Nature, Self, and Gender:

Feminism, Environmental Philosophy,

and the Critique of Rationalism
VAL PLUMWOOD

R a t i d i s m is the key to the connected oppressions of women and nature in the

West. Deep ecology has failed to provide an adequate historical perspective or an
adequate chauenge to humudnature dualism. A relational account of self enables us
to reject a n instrumental view of nature and develop a n alternative based on respect
without denying that nature is distinct fromthe self. This shift of focus links feminist,
environmentalist, and certain forms of socialist critiques. The critique of
anthropocentrismis not sacrificed,as deep ecologists argue, but enriched.

Environmental philosophy has recently been criticized on a number of

counts by feminist philosophers. I want to develop further some of this critique
and to suggest that much of the issue turns on the failure of environmental
philosophy to engage properly with the rationalist tradition, which has been
inimical to both women and nature. Damaging assumptions from this tradition
have been employed in attempting to formulate a new environmental
philosophy that often makes use of or embeds itself within rationalist
philosophical frameworks that are not only biased from a gender perspective,
but have claimed a negative role for nature as well.
In sections I. through IV. I argue that current mainstream brands of environ-
mental philosophy, both those based in ethics and those based in deep ecology,
suffer from this problem, that neither has an adequate historical analysis, and
that both continue to rely implicitly upon rationalist-inspired accounts of the
self that have been a large part of the problem. In sections V and VI. I show
how the critique of rationalism offers an understanding of a range of key
broader issues that environmental philosophy has tended to neglect or treat in
too narrow a way. Among these issues are those connected with concepts of
the human self and with instrumentalism.
Hypatia vol. 6, no. 1 (Spring 1991) 0 by Val Plumwood
4 Hypatia

AND THE ETHICALAPPROACH

1. RATIONALISM

The ethical approach aims to center a new view of nature in ethics,

especially universalizing ethics or in some extension of human ethics. This
approach has been criticized from a feminist perspective by a number of recent
authors (especially Cheney 1987, 1989). I partly agree with and partly disagree
with these criticisms; that is, I think that the emphasis on ethics as the central
part (or even the whole) of the problem is misplaced, and that although ethics
(and especially the ethics of non-instrumental value) has a role, the particular
ethical approaches that have been adopted are problematic and unsuitable. I
shall illustrate this claim by a brief discussion of two recent books: Paul Taylor’s
Respect for Nature (1986) and Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (1986).
Both works are significant, and indeed impressive, contributions to their
respective areas.
Paul Taylor’s book is a detailed working out of an ethical position that rejects
the standard and widespread Western treatment of nature as instrumental to
human interests and instead takes living things, as teleological centers of life,
to be worthy of respect in their own right. Taylor aims to defend a biocentric
(life-centered) ethical theory in which a person’s true human self includes his
or her biological nature (Taylor 1986,44),but he attempts to embed this within
a Kantian ethical framework that makes strong use of the reason/emotion
dichotomy. thus we are assured that the attitude of respect is a moral one
because it is universalizing and disinterested, “that is, each moral agent who
sincerely has the attitude advocates its universal adoption by all other agents,
regardless of whether they are so inclined and regardless of their fondness or
lack of fondness for particular individuals” (41). The essential features of
morality having been established as distance from emotion and “particular
fondness,” morality is then seen as the domain of reason and its touchstone,
belief. Having carefully distinguished the “valuational, conative, practical and
affective dimensions of the attitude of respect,” Taylor goes on to pick out the
essentially cognitive “valuational” aspect as central and basic to all the others:
“It is because moral agents look at animals and plants in this way that they are
disposed to pursue the aforementioned ends and purposes” (82) and, similarly,
to have the relevant emotions and affective attitudes. The latter must be held
at an appropriate distance and not allowed to get the upper hand at any point.
Taylor claims that actions do not express moral respect unless they are done
as a matter of moral principle conceived as ethically obligatory and pursued
disinterestedly and not through inclination, solely or even primarily:

If one seeks that end solely or primarily from inclination, the

attitude being expressed is not moral respect but personal
affection or love. . . . It is not that respect for nature precludes
feelings of care and concern for living things. One may, as a
 Val Plumwood 5

matter of simple kindness, not want to harm them. But the fact
that one is so motivated does not itself indicate the presence of
a moral attitude of respect. Having the desire to preserve or
protect the good of wild animals and plants for their sake is
neither contrary to, nor evidence of, respect for nature. It is only
if the person who has the desire understands that the actions
fulfilling it would be obligatory even in the absence of the
desire, that the person has genuine respect for nature. (85-86)
There is good reason to reject as self-indulgent the “kindness” approach that
reduces respect and morality in the protection of animals to the satisfaction of
the carer’s own feelings. Respect for others involves treating them as worthy
of consideration for their own sake and not just as an instrument for the carer’s
satisfaction, and there is a sense in which such “kindness” is not genuine care
or respect for the other. But Taylor is doing much more than this-he is treating
care, viewed as “inclination” or “desire,” as irrelevant to morality. Respect for
nature on this account becomes an essentially cognitive matter (that of a person
believing something to have “inherent worth” and then acting from an
understanding of ethical principles as universal).
The account draws on the familiar view of reason and emotion as sharply
separated and opposed, and of “desire,” caring, and love as merely “personal”
and “particular” as opposed to the universality and impartiality of under-
standing and of “feminine” emotions as essentially unreliable, untrustworthy,
and morally irrelevant, an inferior domain to be dominated by a superior,
disinterested (and of course masculine) reason. This sort of rationalist account
of the place of emotions has come in for a great deal of well-deserved criticism
recently, both for its implicit gender bias and its philosophical inadequacy,
especially its dualism and its construal of public reason as sharply differentiated
from and controlling private emotion (see, for example, Benhabib 1987; Blum
1980; Gilligan 1982,1987; Lloyd 1983a and 1983b).
A further major problem in its use in this context is the inconsistency of
employing,in the service of constructing an allegedly biocentric ethical theory, a
framework that has itself played such a major role in creating a dualistic account
of the genuine human self as essentiallyrational and as sharplydiscontinuous from
the merely emotional, the merely bodily, and the merely animal elements. For
emotions and the private sphere with which they are associatedhave been treated
as sharply differentiated and inferior as part of a pattern in which they are seen as
linked to the sphere of nature, not the realm of reason.
And it is not only women but also the earth‘s wild living things that have
been denied possession of a reason thus construed along masculine and
oppositional lines and which contrasts not only with the “feminine” emotions
but also with the physical and the animal. Much of the problem (both for
women and nature) lies in rationalist or rationalist-derived conceptions of the
6 Hypatia

self and of what is essential and valuable in the human makeup It is in the
name of such a reason that these other things-the feminine, the emotional,
the merely bodily or the merely animal, and the natural world itself-have
most often been denied their virtue and been accorded an inferior and merely
instrumental position. Thomas Aquinas states this problematic positions suc-
cinctly: “the intellectual nature is alone requisite for its own sake in the
universe, and all others for its sake” (Thomas Aquinas 1976, 56). And it is
precisely reason so construed that is usually taken to characterize the authen-
tically human and to create the supposedly sharp separation, cleavage, or
discontinuity between all humans and the nonhuman world, and the similar
cleavage within the human self. The supremacy accorded an oppositionally
construed reason is the key to the anthropocentrism of the Western tradition.
The Ka’ntian-rationalist framework, then, is hardly the area in which to search
for a solution. Its use, in a way that perpetuates the supremacy of reason and
its opposition to contrast areas, in the service of constructing a supposedly
biocentric ethic is a matter for astonishment.
Ethical universalization and abstraction are both closely associated with
accounts of the self in terms of rational egoism. Universalization is explicitly
seen in both the Kantian and the Rawlsian framework as needed to hold in
check natural self-interest; it is the moral complement to the account of the
self as “disembodied and disembedded,” as the autonomous self of liberal
theory, the rational egoist of market theory, the falsely differentiated self of
object-relations theory (Benhabib 1987; Poole 1984, 1985). In the same vein,
the broadening of the scope of moral concern along with the according of rights
to the natural world has been seen by influential environmental philosophers
(Leopold 1949, 201-2) as the final step in a process of increasing moral
abstraction and generalization, part of the move away from the merely par-
ticular-my self, my family, my tribe-the discarding of the merely personal
and, by implication, the merely selfish. This is viewed as moral progress,
increasingly civilized as it moves further away from primitive selfishness. Nature
is the last area to be included in this march away from the unbridled natural egoism
of the particular and its close ally, the emotional. Moral progress is marked by
increasing adherence to moral rules and a movement away from the supposedly
natural (in human nature), and the completion of its empire is, paradoxically,the
extension of its domain of adherence to abstract moral rules to nature itself.
On such a view, the particular and the emotional are seen as the enemy of
the rational, as corrupting, capricious, and self-interested. And if the “moral
emotions” are set aside as irrelevant or suspect,as merely subjective or personal,
we can only base morality on the rules of abstract reason, on the justice and
rights of the impersonal public sphere.
This view of morality as based on a concept of reason as oppositional to the
personal, the particular, and the emotional has been assumed in the framework
of much recent environmental ethics. But as a number of feminist critics of
 Val Plumwood 7

the masculine model of moral life and of moral abstraction have pointed out
(Blum 1980,Nicholson 1983), this increasing abstraction is not necessarily an
improvement. The opposition between the care and concern for particular
others and generalized moral concern is associated with a sharp division
between public (masculine) and private (feminine) realms. Thus it is part of
the set of dualistic contrasts in which the problem of the Western treatment
of nature is rooted. And the opposition between care for particular others and
general moral concern is a false one. There can be opposition between
particularity and generality of concern, as when concern for particular others
is accompanied by exclusion of others from care or chauvinistic attitudes toward
them (Blum 1980,80),but this does not automatically happen, and emphasis
on oppositional cases obscures the frequent cases where they work together-
and in which care for particular others is essential to a more generalized
morality. Special relationships, which are treated by universalizing positions
as at best morally irrelevant and at worst a positive hindrance to the moral life,
are thus mistreated. For as Blum (1980, 78-83) stresses, special relationships
form the basis for much of our moral life and concern, and it could hardly be
otherwise. With nature, as with the human sphere, the capacity to care, to
experience sympathy, understanding, and sensitivity to the situation and fate
of particular others, and to take responsibility for others is an index of our moral
being. Special relationship with, care for, or empathy with particular aspects
of nature as experiences rather than with nature as abstraction are essential to
provide a depth and type of concern that is not otherwise possible. Care and
responsibility for particular animals, trees, and rivers that are known well,
loved, and appropriately connected to the self are an important basis for
acquiring a wider, more generalized concern. (As we shall see, this failure to
deal adequately with particularity is a problem for deep ecology as well.)
Concern for nature, then, should not be viewed as the completion of a
process of (masculine) universalization,moral abstraction, and disconnection,
discarding the self, emotions, and special ties (all, of course, associated with
the private sphere and femininity). Environmental ethics has for the most part
placed itself uncritically in such a framework, although it is one that is
extended with particular difficulty to the natural world. Perhaps the kindest thing
that can be said about the framework of ethical universalization is that it is seriously
incomplete and fails to capture the most important elements ofrespect, which are
not reducible to or based on duty or obligation any more than the most important
elements of fiendship are, but which are rather an expression of a certain kind of
s e l f h d and a certain kind of relation between self and other.

RIGHTS,AND ETHICS
11. RATIONALISM,

An extension to nature of the standard concepts of morality is also the aim

of Tom Regan’s The Case fur Animal Rights ( 1986).This is the most impressive,
8 Hypatia

thorough, and solidly argued book in the area of animal ethics, with excellent
chapters on topics such as animal intentionality. But the key concept upon
which this account of moral concern for animals is based is that of rights, which
requires strong individual separation of rights-holdersand is set in a framework
of human community and legality . Its extension to the natural world raises a
host of problems (Midgley 1983,61-64).Even in the case of individual higher
animals for which Regan uses this concept of rights, the approach is
problematic. His concept of rights is based on Mill’s notion that, if a being has
a right to something not only should he or she (or it) have that thing but others
are obliged to intervene to secure it. The application of this concept of rights
to individual wild living animals appears to give humans almost limitless
obligations to intervene massively in all sorts of far reaching and conflicting
ways in natural cycles to secure the rights of a bewildering variety of beings.
In the case of the wolf and the sheep, an example discussed by Regan, it is
unclear whether humans should intervene to protect the sheep’s rights or to
avoid doing so in order not to violate the wolf‘s right to its natural food.
Regan attempts to meet this objection by claiming that since the wolf is not
itself a moral agent (although it is a moral patient), it cannot violate the sheep’s
rights not to suffer a painful and violent death (Regan 1986, 285). But the
defense is unconvincing, because even if we concede that the wolf is not a
moral agent, it still does not follow that on a rights view we are not obliged to
intervene. From the fact that the wolf is not a moral agent it only follows that
it is not responsible for violating the sheep’srights, not that they are not violated
or that others do not have an obligation (according to the rights view) to
intervene. If the wolf were attacking a human baby, it would hardly do as a
defense in that case to claim that one did not have a duty to intervene because
the wolf was not a moral agent. But on Regan’s view the baby and the sheep
do have something like the same rights. So we do have a duty, it seems, (on
the rights view) to intervene to protect the sheep-leaving us where with the
wolf?
The concept of rights seems to produce absurd consequences and is impos-
sible to apply in the context of predators in a natural ecosystem, as opposed to
a particular human social context in which claimants are part of a reciprocal
social community and conflict cases either few or settleable according to some
agreed-on principles. All this seems to me to tell against the concept of rights
as the correct one for the general task of dealing with animals in the natural
environment (as opposed, of course, to domestic animals in a basically
humanized environment).’
Rights seem to have acquired an exaggerated importance as part of the
prestige of the public sphere and the masculine, and the emphasis on separation
and autonomy, on reason and abstraction. A more promising approach for an
ethics of nature, and also one much more in line with the current directions
in feminism, would be to remove rights from the center of the moral stage and
 Val Plumwood 9

pay more attention to some other, less dualistic, moral concepts such as respect,
sympathy, care, concern, compassion, gratitude, friendship, and responsibility
(Cook 1977, 118-9). These concepts, because of their dualistic construal as
feminine and their consignment to the private sphere as subjective and
emotional, have been treated as peripheral and given far less importance than
they deserve for several reasons. First, rationalism and the prestige of reason
and the public sphere have influenced not only the concept of what morality
is (as Taylor explicates it, for example, as essentially a rational and cognitive
act of understanding that certain actions are ethically obligatory) but of what
is central to it or what count as moral concepts. Second, concepts such as
respect, care, concern, and so on are resistant to analysis along lines of a
dualistic reason/emotion dichotomy, and their construal along these lines has
involved confusion and distortion (Blum 1980). They are moral “feelings” but
they involve reason, behavior and emotion in ways that do not seem separable.
Rationalist-inspired ethical concepts are highly ethnocentric and cannot
account adequately for the views of many indigenous peoples, and the at-
tempted application of these rationalist concepts to their positions tends to
lead to the view that they lack a real ethical framework (Plumwood 1990).
These alternative concepts seem better able to apply to the views of such
peoples, whose ethic of respect, care and responsibility for land is often based
on special relationships with particular areas of land via links to kin (Neidjie,
1985, 1989). Finally these concepts, which allow for particularity and mostly
do not require reciprocity, are precisely the sorts of concepts feminist
philosophers have argued should have a more significant place in ethics at the
expense of abstract, malestream concepts from the public sphere such as rights
and justice (Gilligan 1982, 1987, Benhabib 1987). The ethic of care and
responsibility they have articulated seems to extend much less problematically
to the nonhuman world than do the impersonal concepts which are currently
seen as central, and it also seems capable of providing an excellent basis for
the noninstrumental treatment of nature many environmental philosophers
have now called for. Such an approach treats ethical relations as an expression
of self-in-relationship (Gilligan 1987, 24) rather than as the discarding,
containment, or generalization of a self viewed as self-interested and non-rela-
tional, as in the conventional ethics of universalization.*As I argue later, there
are important connections between this relational account of the self and the
rejection of instrumentalism.
It is not that we need to abandon ethics or dispense with the universalized
ethical approach entirely, although we do need to reassess the centrality of
ethics in environmental philosophy? What is needed is not so much the
abandonment of ethics as a different and richer understanding of it (and, as I
argue later, a richer understanding of environmental philosophy generally than
is provided by ethics), one that gives an important place to ethical concepts
owning to emotionality and particularity and that abandons the exclusive
10 Hypatia

focus on the universal and the abstract associated with the nonrelational self
and the dualistic and oppositional accounts of the reasonlemotion and univer-
sal/particular contrasts as given in rationalist accounts of ethics.

111. THEDISCONTINUITY
~OBLEM

The problem is not just one of restriction in ethics but also of restriction to
ethics. Most mainstream environmental philosophers continue to view en-
vironmental philosophy as mainly concerned with ethics. For example, in-
strumentalism is generally viewed by mainstream environmental philosophers
as a problem in ethics, and its solution is seen as setting up some sort of theory
of intrinsic value. This neglects a key aspect of the overall problem that is
concerned with the definition of the human self as separate from nature, the
connection between this and the instrumental view of nature, and broader
political aspects of the critique of instrumentalism.
One key aspect of the Western view of nature, which the ethical stance
neglects completely, is the view of nature as sharply discontinuous or ontologi-
cally divided from the human sphere. This leads to a view of humans as apart
from or “outside of” nature, usually as masters or external controllers of it.
Attempts to reject this view often speak alternatively of humans as “part of
nature” but rarely distinguish this position from the obvious claim that human
fate is interconnected with that of the biosphere, that humans are subject to
natural laws. But on the divided-self theory it is the essentially or authentically
human part of the self, and in that sense the human realm proper, that is outside
nature, not the human as a physical phenomenon. The view of humans as
outside of and alien to nature seems to be especially strongly a Western one,
although not confined to the West. There are many other cultures which do
not hold it, which stress what connects us to nature as genuinely human
virtues, which emphasize continuity and not dissimilarity4
As ecofeminism points out, Western thought has given us a strong
human/nature dualism that is part of the set of interrelated dualisms of
mindbody, reason/nature, reason/emotion, masculine/feminine and has im-
portant interconnected features with these other dualisms5 This dualism has
been especially stressed in the rationalist tradition. In this dualism what is
characteristically and authentically human is defined against or in opposition
to what is taken to be natural, nature, or the physical or biological realm. This
takes various forms. For example, the characterization of the genuinely,proper-
ly, characteristically, or authentically human, or of human virtue, in polarized
terms to exclude what is taken to be characteristic of the natural is what John
Rodman (1980) has called “the Differential Imperative” in which what is
virtuous in the human is taken to be what maximizes distance from the merely
natural. The maintenance of sharp dichotomy and polarization is achieved by
the rejection and denial of what links humans to the animal. What is taken to
 Val Plumwood 11

be authentically and characteristically human, defining of the human, as well

as the ideal for which humans should strive is not to be found in what is shared
with the natural and animal (e.g., the body, sexuality, reproduction,
emotionality, the senses, agency) but in what is thought to separate and
distinguish them-specially reason and its offshoots. Hence humanity is
defined not as part of nature (perhaps a special part) but as separate from and
in opposition to it. Thus the relation of humans to nature is treated as an
oppositional and value dualism.
The process closely parallels the formation of other dualisms, such as
masculinelfeminine, reason/emotion, and spirit/body criticized in feminist
thought (see, for example, Ruether 1975, Griffin 1978, Griscom 1981, King
1981, Lloyd 1983,Jaggar 1983) but this parallel logic is not the only connec-
tion between humanlnature dualism and masculine/feminine dualism.
Moreover, this exclusion of the natural from the concept of the properly human
is not the only dualism involved, because what is involved in the construction
of this dualistic conception of the human is the rejection of those parts of the
human character identified as feminine-also identified as less than fully
human-giving the masculine conception of what it is to be human. Mas-
culinity can be linked to this exclusionary and polarized conception of the
human, via the desire to exclude and distance from the feminine and the
nonhuman. The features that are taken as characteristic of humankind and as
where its special virtues lie, are those such as rationality, freedom, and
transcendence of nature (all traditionally viewed as masculine), which are
viewed as not shared with nature. Humanity is defined oppositionally to both
nature and the feminine.
The upshot is a deeply entrenched view of the genuine or ideal human self
as not including features shared with nature, and as defined against or in
opposition to the nonhuman realm, so that the human sphere and that of nature
cannot significantly overlap. Nature is sharply divided off from the human, is
alien and usually hostile and inferior. Furthermore, this kind of human self can
only have certain kinds of accidental or contingent connections to the realm
of nature. I shall call this the discontinuity problem or thesis and I argue later
that it plays a key role with respect to other elements of the problem.

Iv. RATIONALISM AND DEEPECOLOGY

Although the discontinuity problem is generally neglected by the ethical
stance, a significant exception to its neglect within environmental philosophy
seems to be found in deep ecology, which is also critical of the location of the
problem within ethics6 Furthermore, deep ecology also seems initially to be
more likely to be compatible with a feminist philosophical framework, em-
phasizing as it does connections with the self, connectedness, and merger.
Nevertheless, there are severe tensions between deep ecology and a feminist
12 Hypatia

perspective. Deep ecology has not satisfactorily identified the key elements in
the traditional framework or observed their connections to rationalism. As a
result, it fails to reject adequately rationalist assumptions and indeed often
seems to provide its own versions of universalization, the discarding of par-
ticular connections, and rationalist accounts of self.
Deep ecology locates the key problem area in human-nature relations in the
separation of humans and nature, and it provides a solution for this in terms
of the “identification” of self with nature. “Identification” is usually left
deliberately vague, and corresponding accounts of self are various and shifting
and not always ~ompatible.~ There seem to be at least three different accounts
of self involved-indistinguishability, expansion of self, and transcendence of
self-and practitioners appear to feel free to move among them at will. As I
shall show, all are unsatisfactory from both a feminist perpective and from that
of obtaining a satisfactory environmental philosophy, and the appeal of deep
ecology rests largely on the failure to distinguish them.

A. THEINDISTINGUISHABILITY
ACCOUNT

The indistinguishabilityaccount rejects boundaries between self and nature.

Humans are said to be just one strand in the biotic web, not the source and
ground of all value and the discontinuity thesis is, it seems, firmly rejected.
Warwick Fox describes the central intuition of deep ecology as follows: “We
can make no firm ontological divide in the field of existence . . . there is no
bifurcation in reality between the human and nonhuman realms. . . . to the
extent that we perceive boundaries, we fall short of deep ecological
consciousness” (Fox 1984, 7). But much more is involved here than the
rejection of discontinuity, for deep ecology goes on to replace the human-in-
environment image by a holistic or gestalt view that “dissolves not only the
human-in-environment concept, but every compact-thing-in-milieu
concept”--except when talking at a superficial level of communication (Fox
1984, 1). Deep ecology involves a cosmology of “unbroken wholeness which
denies the classical idea of the analyzability of the world into separately and
independently existing parts.”8It is strongly attracted to a variety of mystical
traditions and to the Perennial Philosophy, in which the self is merged with
the other-“the other is none other than yourself.” As John Seed puts it: “I
am protecting the rain forest’’ develops into “I am part of the rain forest
protecting myself. I am that part of the rain forest recently emerged into
thinking” (Seed et al. 1988,36).
There are severe problems with these claims, arising not so much from the
orientation to the concept of self (which seems to me important and correct)
or from the mystical character of the insights themselves as from the indistin-
guishability metaphysics which is proposed as their basis. It is not merely that
the identification process of which deep ecologists speak seems to stand inneed
 Val Plumwood 13

of much more clarification, but that it does the wrong thing. The problem, in
the sort of account I have given, is the discontinuity between humans and
nature that emerges as part of the overall set of Western dualisms. Deep ecology
proposes to heal this division by a “unifyingprocess,” a metaphysics that insists
that everything is really part of and indistinguishable from everything else.
This is not only to employ overly powerful tools but ones that do the wrong
job, for the origins of the particular opposition involved in the humanlnature
dualism remain unaddressed and unanalyzed. The real basis of the discon-
tinuity lies in the concept of an authentic human being, in what is taken to
be valuable in human character, society, and culture, as what is distinct from
what is taken to be natural. The sources of and remedies for this remain
unaddressed in deep ecology. Deep ecology has confused dualism and atomism
and then mistakenly taken indistinguishability to follow from the rejection of
atomism. The confusion is clear in Fox, who proceeds immediately from the
ambiguous claim that there is no “bifurcation in reality between the human
and nonhuman realms” (which could be taken as a rejection of human
discontinuity from nature) to the conclusion that what is needed is that we
embrace an indistinguishability metaphysics of unbroken wholeness in the
whole of reality. But the problem must be addressed in terms of this specific
dualism and its connections. Instead deep ecology proposes the obliteration of
all distinction.
Thus deep ecology’s solution to removing this discontinuity by obliterating
all division is far too powerful. In its overgenerality it fails to provide a genuine
basis for an environmental ethics of the kind sought, for the view of humans
as metaphysically unified with the cosmic whole will be equally true whatever
relation humans stand in with nature-the situation of exploitation of nature
exemplifies such unity equally as well as a conserver situation and the human
self is just as indistinguishable from the bulldozer and Coca-Cola bottle as the
rocks or the rain forest. What John Seed seems to have in mind here is that
once one has realized that one is indistinguishablefrom the rainforest, its needs
would become one’s own. But there is nothing to guarantee this-one could
equally well take one’s own needs for its.
This points to a further problem with the indistinguishability thesis, that we
need to recognize not only our human continuity with the natural world but
also its distinctness and independence from us and the distincmess of the needs
of things in nature from ours. The indistinguishability account does not allow
for this, although it is a very important part of respect for nature and of
conservation strategy.
The dangers of accounts of the self that involve self-merger appear in
feminist contexts as well, where they are sometimes appealed to as the
alternative to masculine-defined autonomy as disconnection from others. As
Jean Grimshaw writes of the related thesis of the indistinctness of persons (the
acceptance of the loss of self-boundaries as a feminine ideal): “It is important
14 Hypatia

not merely because certain forms of symbiosis or ‘connection’ with others can
lead to damaging failures of personal development, but because care for others,
understanding of them, are only possible if one can adequately distinguish
oneselffrom others. If I see myself as ‘indistinct’from you, or you as not having
your own being that is not merged with mine, then I cannot preserve a real
sense of your well-being as opposed to mine. Care and understanding require
the sort of distance that is needed in order not to see the other as a projection
of self, or self as a continuation of the other” (Grimshaw 1986, 182-3).
These points seem to me to apply to caring for other species and for the
natural world as much as they do to caring for our own species. But just as
dualism is confused with atomism, so holistic self-merger is taken to be the
only alternative to egoistic accounts of the self as without essential connection
to others or to nature. Fortunately, this is a false choice? as I argue below,
nonholistic but relational accounts of the self, as developed in some feminist
and social philosophy, enable a rejection of dualism, including human/nature
dualism, without denying the independence or distinguishability of the other.
To the extent that deep ecology is identified with the indistinguishability
thesis, it does not provide an adequate basis for a philosophy of nature.

C. THEEXPANDED
SELF

In fairness to deep ecology it should be noted that it tends to vacillate

between mystical indistinguishability and the other accounts of self, between
the holistic self and the expanded self. Vacillation occurs often by way of
slipperiness as to what is meant by identification of self with the other, a key
notion in deep ecology. This slipperiness reflects the confusion of dualism and
atomism previously noted but also seems to reflect a desire to retain the
mystical appeal of indistinguishability while avoiding its many difficulties.
Where “identification” means not “identity” but something more like “em-
pathy,” identification with other beings can lead to an expanded self. Accord-
ing to Arne Naess, ‘(The self is as comprehensive as the totality of our
identifications. . . . Our Self is that with which we identify..”” This larger self
(or Self, to deep ecologists) is something for which we should strive “insofar
as it is in our power to do so’’ (Fox 1986, 13-19), and according to Fox we
should also strive to make it as large as possible. But this expanded self is not
the result of a critique of egoism; rather, it is an enlargement and an extension
of egoism.” It does not question the structures of possessive egoism and
self-interest; rather, it tries to allow for a wider set of interests by an expansion
of self. The motivation for the expansion of self is to allow for a wider set of
concerns while continuing to allow the self to operate on the fuel of self-in-
terest (or Self-interest). This is apparent from the claim that “in this light. . .
ecological resistance is simply another name for self defense” (Fox 1986,60).
Fox quotes with approval John Livingstone’s statement: “When I say that the
 Val Plumwood 15

fate of the sea turtle or the tiger or the gibbon is mine, I mean it. All that is in
my universe is not merely mine; it is me. And I shall defend myself. I shall
defend myself not only against overt aggression but also against gratuitous
insult” (Fox 1986,60).
Deep ecology does not question the structures of rational egoism and
continues to subscribe to two of the main tenets of the egoist framework-that
human nature is egoistic and that the alternative to egoism is self-sacrifice.’*
Given these assumptions about egoism, the obvious way to obtain some sort
of human interest in defending nature is through the expanded Self operating
in the interests of nature but also along the familiar lines of self-interest.” The
expanded-self strategy might initially seem to be just another pretentious and
obscure way of saying that humans empathize with nature. But the strategy of
transfering the structures of egoism is highly problematic, for the widening of
interest is obtained at the expense of failing to recognise unambiguously the
distinctness and independence of the other.14 Others are recognized morally
only to the extent that they are incorporated into the self, and their difference
denied (Warren 1990). And the failure to critique egoism and the disem-
bedded, nonrelational self means a failure to draw connections with other
contemporary critiques.

c.THETRANSCENDED
OR TRANSPERSONAL
SELF

To the extent that the expanded Self requires that we detach from the
particular concerns of the self (a relinquishment that despite its natural
difficulty we should struggle to attain), expansion of self to Self also tends to
lead into the third position, the transcendence or overcoming of self. Thus Fox
urges us to strive for impartial identification with all particulars, the cosmos,
discarding our identifications with our own particular concerns, personal
emotions, and attachments (Fox 1990,12). Fox presents here the deep ecology
version of universalization, with the familiar emphasis on the personal and the
particular as corrupting and self-interested-“the cause of possessiveness, war
and ecological destruction” (1990, 12).
This treatment of particularity, the devaluation of an identity tied to
particular parts of the natural world as opposed to an abstractly conceived
whole, the cosmos, reflects the rationalistic preoccupation with the universal
and its account of ethical life as oppositional to the particular. The analogy in
human terms of impersonal love of the cosmos is the view of morality as based
on universal principles or the impersonal and abstract “love of man.”Thus Fox
(1990, 12) reiterates (as if it were unproblematic) the view of particular
attachments as ethically suspect and as oppositional to genuine, impartial
“identification,” which necessarily falls short with all particulars.
Because this “transpersonal” identification is so indiscriminate and intent
on denying particular meanings, it cannot allow for the deep and highly
16 Hypatia

particularistic attachment to place that has motivated both the passion of

many modern conservationists and the love of many indigenous peoples for
their land (which deep ecology inconsistently tries to treat as a model). This
is based not on a vague, bloodless, and abstract cosmological concern but on
the formation of identity, social and personal, in relation to particular areas of
land, yielding ties often as special and powerful as those to kin, and which are
equally expressed in very specific and local responsibilities of care.” This
emerges clearly in the statements of many indigenous peoples, such as in the
moving words of Cecilia Blacktooth explaining why her people would not
surrender their land:
You ask us to think what place we like next best to this place
where we always lived. You see the graveyard there? There are
our fathers and our grandfathers. You see that Eagle-nest moun-
tain and that Rabbit-hole mountain? When God made them,
He gave us this place. We have always been here. We do not
care for any other place. . . . We have always lived here. We
would rather die here. Our fathers did. We cannot leave them.
Our children were born here-how can we go away?If you give
us the best place in the world, it is not so good as this. . . . This
is our home. . . . We cannot live any where else. We were born
here and our fathers are buried here. . . . We want this place and
no other. . . . (McLuhan 1979,28)
In inferiorizing such particular, emotional, and kinship-based attachments,
deep ecology gives us another variant on the superiority of reason and the
inferiority of its contrasts, failing to grasp yet again the role of reason and
incompletely critiquing its influence. To obtain a more adequate account than
that offered by mainstream ethics and deep ecology it seems that we must move
toward the sort of ethics feminist theory has suggested, which can allow for
both continuity and difference and for ties to nature which are expressive of
the rich, caring relationships of kinship and friendship rather than increasing
abstraction and detachment from relationship.16

v. THEPROBLEM IN TERMS
OF THE CRITIQUE OF RATIONALISM

I now show how the problem of the inferiorization of nature appears if it is

viewed from the perspective of the critique of rationalism and seen as part of
the general problem of revaluing and reintegrating what rationalist culture has
split apart, denied, and devalued, Such an account shifts the focus away from the
preoccupations of both mainstream ethical approaches and deep ecology, and
although it does retain an emphasis on the account of the self as central, it gives
a different account from that offered by deep ecology. In section VI. I conclude by
arguing that one of the effects of this shift in focus is to make connections with
 Val Plumwood 17

other critiques, especially feminism, central rather than peripheral or acciden-

tal, as they are currently viewed by deep ecologists in particular.
First, what is missing from the accounts of both the ethical philosophers and
the deep ecologists is an understanding of the problem of discontinuity as
created by a dualism linked to a network of related dualisms. Here I believe a
good deal can be learned from the critique of dualism feminist philosophy has
developed and from the understanding of the mechanisms of dualisms
ecofeminists have produced. A dualistically construed dichotomy typically
polarizes difference and minimizes shared characteristics, construes difference
along lines of superiority/inferiority, and views the inferior side as a means to
the higher ends of the superior side (the instrumental thesis). Because its
nature is defined oppositionally, the task of the superior side, that in which it
realizes itself and expresses its true nature, is to separate from, dominate, and
control the lower side. This has happened both with the humanlnature
division and with other related dualisms such as masculine/feminine,
reasonlbody, and reason/emotion. Challenging these dualisms involves not just
a reevaluation of superiority/inferiority and a higher status for the underside
of the dualisms (in this case nature) but also a reexamination and reconcep-
tualizing of the dualistically construed categories themselves. So in the case of
the human/nature dualism it is not just a question of improving the status of
nature, moral or otherwise, while everything else remains the same, but of
reexamining and reconceptualizing the concept of the human, and also the
concept of the contrasting class of nature. For the concept of the human, of
what it is to be fully and authentically human, and of what is genuinely human
in the set of characteristics typical humans possess, has been defined opposi-
tionally, by exclusion of what is associated with the inferior natural sphere in
very much the way that Lloyd (1983),for example, has shown in the case of
the categories of masculine and feminine, and of reason and its contrasts.
Humans have both biological and mental characteristics, but the mental rather
than the biological have been taken to be characteristic of the human and to
give what is “fully and authentically” human. The term “human” is, of course,
not merely descriptive here but very much an evaluative term setting out an
ideal: it is what is essential or worthwhile in the human that excludes the
natural. It is not necessarily denied that humans have some material or animal
component-rather, it is seen in this framework as alien or inessential to them,
not part of their fully or truly human nature. The human essence is often seen
as lying in maximizing control over the natural sphere (both within and
without) and in qualities such as rationality, freedom, and transcendence of
the material sphere. These qualities are also identified as masculine, and hence
the oppositional model of the human coincides or converges with a masculine
model, in which the characteristics attributed are those of the masculine ideal.
Part of a strategy for challenging this humanlnature dualism, then, would
involve recognition of these excluded qualities-split off, denied, or construed
18 Hypatia

as alien, or comprehended as the sphere of supposedly inferior humans such as

women and blacks-as equally and fully human. This would provide a basis
for the recognition of continuities with the natural world. Thus reproductivity,
sensuality,emotionality would be taken to be as fully and authentically human
qualities as the capacity for abstract planning and calculation. This proceeds
from the assumption that one basis for discontinuity and alienation from
nature is alienation from those qualities which provide continuity with nature
in ourselves.
This connection between the rationalist account of nature within and
nature without has powerful repercussions. So part of what is involved is a
challenge to the centrality and dominance of the rational in the account of
the human self. Such a challenge would have far-reaching implications for
what is valuable in human society and culture, and it connects with the
(challenge to the cultural legacy of rationalism made by other critiques of
rationalism such as feminism, and by critiques of technocracy, bureaucracy,
and instrumentalism.
What is involved here is a reconceptualization of the human side of the
humanlnature dualism, to free it from the legacy of rationalism. Also in need
of reconceptualization is the underside of this dualism, the concept of nature,
which is construed in polarized terms as bereft of qualities appropriated to the
human side, as passive and lacking in agency and teleology, as pure materiality,
pure body, or pure mechanism. So what is called for here is the development
of alternatives to mechanistic ways of viewing the world, which are also part
of the legacy of rationalism.

VI. INSTRUMENTALISM AND THE SELF

There are two parts to the restructuring of the human self in relation to
nature-reconceptualizing the human and reconceptualizing the self, and
especially its possibilities of relating to nature in other than instrumental ways.
Here the critique of the egoistic self of liberal individualism by both feminist
and social philosophers, as well as the critique of instrumental reason, offers a
rich set of connections and insights on which to draw. In the case of both of
these parts what is involved is the rejection of basically masculine models, that
is, of humanity and of the self.
Instrumentalism has been identified as a major problem by the ethical
approach in environmental philosophy but treated in a rather impoverished
way, as simply the problem of establishing the inherent worth of nature.17
Connection has not been made to the broader account that draws on the
critique of instrumental reason. This broader account reveals both its links
with the discontinuity problem and its connection with the account of the
self. A closer look at this further critique gives an indication of how we might
 Val Plumwood 19

develop an account that enables us to stress continuity without drowning in a

sea of indistinguishability.
We might notice first the strong connections between discontinuity (the
polarization condition of dualism) and instrumentalism-the view that the
excluded sphere is appropriately treated as a means to the ends of the higher
sphere or group, that its value lies in its usefulness to the privileged group that
is, in contrast, worthwhile or significant in itself. Second, it is important to
maintain a strong distinction and maximize distance between the sphere of
means and that of ends to avoid breaking down the sharp boundaries required
by hierarchy. Third, it helps if the sphere treated instrumentally is seen as
lacking ends of its own (as in views of nature and women as passive), for then
others can be imposed upon it without problem. There are also major connec-
tions that come through the account of the self which accompanies both views.
The self that complements the instrumental treatment of the other is one
that stresses sharply defined ego boundaries, distinctness, autonomy, and
separation from others-that is defined against others, and lacks essential
connections to them. This corresponds to object/relations account of the
masculine self associated with the work of Nancy Chodorow (1979,1985) and
also to the self-interested individual presupposed in market theory (Poole
1985, 1990).” This self uses both other humans and the world generally as a
means to its egoistic satisfaction, which is assumed to be the satisfaction of
interests in which others play no essential role. If we try to specify these
interests they would make no essential reference to the welfare of others,
except to the extent that these are useful to serve predetermined ends. Others
as means are interchangeable if they produce equivalent satisfactions-any-
thing which conduces to that end is as valuable, other things being equal, as
anything else which equally conduces to that end. The interests of such an
individual, that of the individual of market theory and of the masculine self as
theorized by Chodorow, are defined as essentially independent of or discon-
nected from those of other people, and his or her transactions with the world
at large consist of various attempts to get satisfaction for these predetermined
private interests. Others are a “resource,” and the interests of others connect
with the interests of such autonomous selves only accidentally or contingently.
They are not valued for themselves but for their effects in producing gratifica-
tion. This kind of instrumental picture, so obviously a misdescription in the
case of relations to other humans, is precisely still the normal Western model
of what our relations to nature should be.
Now this kind of instrumental, disembedded account of the relation of self
to others has been extensively criticized in the area of political theory from a
variety of quarters, including feminist theory, in the critique of liberalism, and
in environmental philosophy (Benhabib 1987; Benhabib and Cornell 1987;
Benjamin 1985;Chodorow 1985;Gilligan 1982,1987;Grimshaw 1986;Jagger
1983; Miller 1978; Plumwood 1980; Poole 1984, 1985, 1990; Warren 1990).
20 Hypatia

It has been objected that this account does not give an accurate picture of the
human self-that humans are social and connected in a way such an account
does not recognize. People do have interests that make essential and not merely
accidental or contingent reference to those of others, for example, when a
mother wishes for her child’s recovery, the child‘s flourishing is an essential
part of her flourishing, and similarly with close others and indeed for others
more widely (“social others”). But, the objection continues, this gives a
misleading picture of the world, one that omits or impoverishes a whole
significant dimension of human experience, a dimension which provides
important insight into gender difference, without which we cannot give an
adequate picture of what it is to be human. Instead we must see human beings
and their interests as essentially related and interdependent. As Karen Warren
notes “Relationships are not something extrinsic to who we are, not an ‘add
on’ feature of human nature; they play an essential role in shaping what it is
to be human” (Warren 1990,143).That people’s interests are relational does
not imply a holistic view of them- that they are merged or indistinguishable.
Although some of the mother’s interests entail satisfaction of the child’s
interests, they are not identical or even necessarily similar. There is overlap,
but the relation is one of intentional inclusion (her interest is that the child
should thrive, that certain of the child’s key interests are satisfied) rather than
accidental overlap.
This view of self-in-relationship is, I think, a good candidate for the richer
account of self deep ecologists have sought and for which they have mistaken
holistic accounts. It is an account that avoids atomism but that enables a
recognition of interdependence and relationship without falling into the
problems of indistinguishability, that acknowledges both continuity and dif-
ference, and that breaks the culturally posed false dichotomy of egoism and
altruism of interests;” it bypasses both masculine “separation” and tradition-
al-feminine “merger” accounts of the self. It can also provide an appropriate
foundation for an ethic of connectedness and caring for others, as argued by
Gilligan (1982, 1987) and Miller (1978).
Thus it is unnecessary to adopt any of the stratagems of deep ecology-the
indistinguishable self, the expanded self, or the transpersonal self-in order to
provide an alternative to anthropocentrism or human self-interest. This can
be better done through the relational account of self, which clearly recognizes
the distinctness of nature but also our relationship and continuity with it. On
this relational account, respect for the other results neither from the contain-
ment of self nor from a transcendence of self, but is an expression of self in
relationship, not egoistic self as merged with the other but self as embedded in
a network of essential relationships with distinct others.
The relational account of self can usefully be applied to the case of human
relations with nature and to place. The standard Western view of the relation
of the self to the nonhuman is that it is always accidentally related, and hence
 Val Plumwood 21

the nonhuman can be used as a means to the self-contained ends of human

beings. Pieces of land are real estate, readily interchangeable as equivalent
means to the end of human satisfaction; no place is more than ‘‘a stage along
life’s way, a launching pad for higher flights and wider orbits than your own”
(Berman 1982,327). But, of course, we do not all think this way, and instances
of contrary behavior would no doubt be more common if their possibility were
not denied and distorted by both theoretical and social construction. But other
cultures have recognized such essential connection of self to country clearly
enough, and many indigenous voices from the past and present speak of the
grief and pain in loss of their land, to which they are as essentially connected
as to any human other. When Aboriginal people, for example, speak of the
land as part of them, “like brother and mother” (Neidjie 1985, 51; 1989, 4,
146), this is, I think, one of their meanings. If instrumentalism is impoverishing
and distorting as an account of our relations to other human beings, it is equally
so as a guiding principle in our relations to nature and to place.*’
But to show that the self can be essentially related to nature is by no means
to show that it normally would be, especially in modem Western culture. What
is culturally viewed as alien and inferior, as not worthy of respect or respectful
knowledge, is not something to which such essential connection can easily be
made. Here the three parts of the problem-the conception of the human, the
conception of the self, and the conception of nature-connect again. And
normally such essential relation would involve particularity, through connec-
tion to and friendship for particular places, forests, animals, to which one is
particularly strongly related or attached and toward which one has specific and
meaningful, not merely abstract, responsibilities of care.
One of the effects of viewing the problem as arising especially in the context
of rationalism is to provide a rich set of connections with other critiques; it
makes the connection between the critique of anthropocentrism and various
other critiques that also engage critically with rationalism, such as feminism
and critical theory, much more important-indeed essential-to the under-
standing of each. The problem of the Western account of the human/nature
relation is seen in the context of the other related sets of dualisms; they are
linked through their definitions as the underside of the various contrasts of
reason. Since much of the strength and persistence of these dualisms derives
from their connections and their ability to mirror, confirm, and support one
another, critiques of anthropocentrism that fail to take account of these
connections have missed an essential and not merely additional feature.
Anthropocentrism and androcentrism in particular are linked by the
rationalist conception of the human self as masculine and by the account of
authentically human characteristics as centered around rationality and the
exclusion of its contrasts (especially characteristics regarded as feminine,
animal, or natural) as less human. This provides a different and richer account
of the notion of anthropocentrism, now conceived by deep ecology (Fox 1990,
22 Hypatia

5) in terms of the notion of equality, which is both excessively narrow and

difficult to articulate in any precise or convincing way in a context where needs
are so different. The perception of the connection as at best accidental is a
feature of some recent critiques of ecofeminism, for example the discussion of
Fox ( 1990)and Eckersley ( 1989)on the relation of feminism and environmen-
tal philosophy. Fox misses entirely the main thrust of the ecofeminist account
of environmental philosophy and the critique of deep ecology which results or
which is advanced in the ecofeminist literature, which is that it has failed to
observe the way in which anthropocentrism and androcentrism are linked.”
It is a consequence ofmy arguments here that this critique needs broadening-
deep ecology has failed to observe (and often even goes out of its way to deny)
connections with a number of other critiques, not just feminism, for example,
but also socialism, especially in the forms that mount a critique of rationalism
and of modernity. The failure to observe such connections is the result of an
inadequate historical analysis and understanding of the way in which the
inferiorization of both women and nature is grounded in rationalism, and the
connections of both to the inferiorizing of the body, hierarchical concepts of
labor, and disembedded and individualist accounts of the self.
Instead of addressing the real concerns of ecofeminism in terms of connec-
tion, Fox takes ecofeminism as aiming t o replace concern with
anthropocentrism by concern with androcentrism.” This would have the
effect of making ecofeminism a reductionist position which takes women’s
oppression as the basic form and attempts to reduce all other forms to it. This
position is a straw ~ o r n a n ; ’the
~ effect of ecofeminism is not to absorb or
sacrifice the critique of anthropocentrism, but to deepen and enrich it.

NOTES

An earlier version of this paper, was read at the Women in Philosophy Conference in
Canberra, July, 1989. The author would like to thank Jim Cheney and Karen Warren for
comments on an earlier draft.
1. Regan, of course, as part of the animal rights movement, is mainly concerned not
with wild animals but with domestic animals as they appear in the context and support
of human society and culture, although he does not indicate any qualification in moral
treatment. Nevertheless, there may be an important moral boundary here, for natural
ecosystemscannot be organized along the lines of justice, fairness and rights, and it would
be absurd to try to impose such a social order upon them via intervention in these systems.
This does not mean, of course, that humans can do anything in such a situation, just that
certain kinds of intervention are not in order. But these kinds of intervention may be in
order in the case of human social systems and in the case of animals that have already
been brought into these social systems through human intervention, and the concept of
rights and of social responsibility may have far more application here. This would mean
that the domestic/wild distinction would demarcate an important moral boundary in
 Val Plumwood 23

terms of duties of intervention, although neither Regan ( 1986) nor Taylor (1986) comes
to grips with this problem. In the case of Taylor’s “wild living things” rights seem less
important than respect for independence and autonomy, and the prima facie obligation
may be nonintervention.
2. If the Kantian universalizing perspective is based on self-containment, its major
contemporary alternative, that of John Rawls, is based on a “definitional identity” in
which the “other” can be considered to the extent that it is not recognized as truly
different, as genuinely other (Benhabib 1987, 165).
3. Contra Cheney, who appears to advocate the abandonment of all general ethical
concepts and the adoption of a “contextual” ethics based in pure particularity and
emotionality. We do need both to reintegrate the personal and particular and reevaluate
more positively its role, hut overcoming moral dualism will not simply amount to an
affirmation of the personal in the moral sphere. To embrace pure particularity and
emotionality is implicitly to accept the dualistic construction of these as oppositional to
a rationalist ethics and to attempt to reverse value. In general this reactive response is an
inadequate way to deal with such dualisms. And rules themselves, as Grimshaw (1986,
209) points out, are not incompatible with recognition of special relationships and
responsibility to particular others. Rules themselves are not the problem, and hence it is
not necessary to move to a ruleless ethics; rather it is rules that demand the discarding of
the personal, the emotional, and the particular and which aim at self-containment.
4. For example, Bill Neidjie’s words “Thisground and this earth / like brother and
mother” (Neidjie 1985, 46) may be interpreted as an affirmation of such kinship or
continuity. (See also Neidjie 1985,53,61,62,77,81,82,88).
5 . The logic of dualism and the masculinity of the concept of humanity are discussed
in Plumwood (1986, 1988) and Warren (1987,1989).
6. Nonetheless, deep ecology’s approach to ethics is, like much else, doubtfully
consistent, variable and shifting. Thus although Arne Naess (1974, 1984, 1988) calls for
recognition of the intrinsic value of nature, he also tends to treat “the maxim of
self-realization”as substitutingfurand obviating an ethical account of care and respect for
nature (Naess 1988, 20, 86), placing the entire emphasis on phenomenology. In more
recent work, however, the emphasis seems to have quietly shifted back again from holistic
intuition to a broad and extremely vague “biocentric egalitarianism” which places the
center. once again in ethics and enjoins an ethic of maximum expansion of Self (Fox
1990).
7. Other critics ofdeep ecology, such as SyIvan (1985) and Cheney (1987) have also
suggested that it shifts between different and incompatible versions. Ecofeminist critics
of deep ecology have included Salleh ( 1984), Kheel (1989, Biehl (1987), and Warren
(1990).
8. Arne Naess, quoted in Fox (1982,3, 10).
9. This is argued in Plumwood (1980), where a relational account of self developed
in the context of an anarchist theory is applied to relations with nature. Part of the
problem lies in the terminology of “holism” itself, which is used in highly variable and
ambiguous ways, sometimes carrying commitment to indistinguishability and sometimes
meaning only “nonatomistic.”
10. Arne Naess, quoted in Fox (1986,54).
11. As noted by Cheney (1989,293-325).
12. Thus John Seed says: “Naess wrote that when most people think about conserva-
tion, they think about sacrifice.This is a treacherous basis for conservation, because most
people aren’t capable of working for anything except their own self-interest. . . . Naess
24 Hypatia

argued that we need to find ways to extend our identity into nature. Once that happens,
being out in front of bulldozers or whatever becomes no more of a sacrifice than moving
your foot if you notice that someone’s just about to strike it with an axe” (Seed 1989).
13. This denial of the alterity of the other is also the route taken by J. Baird Callicott,
who indeed asserts that “The principle of axiological complementarity posits an essential
unity between self and world and establishes the problematic intrinsic value of nature in
relation to the axiologically privileged value of self” (1985,275). Given the impoverish-
ment of Humean theory in the area of relations (and hence its inability to conceive a
self-in-relationshipwhose connections to others are not merely contingent but essential),
Callicott has little alternative to this direction of development.
14. Grimshaw (1986, 182). See also the excellent discussion in Warren (1990,
136-38) of the importance of recognition and respect for the other’s difference; Blum
(1980,75); and Benhabib (1987,166).
15. This traditional model of land relationship is closely linked to that of
bioregionalism, whose strategy is to engage people in greater knowledge and care for the
local areas that have meaning for them and where they can most easily evolve a caring
and responsible life-style. The feat of “impartial identification with all particulars” is,
beyond the seeking of individual enlightenment, strategically empty. Because it cares
“impartially”for everything it can, in practice, care for nothing.
16. Thus some ecofeminists, such as Cheney (1987, 1989) and Warren (1990), have
been led to the development of alternative accounts of ethics and ethical theory building
and the development of distinctively ecofeminist ethics.
17. Although the emphasis of early work in this area (for example, Plumwood 1975)
was mainly directed toward showing that a respectful, noninstrumental view of nature
was logically viable since that was widely disputed, it is certainly well past time to move
beyond that. Although there is now wider support for a respectful, noninstrumental
position, it remains controversial; see, for example, Thompson (1990) and Plumwood
(1991).
18. Poole (1984) has also shown how this kind of self is presupposed in the Kantian
moral picture, where desire or inclination is essentially self-directed and is held in check
by reason (acting in the interests of universality).
19. In the sense of altruism in which one’s own interests are neglected in favor of
another’s, essentially relational interests are neither egoistic nor altruistic.
20. On rationalism and place see Edward Relph (1976, 1981).
21. Fox (1990, 12), in claiming gender neutrality for cosmologicallybased identifica-
tion and treating issues of gender as irrelevant to the issue, ignores the historical
scholarship linking conceptions of gender and conceptions of morality via the division
between public and private spheres (for example, Lloyd [1984]and Nicholson [1983].To
the extent that the ecofeminist thesis is not an essentialist one linking sex to emotionality
and particularity or to nature but one linking social and historical conceptions of gender
to conceptions of morality and rationality, it is not refuted by examples of women who
buy a universalizing view or who drive bulldozers, or by Mrs. Thatcher. Fox’s argument
here involves a sexlgender confusion. On the sexlgenderdistinction see Plumwood ( 1989,
2-11).
22. Thus Fox (1990) throughout his discussion, like Zimmerman (1987,37), takes
“the ecofeminist charge against deep ecology”to be that “androcentrism is ‘the real root’
of ecological destruction” (1990, 14), so that “there is no need to worry about any form
of humandomination other than androcentrism” (1990,18).Warren (1990,144) telling-
 Val Plumwood 25

ly discusses Fox’s claim that “feminist” is redundant as an addition to a deep ecological

ethic.
23. This reductionist position has a few representatives in the literature (perhaps
Andree Collard [1988], and Sally Miller Gearhart [1982]), but cannot be taken as
representative of the main body of ecofeminist work. Fox, I believe, is right to resist such
a reduction and to insist on the noneliminability of the form of oppression the critique
of anthropocentrism is concerned with, but the conclusion that the critiques are unrelated
does not follow. Critiques and the different kinds of oppression they correspond to can
be distinguishable but, like individualsthemselves, still related in essential and not merely
accidental ways. The choice between merger (reductive elimination) and disconnection
(isolation) of critiques is the same false dichotomy that inspires the false contrasts of
holismand atomism, and of self as merged, lacking boundaries, versus self as isolated atom,
lacking essential connection to others.

REFERENCES

Benhabib, Seyla. 1987. The generalised and the concrete other. In Women and moral
theory, 154-77. E. Kittay and D. Meyers, eds. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allenheld.
Benhabib, Seyla and Drucilla Comell, eds. 1987. Feminism as critique. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press; Cambridge: Polity Press.
Benjamin, Jessica. 1985. The bonds of love: Rational violence and erotic domination. In
The future ofdifference. H. Eisenstein and A. Jardine, eds. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Berman, Marshall. 1982. All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity. New
York: Simon & Schuster; London: Penguin.
Biehl, Janet. 1987. It’s deep, but is it broad? An ecofeminist looks at deep ecology. Kick
It Over special supplement (Winter).
Blum, Lawrence A. 1980. Friendship, altruism andmorality.Boston and London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Callicott, J. Baird. 1985. Intrinsic value, quantum theory, and environmental ethics.
Environmental Ethics 7: 261-62.
Cheney, Jim. 1987. Ecofeminism and deep ecology. Environmental Ethics 9: 115-145.
. 1989. The neo-stoicism of radical environmentalism. EnvironmentalEthics 11:
293-325.
Chodorow, Nancy. 1979. The reproduction ofmothering. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
. 1985. Gender, relation and difference in psychoanalytic perspective. In The
future ofdifference, 3-19. H. Eisenstein and A. Jardine, eds. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Collard, Andree. 1988. Rape of the wild: Man’s violence agaimt animals and the earth.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press; London: The Woman’s Press.
Cook, Francis. 1977. Huu-Yen Buddhism: The jewel net of Indra. Pennsylvania: Pennsyl-
vania State University Press. 118-119.
Eckersley, Robyn. 1989. Divining evolution: The ecological ethics of Murray Bookchin.
Environmental Ethics 11: 99-116.
26 Hypatia

Fox, Warwick. 1982. The intuition of deep ecology. Paper presented at Environment,
Ethics and Ecology Conference, Canberra. Also published under the title Deep
ecology: A new philosophy of our time?The Ecologist 14 (1984): 194-200.
. 1986.Approaching deep ecology: A response to Richard Sylvan’s critique ofdeep
ecology. Envimomental Studies Occasional Paper 20. Hobart: University of Tas-
mania Centre for Environmental Studies.
. 1989. The deep ecology-ecofeminism debate and its parallels. Environmental
Ethics 11 : 5-25.
. 1990. Towards a transpersonal ecology: Developing new foundations for environmen-
talism. Boston: Shambala.
Gearhart, Sally Miller. 1982. The Future-if there is one-is female. In Reweaving the
web of life, 266-285. P. McAllister, ed. Philadelphia and Santa Cruz: New Society
Publishers.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
. 1987. Moral orientation and moral development. In Women and moral theory,
19-33. E. Kittay and D. Meyers, eds. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allenheld.
Griffin, Susan. 1978. Woman and nature: The roaring inside her. New York: Harper and
Row.
Grimshaw, Jean. 1986. Philosophy and feminist thinking. Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press. Also published as Feminist philosophers. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Griscom, Joan L. 1981. On healing the naturehistory split in feminist thought. Heresies
4( 1):4-9.
Jaggar, Alison. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman &
Allenheld; Brighton: Harvester.
Kheel, Marti. 1985. The liberation of nature: A circular affair. Environmental Ethics 7:
135-49.
King, Ynestra. 1981. Feminism and revolt. Heresies 4( 1): 12-16.
. 1989. The ecology of feminism and the feminism of ecology. In Heding the
wounds. J. Plant, ed., Philadelphia and Santa Cruz: New Society Publishers.
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A sand county almanac, 201-2. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1983a. Public reason and private passion. Metaphilosophy 14: 308-26.
. 1983b.Reason, gender and morality in the history of philosophy. Socid Research
50(3): 490-513.
. 1984. The man of reason. London: Methuen.
McLuhan T. C., ed. 1973. Touch the earth. London: Abacus.
Miller, Jean Baker. 1976, 1978. Towarda new psychology ofwomen. Boston: Beacon Press;
London: Pelican.
Midgley, Mary. 1983. Animals and why they matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press;
London: Penguin.
Naess, Arne. 1973.The shallow and the deep, long-rangeecology movement: A summary.
Inquiry 16: 95-100.
. 1986. Intrinsic value: Will the defenders of nature please rise. In Conservation
Biology. M. Soule, ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
. 1988. Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neidjie, Bill. 1985. Kakadu man. With S. Davis and A. Fox. Canberra: Mybrood P/L.
Neidjie, Bill and Keith Taylor, eds. 1989. Story about feeling. Wyndham: Magabala Books.
Nicholson, Linda J. 1983. Women, morality and history. Social Research 50(3): 514-36.
 Val Plumwood 27

Plumwood, Val. 1975. Critical notice of Passmore’s Man’s responsibility for nature.
AuscralasianJoumal of Philosophy 53(2): 171-85.
. 1980. Social theories, self-management and environmental problems. In En-
vironmental Philosophy, 217-332. D. Mannison, M. McRobbie, and R.Routley eds.
Canberra: ANU Department of Philosophy Monograph Series RSSS.
. 1986. Ecofeminism: an overview and discussion of positions and arguments. In
Women and philosophy, Supplement to vol. 64 AustrahianJournul of Philosophy (June
1986): 120-38.
.1988,1990. Women, humanity and nature. Radical Philosophy 48: 6-24. Reprinted
in Feminism,socidismandphilosophy:aradicalphilosophyreader. S. Sayers, ed. London:
Routledge.
. 1989. Do we need a sex/gender distinction? Radical Philosophy 51: 2-11.
. 1990. Plato and the bush. Meanjin 49(3): 524-36.
. 1991. Ethics and instrumentalism: A Response to Janna Thompson. Environ-
mental Ethics. Forthcoming.
Poole, Ross. 1984. Reason, self-interest and “commercialsociety”: The social content of
Kantian morality. Critical Philosophy 1: 24-46.
. 1985. Morality, masculinity and the market. Radical Philosophy 39: 16-23.
. 1990.Modernity, rationality and “the masculine.” In Fernininity/Mnsculinity and
representation.T. Threadgold and A. Cranny-Francis,eds. Sydney:George Allen and
Unwin, 1990.
Regan, Tom. 1986. The cme for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Relph, Edward. 1976. Place and pfacekssness. London: Pion.
. 1981. Rational hnscapes and humanistic geography. London: Croom Helm.
Rodman, John. 1980. Paradigm change in political science. American Behuvioural Scientist
24( 1): 54-55.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1975. New woman new earth. Minneapolis: Seabury Press.
Salleh, Ariel. 1984. deeper than deep ecology. Environmental Ethics 6: 339-45.
Seed, John. 1989. Interviewed by Pat Stone. Mother EarthNews (Mayome).
Seed, John, Joanna Macy, Pat Fleming, and Arne Naess. 1988. Thinking like a mountain:
Towards a council ofaU beings Philadelphia and Santa Cruz: New Society Publishers.
Sylvan, Richard. 1985. A critique of deep ecology. Radical Philosophy 40 and 41.
Taylor, Paul. 1986. Respect for nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thomas Aquinas. 1976. Summa contra Gentiks. Bk. 3, Pt. 2, chap. 62. Quoted in Animal
rights and human obligations, 56. T. Regan and P. Singer, eds. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Thompson, Janna. 1990. A refutation of environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics
12(2): 147-60.
Warren, Karen J. 1987. Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics
9: 17-18.
.1990. The power and promise ofecologicalfeminism. Environmental Ethics 12(2):
121-46.
Zimmerman, Michael E. 1987. Feminism, deep ecology, and environmental ethics.
Environmental Ethics 9.