University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1990 Ecofeminist explorations Janet Henderson The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Henderson, Janet, "Ecofeminist explorations" (1990). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5360. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5360 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mike and Maureen MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. , COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author’s written consent. University of MOTfisumc ECOFEMINIST EXPLORATIONS B y Janet Henderson B. A., Furman University, 1985 Presented in partial fulfillm ent of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Montana 1990 Approved by Chair, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School UMI Number: EP40824 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these-will be-noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI EP40824 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 AN ECOFEMINIST CRITIQUE OF M A R X In the writings of Karl Marx one can find apparent inconsis­ tencies in his thoughts on the human relationship to nature and on utopian thinking. It seems that these two areas of Marx's thought are closely related, as are the reasons for the inconsistencies in his ideas about them. On the one hand, some of Marx's writings indicate that humans are part of nature, not separate from it, and that the relationship between human and nonhuman nature is a reciprocal one. In other writings, that ideal relationship is replaced by one of human "mastery" over nature, wherein nature is merely a resource to be used by humans. Regarding utopian thinking, at times Marx is visionary in his writing and paints pictures of an ideal communist society as he would like to see it. These images are v e ry utopian, bu t pervading m uch of his w ork is a harsh critique of and warning against utopian thought. How is one to make sense of the inconsistent ideas expressed by Marx on these two subjects? Perhaps the body of thought called eco- feminisml can be helpful in answering this question since it is deeply concerned with the human/nature relationship and with the notion of utopia. In his earlier writings, most particularly the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844," Marx developed a theory of the relationship between human and nonhuman nature which claimed that the two are not as distinct as we normally think them to be. He went so far as to call the whole of nature "the inorganic body of man," meaning that it sustains humanity both physically and intellectually and that humans must maintain a constant interchange w ith it as a condition of their existence. (McLellan 1984, 81). Within this theory, nature is not an abstract entity, removed from and dominated by human beings, but rather a source of life for them, a realm which is continuous with their own human realm. It follows from this conception of the human/nonhuman nature relationship that humans would have some sort of respect for nature, that they would not dominate and exploit it. Even if acting only out of self-interest, humans would not likely exploit nature, because they would be harming their own inorganic body by doing so. This early notion of the human relationship to nature is not maintained throughout Marx's work; in fact it is inconsistent with his guiding theory of historical materialism in which progress (and therefore human liberation and self-realization) takes place only when the natural world is subjected to the mastery of human labourers. This deterministic view of history does not allow for humans to exist in a reciprocal relationship with nonhuman nature. It is necessary, according to this view, that nature come to be seen as an object to be possessed and used under capitalism, which is also a necessary stage in the unfolding of the history of struggle which finally leads to the liberation of the working class. As Marx describes this aspect of the capitalist stage: Nature becomes for the first time simply an object for mankind, purely a matter of utility; it ceases to be recognized as a power in its own right; and the theoretical knowledge of its inde­ pendent laws appears only as a stratagem de­ signed to subdue it to human requirements, whether as the object of consumption or as the means of production (363-4). Marx goes on to say that this change is "permanently revolution­ ary, tearing down all obstacles that impede . the exploitation and exchange of natural and intellectual forces" (364). In other words, the exploitation of nature goes hand in hand with the development of the forces of production under capitalism. The development of these forces and of capitalism itself is, for Marx, a prerequisite to a communist society; it is that which makes communism possible and inevitable. The basis of M arx’s theory of communism is that it grows out of capitalism. This deterministic view of history justifies the domination and 4 exploitation of nature by humans by pointing out that it is inevitable (and essential for human freedom). The advancement of technology (apparently without regard for its adverse effects on the earth) is hailed as the key to the liberation of humans from slavery, serfdom, and the drudgery of labour and as that which brings about progress in human relationships. It can be concluded from this idea that the domination of nature is necessary for the liberation of humans. Humans are seen in a very different relationship to nature than they are in the mutual one described earlier. Humans are distinct, apart from nonhuman nature; they are in a position of dominance over it, and it is theirs to do with as they wall. It is a tool that they must manipulate in order to attain their freedom. With modern (industrial) technology understood as the paradigmatic relationship of domination between human and non­ human nature, a closer examination of Marx's statements about its role in human liberation clarifies the underlying assumption about the human/nature relationship. In the C o m m u n is t M a n ife s to Marx , explains w hy technology is an essential part of the fall of capitalism and the subsequent liberation of the working class: 5 The essential condition for the existence, and for the sw ay of the bourgeosie class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeosie produces and appropriates products. What the bour­ geosie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable (230-1). The way in which the advance of industry replaces the isolation of the labourers "by their revolutionary combination, due to associ­ ation," is by allowing isolated workers from different places to have contact w ith one another through improved means of communi­ cation and transportation. In this way they are able to form a national union and then a revolutionary movement (228). Another way technology frees humans is through reducing the necessary labour time of society to a minimum. "The counter­ part of this reduction is that all members of society can develop their education in the arts, sciences, etc., thanks to the free time and means available to all" (380). Marx takes the liberating notion of technology the farthest in the Grundrisse, when he speaks of it as the realization of human nature. This idea undoubtedly comes from his basic claim that humans are prim arily producers (homo faber) Of machines, locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, etc., he says, "These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will to dominate nature or to realize itself therein" (381). Marx makes a direct connection between the realization of the human will and the domination of nature in this passage, as he does between the development of the hum an as social being and the mastery of nature in the following passage on the changes technology brings to the workplace (more specifically the replacement of labourer by machine). In this transformation, what appears as the mainstay of production and wealth is neither the immediate labour performed by the worker, nor the time that he works - but the appro­ priation by man of his own general productive force, his understanding of nature and the mastery of it; in a word, the development of the social individual (380).