals within the dominant institution and individuals within the empowerment group against each other with each using strategies to overthrow the other. Ecofeminists use disassociation as an alternative. The individuals within the dominant institution and even individuals who merely oppose the ecofeminist movement are still treated with respect and equality. This type of passi\ e aggressive tactic allows ecofeminists to make their points known while still holding tme to the ideals that require the use of invitational rhetoric.
Ecofeminist Rhetoric as Power
Ecofeminist rhetoric clearly demonstrates examples of invitational rhetoric, h has been shown how ecofeminists employ techniques to speak their views while still allowing for others to share their views while being treated with respect and equality. The issue of power becomes much more difficult to asses. The Foucaultian power perspective provides little direction for an analysis such as this. Power is not one thing and cannot be measured by any tangible scale. Instead, power can only be described. How do individuals use power? How do individuals perceive power? These questions are easily answered within the Foucaultian perspective. One examines subjects and attempts to describe how they use power and what power means to them. For the current analysis, these questions are inadequate. The present study wishes to determine whether the invitational rhetoric used ecofeminist texts is a powerful discourse. Foucault might say to this "all discourse is powerful." The abyss seems never ending because we traditionally
80 assess value through comparison. Much like I. A. Richards claimed we only leam from what we previously knew, we traditionally leam value through negation, which is merely another word for dualism. The present study cannot accept this traditional approach because it is fundamentally incongment with the methodological approaches explored within the study.
However, within the current methodological framework it is quite consistent to claim that current rhetorical practices are just as powerful as invitational rhetoric.
Invitational rhetoric makes no claim to be better than rhetoric as persuasion (Foss &
Griffin, 1995). It merely prescribes an altemative that scholars and interlocutors should look to in the place of rhetoric as persuasion when the situation is appropriate.
Ecofeminist rhetoric attempts to end the use of dualisms that separate society into hierarchies. Thus, it is no surprise that within this analysis no attempt will be made to claim that the ecofeminist/invitational approach is better than the traditional rhetoric as persuasion approach. Instead, the purpose here is to describe the power potential of ecofeminism, not to compare this form of invitational rhetoric to rhetoric as persuasion.
The first theme found in invitational rhetoric is the issue of dualisms. In terms of a power perspective the issue of dualisms has a powerful message. With the claim that dualisms attempt to differentiate and create hierarchies, which lead to oppression, the ecofeminist movement is able to empower the traditionally subjected side of the pair.
Ecofeminists emphasize the inherent value that is present within the construct of being feminine for instance. They hold that this constmct creates a feeling of nurturance and caring, which is desirable for many tasks such as environmental activism. A traditional
81 persuasion as influence approach would highlight the need for the subjected side to gain control, but the ecofeminist/invitational perspective highlights the need for both pairs to be viewed as equal. Are there times when one who is subjugated would desire to gain control? Absolutely. There are times when equality may not be achievable, but ecofeminist rhetoric makes it the goal, failing as a cohesive movement to privilege one over the other. The message that there should be no hierarchies and every person and thing should be valued with equality is the same purposive statement that invitational rhetoric makes: everyone should have their say in an atmosphere of respect and equality.
The combination of both messages creates a comprehensive vision for the ecofeminist movement. Not only does the movement say out loud that we should be equal, but it is accompanied by the way the message is delivered, through invitational rhetoric.
The second theme identified was the call for a new spirituality. Spirituality is generally a difficult subject to address without breeding resentful or condemning sentiments. Ecofeminism succeeds in creating an environment in which these pitfalls are avoided. This is achieved by allowing multiple religions to exist without denouncing any other religion. Many perspectives are discussed and there remains no one answer to the question of religion. Existing outside of the mainstream spiritual thinking assists the ecofeminists in broader acceptance because their spiritualities usually lie in an area that would require such acceptance from others (Ruether, 1995). Throughout the examination of the texts, there was no condemnation of any religion, only the patriarchal nature of most religions, but even those religions that were labeled patriarchal were still given some level of viability by the texts. Ruether (1996) produces a critique of several major
82 contemporary religions and the patriarchy that exists within them. While she denounces
the role that women and nature are relegated to within the Christian, Greek. Hebraic, and
Calvmist rehgions, she still holds them as having potential for an ecofeminist spirituality
or a spirituality that can be embraced by all. She refuses to question the entire belief
stmcture, but examines the practical implications of these patriarchal beliefs. Ruether
views the acceptance of these religions from a pluralistic stance. They all contain a
spirituality that helps some individuals explain their existence. It would be counterproductive to try to dismantie these belief stmctures, which people hold so deeply within their being. Instead, ecofeminists point out the existence of patriarchy and call for the reexamination of the belief stmcture to allow for the equality of women. Primavesi
(1994) adds that embracing difference in theological concems is a positive challenge.
She claims that:
This kind of knowledge invigorates and bears us on to new ventures, to a fusion of horizons in which, recognizing diverse contexts and respecting difference, we are invited to a form of engagement with the future, with the yet-to-be- experienced. Difference empowers, offering potential for innovation, for new stmctures, concepts and combinations. Something which does not fit or appear to fit with our own experience challenges us, not only to create a larger multi dimensional pattern into which it might fit but also to see possibilities not available to us within our own context. Differences then offer understanding of ourselves and of others while allowing for the preservation of the individual. Transcending them, in Nelle Norton's sense of organic process which reshapes self and society, we find that richness and diversity of life forms and indispensable to the flourishing of human and non-human life on earth. Life itself, as a process over evolutionary time, implies the potential for increases of diversity and richness. This is ground for hope, a theological virtue which responds to the needs of an environmentally depleted world, (p. 196)
Although Jewish, Plaskow (1993) views her conception of a feminist spirituality as only one piece of the puzzle toward forming an ecofeminist spirituality. She contends, "as we
83 work toward the creation of a feminist Judaism as part of a larger stmggle toward a more just worid, we place our small piece in a mosaic that will finally provide a new pattem - a new rehgious and social order" (p. 83). Even though McFague (1993) chooses a non- traditional spiritual conception, she sees a metaphor that is useful for the ecofeminist cause. She explains that:
The model that comes to mind as we think about God and the worid in the new creation story is not 'the king and his realm' but the 'universe as God's body.' The ancient organic metaphor which, in one form or another, was central to the Westem sensibility for thousands of years until it was replaced by the mechanistic model in the seventeenth century, is emerging again in postmodem science, in ecology, and in feminism. It has, of course, always been present in Goddess religions and in Native American traditions, (p. 95)
Rae (1994), in similar fashion, sees usefulness in Hinduism and Christianity. She points out the positive, constmctive potential within these religions even though she does not belong to them.
This same holding in tension of unity and diversity may be seen in some of world religions, especially in terms of image and symbol. For Hinduism, it may be argued that its very unity lies in its ability to embrace diversity...In Christianity, the primary symbol is one of unity and multiplicity - that of the Christian Trinity, (p. 38)
Ecofeminists attempt to thoroughly critique spiritual issues, while still accepting all forms of spirituality. It is this acceptance that once again forms a pair of messages with the same purpose. Ecofeminism claims that we should reexamine the issue of spirituality to account for all things, but it demands that other opinions be treated with respect and equahty. This all-inclusive nature affords the ecofeminist movement with a lack of adversaries. With no one to tmly denounce the movement it makes it hard to find enemies.
84 The third theme of reweaving narratives is the best example of the power of invitational rhetoric. The ecofeminist movement attempts to re weave narratives for the inclusion of all things and people. This omnicentric view once again affords ecofeminism the ability to avoid directly charging anyone or group in favor of recognizing everyone's importance. Foucault viewed power as something that is socially constructed through discourse. Through communication then, people create the mles for power or language games, but power is always present and not something that one possesses. Instead, the question becomes, "how does one exercise power." We generally think of that power as having direct implications for the individual, but one also has the power to affect other people without any real change occurring to the individual, such as doing a favor for another person. Power can take many forms. One is not necessarily more important or more useful. Ecofeminist rhetoric marks a departure in its use of power. The aim is not to achieve the ends by any means necessary. Coercion would not be acceptable within the framework of such an invitational rhetoric. Instead, ecofeminist/invitational rhetoric holds a deontological stance toward acceptance and equality. The movement's goals dictate the use of invitational rhetoric in order to remain intemally consistent. The use of this rhetoric provides advantages that rhetoric as persuasion cannot afford.
The Foucaultian power perspective typically examines the hidden power that is present within society. Foucauh (1980) speaks of docile bodies and the panopticon as examples of the way in which power is now exercised not by force, but by our own fear.
Power is viewed as a constmct that takes shape only in our minds through a learned
85 response in all forms. Even in the instance of force, one can choose to think differently about the situation and change the power stmcture of that moment. A person with a gun to his/her head is usually said to be powerless, but if the person does not fear death then the feeling of powerlessness might vanish as well. A person who is robbed by force can avoid poweriessness if they fail to value money by traditional societal standards. This is not to devalue victims in similar circumstances. They should not be expected to change their way of thinking to accommodate someone who would violate them by force. The point is merely that power lies in our minds. If one is capable of changing one's thinking, then one is capable of changing the power stmcture that exists within the
Foucaultian perspective.
Ecofeminists use the critique of dualisms, spirituality, the reweaving of narratives, and invitational rhetoric to alter the mode of thinking to change the power stmcture for them and those that subscribe to their beliefs. All three of the major themes that ecofeminism addresses are social constmcts that exist in our collective minds just as power does. The ecofeminist movement shares its beliefs through these writings, but merely the beliefs themselves are empowering. Altering the social constmction of the mainstream to allow for the acceptance of the ecofeminist worldview is desirable, but failing to accept the mainstream constmct changes the power stmcture for the ecofeminists themselves. The mainstream institutions need not approve the worldview for it to contain power. Instead, power resides within individuals who can alter their own power stmctures through their beliefs.
86 It is this capacity to alter one's power stmcture without any real noticeable change occurring that gives ecofeminist/invitational rhetoric its power. If a person with a gun attempts to burglarize another person and comes back with nothing to show, the robbery is deemed a failure. If a persuasive speaker tries to convince audience members that they should begin saving for retirement eariy in their careers, but they ignore the advice, the speaker is said to have failed in his/her endeavor. With ecofeminist/invitational rhetoric the goals are not the same. Ecofeminist/invitational rhetoric does not have to produce such results in order to effective. Foss and Griffin (1995) explain:
Change may be the result of invitational rhetoric, but change is not its purpose. When change does occur as a resuh of understanding, it is different from the kind of change that typifies the persuasive interactions of traditional rhetoric. In the traditional model, change is defined as a shift in the audience in the direction requested by the rhetor, who then has gained some measure of power and control over the audience. In invitational rhetoric, change occurs in the audience or rhetor or both as a result of new understanding and insights gained in the exchange of ideas. As rhetors and audience members offer their ideas on an issue, they allow diverse positions to be compared in a process of discovery and questioning that may lead to transformation for themselves and others. Participants even may choose to be transformed because they are persuaded by something someone in the interaction says, but the insight that is persuasive is offered by a rhetor not to support the superiority of a particular perspective but to contribute to the understanding by all participants of the issue and of one another, (p. 6)
As long as the message is delivered in a manner that states the rhetor's position and offers respect and equality to the audience, the interaction has been successful.
Understanding is desirable, but not necessary for a successful discourse. Change is considered neither necessary nor desirable on face value. Only the person who would change could decide if it is desirable or not. The invitational rhetor does not seek change in the audience, but merely expresses his/her ideas and hopes that the audience
87 understands. This approach makes power intemal to the rhetor. It does not rely on compliance from the audience or even understanding from the audience w hen viewed this way. The rhetor must only state his/her position and treat the audience with respect and equality. Most forms of power rely on the comphance or control of other people in order to be effective, but the power of ecofeminist/invitational rhetoric is intemal to the rhetor.
If one chooses to communicate with an invitational approach one can participate in a power stmcture that has the potential to be a positive and affirming force.
The omnicentric view of ecofeminism allows individuals to embrace an empowerment group that refuses to see the world in black and white and tmly seeks to make everything one while still embracing difference. This omnicentrism is a presence that everyone can embrace and is hard to denounce. While certainly not perfect, the views of ecofeminism that are presented through ecofeminist rhetoric provide a framework for empowerment by oppressed groups without alienating those outside of the movement. Rae (1994) sums up the power of ecofeminism when she states that:
Ecofeminism's ability to address the issue of power in its negative form of 'power over' entails more than its ability to question the status quo and to develop coalitions around issues. Its strength also lies in the fact that it is a way of thinking; it is a philosophy that offers an altemative vision. Furthermore, its means and its ends are identical; it increases the well-being of its adherents, which should appeal to all who see it; and it operates out of the present virtues of joy, community, and integrity, (p. 25)
88 CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter will expound upon the findings presented in Chapter IV by reviewing the current findings and offering suggestions for future academic research.
The ecofeminist movement offers great insight into strategies that could be employed by other empowerment groups seeking to end oppression. This example of invitational rhetoric provides a blueprint of sorts for empowerment groups wishing to approach rhetoric from a non-traditional framework. It is not the case that invitational rhetoric is the only viable approach, but it remains one that affords rhetors choices that may not be readily available to them under a traditional approach to rhetoric. First, this chapter will
develop possible suggestions for other empowerment groups from the rhetoric of ecofeminism. Then, suggestions will be made regarding the study of power and
invitational rhetoric. Finally, an examination of the drawbacks of the present study will be discussed.
Ecofeminism
The case study of ecofeminism yields significant contributions to rhetorical theory. The use of duahsms by dominant institutions to oppress "others" must be examined by the oppressed for emancipation to ever come. Ecofeminists offer a comprehensive critique of these social constmctions, which provides the framework for other oppressed individuals within society to find empowerment. Through these
89 strategies it is the hope of the ecofeminist movement that one day there will be no group
or individual who is oppressed and we are ah treated with respect and equality.
Ecofeminist writings exist in the form of a critique of the dominant stmctures. A
critique can deconstmct existing institutions and beliefs, but it cannot implement the
strategy for social change outside of the critique. Empowering rhetoric must take a
comprehensive approach that employs the use of complementary dualisms in order to
practice the theory that is preached. Nonetheless, ecofeminism points out the usefulness
of promoting oppressed "others" to the status of agent. Characterizing the oppressed as
active yields strength to the goal of empowerment. It portrays the appropriate image of
"others" by demonstrating that they are not passive. This combats the notion of
subordination that the dominant paradigm uses to oppress "others." Recognizing
everything as an agent is a rhetorical move to change the existing power structure.
Ecofeminist authors along with Foss and Griffin (1995) hold that all agents are powerful.
This power may not be demonstrated in conventional form, but within the individuals themselves it is manifest with such magnitude that outside forces are irrelevant. The ability to localize power intemally does not only affect the self This internal tum will certainly have implications on others as well. The person who refuses to fear death, as was discussed previously, alters his/her power structure, but also alters the power stmcture of the person with the gun. This affect may be unintentional, but it occurs nonetheless. For empowerment groups, locating power intemally can also serve to dismantle the power stmcture of the dominant structures without ever holding a picket sign or a rally. These forms of resistance are no less important or powerful, but holding
90 power within oneself takes on a different stmcture that could prove advantageous to individuals within empowerment groups.
The connection with spirituality highlights an effective rhetorical strategy that empowerment groups and individuals can employ. The function of such a strategy increases the force of the position of empowerment. The dominant institution makes claims to the universal validity or "supreme" rationale for its existence. To combat these institutions, empowerment seekers should employ similar strategies. This places the issue in the realm of belief rather than merely opinion and provides some legitimation to the claim. Ecofeminists recount the ancient times when the gods and goddesses embodied feminine qualities. Instead of a new radical approach, ecofeminists attempt to return to a time when the feminine and natural were valued. Framed as a return to the past, this vision seems less radical and empirical in its effects. Not all empowerment groups, though, may have the luxury of relying on past spiritualities.
Refraining contemporary spiritualities can also be a valuable rhetorical tool. It still sets the argument in matters of faith and belief, but works within the existing framework. The road is harder because the dominant institution will be reluctant to change, but Gebaras (1995) points out that the dominant paradigms are falling apart.
Dominant institutions, like Christianity, are beginning to reassess their rhetoric in attempts to be more inclusive of women and nature. Though a new spirituality is probably desirable because it does not have to directly challenge existing religious institutions, it is possible to change the dominant institutions from within. It simply requires more time and effort.
91 Finally, the dismantling of old narratives and the fonnation or refoniiation of different narratives can be a valuable rhetorical strategy for empowerment groups.
Ecofeminism points in the appropriate direction. One must critique the existing narratives, demonstrating how they oppress. Ecofeminism illustrates how complicated this can be. No consensus is in sight for the actual causes of oppression. This issue will certainly continue to be debated within this philosophical movement, but pluralism need not be the enemy of the oppressed. Raymond Murphy (1994) points out that every voice against the institution helps to empower the oppressed. As long as one "other" is not attacking another "other," their goal remains the same: to overthrow the dominant institutions. The empowerment not only comes from the increased legitimacy of the
"other," but also from the delegitimation of the dominant institution. Empowerment groups should seek inclusivity, realizing that every other "other" is a fellow activist seeking the same goal of overthrowing the dominant worldview.
Reframing and building new narratives is also necessary for empowerment. Once one has attacked the dominant narratives, it is important to constmct different narratives that avoid the same pitfalls. Ecofeminism points out how these narratives can be centered on omnicentrism and inclusivity. While an omnicentric approach may not work for every disempowered group, the point will remain the same; equality can only be reached by valuing the "other" as justified of such treatment. Building new narratives gives a voice to the theory. It is no longer just criticism, but discourse in action. It builds new frameworks for others to follow and empowers "others" with stories to recount.
Accepting the dominant institutions is also included within this omnicentrism. They not
92 only can contribute to emancipation, but also from the ecofeminist/invitational viewpoint are necessary for this to occur. Ecofeminism has shown that critiquing ideals and dominant paradigms can be done without the exclusion of individuals or tangible institutions.
Invitational Rhetoric
Invitational rhetoric remains a relatively new focus within the field of communication. The current study proposes invitational rhetoric as a viable alternative to rhetoric as persuasion and demonstrates the power potential of invitational rhetoric to empowerment groups. The current study also suggests disassociation as a rhetorical tactic used by invitational rhetors, which separates individuals from their beliefs allowing one to attack the belief without attacking the person. This approach is certainly not a new one, but should be placed under the genre of invitational rhetoric. The current findings illustrate that the use of disassociation allows invitational rhetors the ability to critique institutions without risking the exclusion of individuals within dominant institutions.
The power potential of invitational rhetoric has proven very effective for ecofeminism. The problem with the traditional rhetoric as persuasion approach is not that it is any less productive or useful than invitational rhetoric. Instead, the problem with the rhetoric as persuasion approach is that it effectively silences a vast number of people who hold different methodological approaches to discourse (Foss and Griffin,
1995). If one contends that all opinions should be valued equally and that every person participating within a discourse should be treated with respect and equality, it is hard to
93 then try to change people's minds knowing that if they give in they might have feelings of losing or less worth. If ecofeminism were to use the rhetoric as persuasion approach, one might find that ecofeminist rhetoric is incompatible with itself On one hand, the ecofeminist movement argues that each person and thing is equal and that we should abandon hierarchies because they only lead to oppression. If one engages in persuasive rhetoric, one will at some point hold that his/her opinion is better than another, which creates a hierarchy in and of itself (Foss & Griffin, 1995). Invitational rhetoric is consistent with the desire to end hierarchies, which makes it an appropriate approach for ecofeminism. Invitational rhetoric is not a form of discourse that will produce miracles.
Instead, it is merely the tangible formation of the values of equality, immanent value, and self-determination. Invitational rhetoric is a label that accounts for the discourse of those that do not approach rhetoric from the traditional persuasion approach. So, the mere existence of a type of rhetoric that accounts for people whose discourse was previously thought to be weak or ineffective under the rhetoric as persuasion approach is an empowering force to groups like ecofeminism. Examining ecofeminism from a traditional rhetoric as persuasion approach would probably lead one to conclude that the group's rhetoric is ineffective, but through the lens of invitational rhetoric the power potential of inclusivity is revealed.
The viability of invitational rhetoric as an alternative to rhetoric as persuasion still continues to be debated by concemed scholars to assess where the two theories converge and diverge, but the use of invitational rhetoric does show utility to the ecofeminist movement. Future efforts should help shed some light on both theories and hopefully
94 open the door toward alternative conceptions. Further examinations should be conducted to discover if there are other groups or individuals that use invitational rhetoric. With a new theory, it is necessary to examine the practical use of such a discourse to see how it actually functions. This exploration could help educate communication scholars on the details of invitational rhetoric that have yet to be discovered such as the use of dissociation tactics.
While further examination needs to be conducted on invitational rhetoric it does not dictate that the theory is not valid. Foss & Griffin (1995) make a strong case for invitational rhetoric and answer Condit's criticisms. While there may be further criticisms to come it should be anticipated that invitational rhetoric will become more accepted by scholars in the field and will experience further incorporation in future studies. Scholars should not hesitate simply because it deviates from the traditional approach to rhetoric. Invitational rhetoric does not necessitate the denouncement of rhetoric as persuasion. However, rhetoric as persuasion has implications that may not classify it as the best choice in some situations. The same is tme of invitational rhetoric.
Invitational rhetoric should one-day share equally with rhetoric as persuasion and maybe even other forms of rhetoric within the discipline.
Scholars should also look to other empowerment groups and individuals to find other cases of invitational rhetoric in practice. As a theory, invitational rhetoric seems cohesive, but the application of such rhetoric needs further examination from scholars.
Future studies should examine the specific techniques that are employed by invitational rhetors because they should largely differ from the traditional strategies of persuasion that
95 are often used by rhetors, rhetoricians, and empowennent groups today. Traditional studies of rhetoric fad to account for the strategies that might be used by an invitational rhetor. Feminist studies would be the closest one could come to such an approach.
However, one should hesitate in relegating invitational rhetoric to women's studies.
Communication scholars should not ignore this approach simply because it remains largely a feminist issue. Invitational rhetoric has the potential to be a powerful communication tactic in interpersonal communication, organizational communication, as well as rhetoric. Invitational rhetoric does not only apply to feminist concems. h can be employed by anyone whose intent is to share one's views while maintaining an atmosphere of respect and equality. Scholars should approach invitational rhetoric from many facets. It must not be isolated from the mainstream of communication studies.
Doing so would hamper the progress of the discipline and further the silence of many voices.
Power
The present study has revealed little knowledge about the study of power. It remains a mystery and will probably continue to be for some time. The exploration of power is an important one for it engulfs us at all times and dictates all of our actions and thoughts. Power is everything, which makes it difficult to digest and to explain.
Foucault called for an examination of power as it is exercised on the everyday level (Hoy,
1986). The present study is incapable of discerning what power is. All it reveals is one example of power and explains its utility for ecofeminism, other empowerment groups.
96 and individuals. Within the study of power, this is only one piece of an enomious jigsaw puzzle, but it is a step in the right direction.
The current findings suggest that the traditional approaches to power lack the ability to account for ecofeminism or invitational rhetoric. The present literature usually examines power in a negative form, such as coercion. Foucault (1980) dlustrates that power can be positive. Invitational rhetoric is one such example that the present literature on power does not account for. Power is thought to be an exercise of fighting between to or more people or things. The person who wins the fight is said to be more powerful. As outdated as this conception may be, it is still an accurate account of pow er for many people (van Ginkle, 1999). Ecofeminism and invitational rhetoric demonstrate that power need not always be power-over as Foucault (1980) explained. Invitational rhetoric demonstrates that the way one treats another person or persons can be an empowering force as well. The point of any empowerment group is to gain acceptance from society, the dominant institutions, etc. Facilitating a non-confrontational environment in which discourse can take place can be a way of gaining this acceptance.
This type of power-with approach is only accounted for within feminist theory, but needs to be explored more by all power theorists (Allen, A., 1999).
The current literature revealed very little effort from scholars to examine alternative modes of power production or power networks. Have we reached the point when power can only be measured by the ability to exert control over others? This hardly seems to be the case given the current exploration into ecofeminism and invitational rhetoric. Are there other groups who have alternative means of power structures? What
97 gives you power? The contention here is that we all have different means of power stmcturing. One person's way may not be the best for another person, but it is one way.
If the present literature fails to account for these alternative methods of power stmcturing it IS hkely that research conceming power will continue to be dominated by traditional conceptions. More scholars need to examine the issue of power within their writings in order to further expand the alternative conceptions of power and push them into the mainstream. Because everything comes back to the issue of power, it is feasible for scholars in many different disciplines to incorporate the study of power within their fields of study. This multidisciplinary approach should shed some hght on this complicated matter and open up the study of power to incorporate altemative modes of power like the one demonstrated in invitational rhetoric. So far, feminist writers seem to be the only field exploring this step, but rarely with power being the focus.
Limitations of the Study
The current study has several drawbacks that need to be addressed. First, the amount of texts that were selected to represent the artifact was small in quantity. Out of the 65 texts that were initially selected only twenty remained after the elimination process and most of these were merely chapters in anthologies. Out of the total possible choices the percentage that was used remains small. While most major arguments included within ecofeminist writings were represented by the present study, it would be beneficial for a comprehensive analysis of all ecofeminist texts to be conducted as well. While this
98 would be a daunting task, it should be done to ensure that no ecofeminist voice is excluded and that all ecofeminist thought is incorporated within an analysis.
Secondly, the current study attempts to assess the power involved in an empowerment group or a philosophical movement. The artifact consisted of texts that were published by scholars employed by universities in mostly North American locations. The ecofeminist movement is not solely comprised of white, American, middle-class women scholars though. The ecofeminist movement contains a diverse population of women and men alike. Efforts were taken to include the writings of men and different ethnicities and nationalities, but the majority of ecofeminist literature has been written by white, American, middle-class women. Further analysis should direct more attention to those ecofeminists outside of the majority. The ideas and rhetorical strategies employed may differ greatiy. The present study does not fully account for this difference.
Finally, a rhetorical study of empowerment groups is rather common, but to gain insight into an empowerment group a deeper analysis should be pursued. To understand the ecofeminist movement, future studies should explore non-rhetorical methods that gain access more directly to the movement and its members. Examining the writings of ecofeminists has provided valuable insight, but a study focused on the interpersonal conversations of ecofeminists might reveal different findings. The current study has not found the essence of ecofeminism nor even a complete picture. With further study into the movement from different angles, though, this picture can be pieced together.
99 While ecofeminism carries on with the cause, other empowerment groups can learn invaluable rhetorical lessons and strategies from this movement. The goal of emancipation is never an easy one. One must be armed with all the tools possible.
Ecofeminism highlights some of these tools that empowerment groups can use to seek emancipation. Future studies should explore other ways that groups seek empowerment, especially those of ecofeminism. If equality is ever to be achieved it must come from the power of discourse. This is the way toward emancipation (Plant 1997).
100 REFERENCES
Adams, C.J. (1993). hitroduction. hi C. J. Adams (Ed.), Ecofeminism and the Sacred (pp. 1-12). New York: Continuum.
Allen, A. (1999). The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, resistance, and solidarity. Boulder: Westview.
Allen, B. (1999). Power/Knowledge, hi K. Racevskis (Ed.), Critical Essays on Michel Foucault (pp. 69-81). New York: G. K. Hall.
Arendt, H. (1970). On Violence. London: Allen Lane.
Barthes, R. (1982). Inaugural lecture. College de France. In S. Sontag (Ed.), A Barthes Reader (pp. 457-478). New York: Hill and Wang.
Condit, C, M. (1997), In praise of eloquent diversity: gender and rhetoric as public persuasion. Women's Studies in Communication, 20, 91-150.
Cuomo, C. J. (1998). Feminism and Ecological Communities: An Ethic of Flourishing. New York: Routledge.
Diamond, L & Quinby, L. (1988). Feminism & Foucault: Reflections on Resistance. Boston: Northeastem UP.
Dowding, K. (1996). Power. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP.
Downey, S. D. (1997). Rhetoric as balance: A dialectical feminist perspective. Women's Studies in Communication, 20, 137-150.
Edson, B. A. (1985). Bias in social movement theory: A view from a female-systems perspective. Women's Studies in Communication, 8, 34-45.
Eisler, R. (1996). Messages from the past: The worid and the goddess. In R. S. Gottlieb (Ed.), This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment (pp.369-381). New York: Routledge.
Foss, S. K. (1996), Re-sourcement as emancipation: A case study of ritualized sewing. Women's Studies in Communication, 19, 1-28,
101 Foss, S, K & Griffin, C. L. (1992). A feminist perspective on rhetorical theory: Toward a clarification of boundaries. Western Journal of Communication. 56, 330-349.
Foss, S. K. & Foss, K. A. (1994). Inviting transformation: Presentation speaking for a changing worid. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Foss, S. K. & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: a proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 62. 2-18.
Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Griffin, C. L. (1997). Transforming rhetoric through feminist reconstmction: A response to the gender diversity perspective. Women's Studies in Communication. 20. 117-135.
Foucauh, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Gaard, G. (1993). Ecofeminism. Philadelphia: Temple UP.
Gaard, G. (1998). Ecological Politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens. Phdadelphia: Temple UP.
Gearhart, S. M. (1979). The womanization of rhetoric. Women's Studies International Ouarteriv, 2, 195-201.
Gebaras, I. (1995). Ecofeminism and Panentheism. In M.H. MacKinnon & M. Mclntyre (Ed.), Readings in Ecology and Feminist Theology (pp 208-213). Kansas City: Sheed & Ward.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Gmen, L. (1997). Revaluing Nature, In K, J, Warren (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, and Nature (pp. 356-374). Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1997.
Habermas, J. (1977). Hannah Arendt's Communications Conception of Power. Social Research, 44, 369.
Haugaard, M. (1997). The Constitution of Power: A theoretical analysis of power, knowledge, and stmcture. New York: Manchester.
Hoy, D. C. (1986). Foucault: A critical reader. New York: Basil Blackwell.
102 Jantzen, G. M. (1999). Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP.
Kheel, M. (1993). From heroic to holistic ethics: The ecofeminist challenge, hi G. Gaard (Ed.), Ecofeminism, Women. Animals, Nature (pp. 243-271). Philadelphia: Temple UP,
King, A, (1987), Power and Communication. Prospect Heights: Waveland.
Kirk, G. (1995). Women resist ecological destmction. In G. Ashworth (Ed.), Diplomacy of the Oppressed: New Directions in Intemational Feminism (pp. 69-89). London: Zed.
Kiros, T. (1998). Self-Constmction and the Formations of Human Values: Tmth, language, and desire. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Krippendorf, K. (1995). Undoing Power. Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 12, 101-132.
Lakoff,J, T, (1990), Talking Power. New York: Basic Books.
Layder, D. (1997), Modem Social Theory: Key debates and new directions, London: University College of London,
Leibniz, G, W, (1965), Monadology and Other Philosophical Essays, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
Lovelock, J, (1988), The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. New York: Norton.
Mathison, M. A. (1997). Complicity as Epistemology: Reinscribing the historical categories of "woman" through standpoint feminism. Communication Theory, 7, 149-161.
McFague, S. (1993). An Earthly Theological Agenda. In C. J. Adams (Ed.), Ecofeminism and the Sacred (pp. 67-89). New York: Continuum, 1993.
Mellor, M. (1997). Feminism and Ecology. New York: NYU Press.
Merchant, C. (1992). Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. New York: Routledge.
Merchant, C.( 1996). Earthcare. New York: Routledge.
103 Mies, M. & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. London: Zed.
Mill, J. S. (1914). Utilitarianism, liberty & representative govemment. New York: E. P. Dutton & CO.
Murphy, R. (1994). Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing Relationship. Boulder: Westview.
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary. hiquirv. 16.95-100.
Orbe, M. P, (1998), Constmcting Co-Cultural Theory: An explication of culture, power. and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Plant, J. (1997), Leaming to live with differences: the challenge of ecofeminist community. In K, J. Warren (Ed,), Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, and Nature (pp, 120-139), Indianapolis: hidianaUP,
Plaskow, J, (1993), Feminist Judaism and repair of the worid, hi C, J. Adams (Ed.), Ecofeminism and the Sacred (pp. 105-124). New York: Continuum.
Primavesi, A. (1994). A tide in the affairs of women? hi D. G. Hallman (Ed.), Ecotheology: Voices from the North and South (pp. 186-198). Maryknoll: Orbis.
Rae, E, (1994), Women, the Earth, the Divine. Maryknoll: Orbis.
Ransom, J. S, (1997). Foucault's Discipline: The Politics of Subjectivity. Durham: Duke UP.
Ruether, R. R. (1995). The Biblical Vision of the Ecological Crisis, hi M. H. & M. Mclntyre (Ed.), Readings in Ecology and Feminist Theology (pp. 75-81). Kansas City: Sheed & Ward.
Ruether, R. R. (1994). Eco-Feminism and Theology, hi D. G. Hallman (Ed.), Ecotheology: Voices from the North and South (pp. 199-206). Maryknoll: Orbis.
Ruether, R. R. (1996). Ecofeminism: Symbolic and Social Connections of the Oppression of Women and the Domination of Nature. In R. S. Gottiieb (Ed.), This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment (pp. 322-333). New York: Routledge.
Rushing, J, H, (1995). Evolution of the New Frontier in Aliens and Alien: Patriarchal co- optation of the feminine archetype. In C. R. Burkchardt (Ed.), Readings in Rhetorical Criticism (pp. 1-24). Strata: State College.
104 Russel, B. (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis New York: W. W. Norton Co.
Sachs, C. E. (1997). Introduction: Connecting women and the environment, hi C. E. Sachs (Ed.), Women Working in the Environment (pp. 1-14). Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis.
Salleh, A. (1997). Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature. Marx, and the Postmodem. London: Zed Books.
Shepherd, G, J, (1992). Communication as influence: definitional exclusion. Communication Studies. 43. 203-219.
Sheer, D. (1994). Wrong of Passage: Three Challenges to the Maturing of Ecofeminism. In K. J. Wan-en (Ed.), Ecological Feminism (pp. 29-41). New York, Routledge.
Somma, M. & Tolleson-Rinehart, S. (1997). Tracking the elusive green women. Political Research Ouarteriy, 22-40.
Soper, K. (1999). Forget Foucault? hi K. Racevskis (Ed.), Critical Essays on Michel Foucault (pp. 252-259). New York: G. K. Hall & Co.
Spivak, G.C. (1988). hi Other Words: Essays in Cultural Politics. New York: Routledge.
Spretnak, C. & Capra, F. (1986). Green Politics: The Global Promise, Santa Fe: Bear and Company,
Steamey, L, M, (1994), Feminism, ecofeminism, and the matemal archetype: Motherhood as a feminine universal. Communication Ouarteriv, 145-159.
Stewart, C. J., Smith, C. A., & Denton, R. E. (1994). Persuasion and Social Movements. Prospect Heights: Waveland.
Sturgeon, N. (1997). Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory, and Political Action. New York: Routledge.
Taylor, J. & Whitney, G, (1999), Crime and racial profiling by U,S, police: Is there an empirical basis? The Joumal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 24, 485- 510,
Van Ginkle, A, (1999). General Principles of Human Power. Westport: Praeger.
105 Warren, K. J. (1993). A Feminist Philosophical Perspective on Ecofeminist Spiritualities. In C. J. Adams (Ed.), Ecofeminism and the Sacred (pp.76-94). New York: Continuum,
Warren, K, J. (1994). Toward and Ecofeminist Peace Politics. In K. J. Wan-en (Ed.), Ecological Feminism (pp. 179-200). New York, Routledge.
Warren, K. J. (1999). Ecofeminist phdosophy and deep ecology. In N. Witoszek and A Brennan (Eds.), Philosophical Dialogues: Ame Naess and the Progress of Ecophilosophv (pp. 255-269). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Weber, M. (1965). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin University Books.
Zimmerman, M. E, (1994). Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity. Berkeley: University of California.
106 PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting tiiis thesis m partial fulfillment of the requhements for a master's
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for
research purposes. Permission to copy diis thesis for scholarly purposes may be
granted by the Du-ector of die Library or my major professor. It is understood diat
any copymg or publication of this thesis for financial gam shall not be allowed
widiout my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright
infi"ingement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
Student Signature Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
Student Signature Date