105 Prakriti and Shakti: An Ecofeminist Perspective PRAKRITI AND SHAKTI: AN ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE Geetika Khanduja This article draws on the ecofeminist ideology to understand the vagaries of Green Revolution in India and its impact on women. It draws parallels between patriarchy and capitalism and suggests that the various lenses such as dualism, marxism and the reductionist view of science are limited to understand the violence inflicted upon women and nature by men and the capitalist class. It takes a critical view of the popular scientific paradigm that favours expertise over generalist knowledge and the propagation of monocultures as more scientifically sound than diversified farming. Using various analogies, the paper illustrates the ideology of treating women and nature as mere surrogates in society and the repercussions of shiſting towards intensive agriculture from a subsistence- based approach. INTRODUCTION Ecofeminism can be defined as a movement that sees a connection between the exploitation and degradation of the natural world and the subordination and oppression of women. It emerged in the mid- 1970s alongside second wave feminism and the green movement. Ecofeminism brings together elements of the feminist and the green movements, while at the same time offering a challenge to both. It takes from the green movement a concern about the impact of human activities on the non-human world and from feminism, the view of humanity as gendered in ways that subordinate, exploit and oppress women (Mellor Mary 1997). The term was for the first time coined by Francoise D’ Eaubonne in 1980 and gained popularity in protests and actions against continued ecological disasters. Most forms of ecofeminism rely on historical analysis of ideology, according to which the oppression of nature and women emerged with a western ideology known by the name – patriarchy. This western idea of patriarchy is built on the worldview of ‘dualism’ which categorizes the world into opposing pairs of concepts; one concept is deemed superior to the other in the pair and the other in this category is demonized and
Transcript
105Prakriti and Shakti: An Ecofeminist Perspective
PRAKRITI AND SHAKTI: AN ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVEGeetika Khanduja
This article draws on the ecofeminist ideology to understand the vagaries of Green Revolution in India and its impact on women. It draws parallels between patriarchy and capitalism and suggests that the various lenses such as dualism, marxism and the reductionist view of science are limited to understand the violence inflicted upon women and nature by men and the capitalist class. It takes a critical view of the popular scientific paradigm that favours expertise over generalist knowledge and the propagation of monocultures as more scientifically sound than diversified farming. Using various analogies, the paper illustrates the ideology of treating women and nature as mere surrogates in society and the repercussions of shifting towards intensive agriculture from a subsistence-based approach.
INTRODUCTION
Ecofeminism can be defined as a movement that sees a connectionbetween the exploitation and degradation of the naturalworld andthesubordinationandoppressionofwomen. Itemergedinthemid-1970s alongside second wave feminism and the green movement. Ecofeminism brings together elements of the feminist and the green movements, while at the same time offering a challenge to both. Ittakesfromthegreenmovementaconcernabouttheimpactofhumanactivities on the non-human world and from feminism, the view of humanityasgenderedinwaysthatsubordinate,exploitandoppresswomen(MellorMary1997).ThetermwasforthefirsttimecoinedbyFrancoiseD’Eaubonnein1980andgainedpopularityinprotestsandactions against continued ecological disasters.
Most forms of ecofeminism rely on historical analysis of ideology, accordingtowhichtheoppressionofnatureandwomenemergedwithawesternideologyknownbythename–patriarchy.Thiswesternideaofpatriarchyisbuiltontheworldviewof‘dualism’whichcategorizestheworldintoopposingpairsofconcepts;oneconceptisdeemedsuperiortotheotherinthepairandtheotherinthiscategoryisdemonizedand
106 Jindal Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 1
alwaysdiscriminatedagainst.Ecofeminismdemandsaradicalcritiqueofthecategoriesofnatureandculturetogetherwithanaffirmationofthedegradedpartnerinallthepatriarchaldualities.Femininequalitiessuch as co-operation, nurturing, being supportive, nonviolence andsensualityareespeciallyappropriateforcreatinganenvironmentallyaware society. Because ofwomen’s greater bodily involvementwiththenatural functions surrounding reproduction, she is seenasmoreapartofnature thanmen.Yet, inpartbecauseofher consciousnessand participation in human social dialogue, she is recognized as aparticipant in culture. Thus, she appears as something intermediatebetween culture and nature, lower on the scale of transcendence than men(Sherry1972)
Therefore by virtue of this spiritual feminism, the larger onus ofprotecting the environment andpreserving the richbiodiversity liesonwomen’s shouldersdue to thembeingmore sensitive and awareof the atrocities felt by Mother Earth. Amidst the hue and cry for ecofeminism lie a series of revolutions by the mankind to tame nature. One of the most important results of these ecological revolutionsinitiatedbythecapitaliststookasocialcharacterandaffectedthelivesofthewomeninvolvedconsiderably.The“CornMother”traditionsofIndianagriculturehadaccordedwomenaplaceofprominence,evensome power as producers of food. But asMerchant notes, “PuritanFathers”alsobroughtwiththemideasthatlegitimatedthesubjugationof wilderness and the subjugation of women (Merchant 1993). Tothese colonists, civilizing a particular race meant converting theirfemale-dominated subsistence farming into male-dominated settledand intensive agriculture. The dualism analogy which Merchant draws in her book in the situational context of New England on how thistransformationtookplacecanbeappliedintheIndiancontextaswell.Therefore,thedichotomiesofhoeversusplough,fireversussaw,arrowversusguns,shiftingversussettledagriculture,huntingversusanimalhusbandry,femaleversusmalesinthefield,equilibriumversusgrowth,tribalterritoriesversusprivatepropertycanbeseenincaseofthe Indian ecological revolution.
In this context of understanding eco-feminism, spirituality becomeshighly significant, as this spiritual dimension of life is actually therealizationthateverythingintheworldisconnectedandinterdependent.Spirituality is largelyseen identical towomen’ssexualenergywhichis theirmostprecious life forceand links them toeachotherand tootherlifeforms.Itisthelovewithoutwhichnolifecanblossom;itisthismagicwhichiscontainedineverything.Thus,spiritualityinthe
107Prakriti and Shakti: An Ecofeminist Perspective
ecofeminist context endeavours to heal Mother Earth and to re-enchant the world.
Apartfromthispairing,akindofhierarchyofvalueiscreatedaroundcommonprejudicesof sexismandspecie-ism.Within thepatriarchalconceptual framework, all the attributes related to masculinity aregiven higher status or prestige than those associatedwith feminity,re-enforcing the idea of hierarchical dualism (Warren 1987).All theecofeministsconfirmtotheopinionthatthislogicofdominationalongwithvalue-hierarchicalthinkingandvaluedualismsisresponsibleforsustainingand justifying the twindominationofwomenandnature(Warren1990).Foreco-feministstherefore,thedominationofwomenand nature is basically rooted in ideology.
DEVELOPMENT, GENDER AND SCIENCE
The ecofeminist theoryhasbrought into attention the linksbetweendevelopmentandgenderbyhighlightingthefactthatviolenceagainstwomenandnaturearebothbuiltintotheprocessofdevelopment.ThiskindofunderstandingofecofeminismresonatesespeciallywellintheworksofVandanaShivaandMariaMieswhichseekstohighlighttherelevanceofanalternativetocapitalistpatriarchywhichhasworsenedtheconditionsforwomenaswellasnatureinthewakeofglobalization.Theyareexplicitlyanti-warandanti-capitalistbecausebothwarandcapitalismareseenaspatriarchalstructures.
Theyalsoviewthedevastationoftheearthandherbeingsbythecorporatewarriors as feminist concerns. It is the same masculine mentality which would deny us the right to our own bodies and our own sexuality and which depends onmultiple systems of dominance and state powerto have itsway (Shiva,Mies and Salleh 2014).Here, patriarchy andcapitalism are similar in effect in that they colonise reproductionbyway of establishing control overwomen’s body and in a similarmanner, control and domination over nature by the capitalists.Whether it is nature’s productive function of producing anynaturalresourceorwomen’sreproductivefunctionofgivingbirthtooffspring,the dominance of the capitalist enterprise prevails. For Shiva, thereisa connectionbetween theescalationofwar,“musclemen”culture,rapeandotherviolenceagainstwomen. It isnocoincidencethat thegruesomegameofwarinwhichthegreaterpartofthemalesexseemsto delight passes through the same stages as the traditional sexualrelationship:aggression,conquest,possessionandcontrol.Ofawomanoraland,itmakeslittledifference(Shiva,MiesandSalleh2014).
108 Jindal Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 1
Thefoundationalconstructwhichliesattherootofscientificrevolutionsis the reductionist view of science and technology. This reductionist science is a source of violence both against women and nature as it subjugates and dispossesses them of their full productivity, powerand potential. The epistemological and ontological assumptions ofreductionismpermituniformitythatknowledgeofpartsofthesystemcanbeunderstoodastheknowledgeofthewhole.Divisibilitypermitscontext-free abstraction of knowledge and creates criteria of validity basedonalienationandnon-participation,whichisthenprojectedas‘objectivity’. ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’ are thus projected as the onlylegitimateseekersafterandproducersofknowledge.(Shiva,MiesandSalleh2014)
Science itself being a product of social forces has a social agendaattachedtoitwhichisdeterminedbythosewhocanmobilizescientificproduction.But,incontemporarytimesthescientificactivityhasbeenassigned a privileged epistemological position of being socially andpoliticallyneutralthusbringinginadualcharacter.Althoughitofferstechnologicalfixesforthesocialandpoliticalproblems,sciencedelinksitselffromthenewsocialandpoliticalproblemsthatitcreates.Reflectingtheprioritiesandperceptionsofaparticularclass,genderorculturalinterests,scientificthoughtorganizesandtransformsthenaturalandsocialorder.However, sincebothnatureandsocietyhave theirownorganization,thesuperimpositionofaneworderdoesnotnecessarilytakeplaceperfectlyandsmoothly.Thereisoftenresistancefrompeopleandnature, a resistancewhich is externalizedas ‘unanticipated sideeffects’. Science stays immune from social assessment and insulatedfrom its own impacts.Through this split identity the ‘sacredness’ ofscience is created.
“Neither God nor tradition is privileged with the same credibility as scientific rationality in modern cultures…The project that science’s sacredness makes taboo is the examination of science in just the ways any other institution or set of social practices can be examined.”
—Harding,Sandra(1986)
Reductionist science is at the root of the growing ecological crises because it entails a transformation of nature which in turn destroys its organicprocesses,rhythmsandregenerativecapacities(Shiva&Mies2014). In this sense, thewombsofwomenand seeds (nature) as thesourceofregenerativepowerbecomethelastcoloniestobecapturedby the capitalist patriarchy. Herein the reproductive creativities of
109Prakriti and Shakti: An Ecofeminist Perspective
women and nature are transformed into a resource and into a non-valueattributetowhichvalueisprovidedbythetechnologicalexpert.The sources of renewal and regeneration of life are transformed into inertandfragmentedmatter,mererawmaterialstobeprocessedintoraw materials. The degradation of the value of the actual owners and creatorswhoareturnedintopassivesitesbytheactofdevelopmentand improvement gives away to separation or alienation,which inturnhelpsinestablishingbettercontrolandownershipoverthenewlydiscoveredresourcesandthecycledeepens.
CAPITALISM, TECHNOLOGY AND EXPLOITATION
Theseshiftsofvalueintonon-value,labourintonon-labour,creativityinto passivity, destruction into production are exemplified in thetakeoverofbiological reproductionbycapitaland technology. It canbeunderstoodusing theMarxian lens in amanner that thepeasantbecomes poorer as he produces more wealth and his productionincreasesinpowerandsizethroughtheuseoftechnology.AccordingtoMarx, thedevaluationof theworldofmenis indirectproportionto the increasing value of the world of things. So, the farmer becomes an ever-cheaper commodity as he creates more commodities andthis act of development thus creates a vicious circle of poverty andobjectification.Thefarmerinthisparticularcaseofsubsistence-basedfarming is, unfortunately, a woman most of the times.
VandanaShivainoneofherbooksillustratesthepointthatecologicaland ethnic fragmentation and breakdown are intimately connected andareanintrinsicpartofapolicyofplanneddestructionofdiversityinnatureandculturetocreatetheuniformitydemandedbycentralizedmanagementsystems(Shiva2010).Thisisindeedtrueifweconsiderthecreationandpropagationofaparticularkindofexpertknowledgeasmorescientificthanthe lessspecificone, inordertoconstruct thediscourseofthetimeandprovidelegitimacytoit.Thefacilitatorofthisseemingly legitimate shift is the knowledge-power nexus (Foucault1980) and then the powerful capitalists through their politicalconnectionsuse thisknowledge forpropagatingscientific tamperinginthenameofdevelopment.Developmentthenbecomesastrategytocombat scarcity and dominate nature to generate material abundance. Underthepretextoffulfillingthesamemotive,GreenRevolutionwasprescribed as a techno-politic strategy thatwould create abundancein agricultural societies and also reduce the threat of communist insurgencyandagrarianconflict.Inthisknowledge-powerconstruct,
110 Jindal Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 1
science and politics were strategically wedded together in the veryinceptionofGreenRevolution.
TheGreenRevolutionisoftentoutedasbeingoneoftheindependentIndia’s most outstanding achievements. But, behind the widelybroadcastimagesoffullgranariesandanexportablegrainsurplusliea grim tale of environmental and social carnage. The introduction of capitalism,throughthisrevolution,hasalteredthewaylandwasseenbythepeasants.Whatwasalivelihoodandfoodproviderforthefamilyhasnowbecomeasourceofcapitalaccumulation.Thiscommodificationof land has brought about a drastic change in the relationship thefarmer shares with herself, her land and her community.
Thisrevolutionhaditsimpactonthewomenofthenationaswellasthe ecology of the motherland which is also treated as a feminist entity. Traditionally, women have been active farm managers in India and also havebeenplayingamajorrole inmanagingothernaturalresources.Whilemenviewthenatureasamereresourcetobecommercializedandbeprofitedupon,womenaremoreconcernedwithfulfillingtheirdomestic needs through minimum harm to the environment. The societies had to not only bear the brunt of such resource destruction but it also led to the destruction of their ecologically sound traditional technologies.Nature’seconomyandwomen’ssurvivaleconomywerereplaced by the market economy which marginalized the womengroupsinvolvedinsubsistenceagriculturetowardsimpoverishment.
Womenhavealsobeenprimeinnovatorsinthedomainofsubsistenceagriculture.Additionally,grandmother’s treasure troveshavebeenarepositoryoftheindigenouswisdomcollectedovertheyears.Throughthetechnologicalinnovationsandcapitalistconquestovernature,thisindigenousknowledgealsogetsdestroyedandnatureisplunderedofits regenerative value. This violence of capitalismwas seen throughthe introductionofhybridvarietiesofseeds,chemical fertilizersandpesticidesanduseofadvancedequipmentandwasfacilitatedthroughthecaptureofseedinitsorganicform.Indianwomenhavebeenmoreconcerned about a survival subsistence perspective relative to menwhoareofthegeneralopinionthatscience,technologyandthemarketmechanisms can take care of the economic and ecological well-being.
Shiva(1997)inherbookonbio-piracycomesupwiththeargumentastohow thegreen revolutionparadigmofagriculture substituted theregenerative nutrient cyclewith linear flows of purchased inputs ofchemicalfertilizersfromfactoriesandmarketedoutputsofagriculturalcommodities.Thesoilwasrobbedofitsinherentpropertyofrestoring
111Prakriti and Shakti: An Ecofeminist Perspective
its fertility by the chemicals; the earth was in a way viewed as anemptyvesselwiththeconnotationofpassivityattachedwithher,whileactivity lay in themiracle seedswhich transcendednature’s fertilitycycles. By treating organic inputs as waste, the Green Revolutionstrategy unwittingly ensured that productive and fertile soils laidwaste;land-augmentingtechnologyalsoprovedtobeland-degradingand land-destroying one. The excessive use of nitrogen-based chemical fertilizerspollutedthesoil,waterandtheairalikeandhasthusledtotheerosionoffoodsecurity(Shiva2010).
MONOCULTURE, ACCUMULATION & ALIENATION
This shift has come coupledwith another kind of transition amonghumankind, species being getting alienated from nature.Accordingto Marx, the worker can create nothing without nature, without the sensuous external world. It is the material on which his labour his realized, inwhichit isactive,fromwhich,andbymeansofwhichitproduces.Aswe aremoving from subsistence tomoremechanizedfarming without taking into consideration the plight of nature i.e.Marx’sworker is by his labor appropriating the externalworld, themoreheisdeprivinghimselfofmeansoflifeintworespects:firstinthe sense that the sensuous external world more and more ceases to beanobjectbelongingtohislabor-tobehislabor’smeansoflife;andsecondly, in that it more and more ceases to be means of life in the immediate sense, means for the physical subsistence of the worker(EconomicandPhilosophicManuscriptsof1844).
Biodiversityconservationdependsontherightsoflocalcommunitiesto enjoy the fruits of their efforts.Alienation of these rights rapidlyleads to the erosion of biodiversity, and which in turn threatens ecologicalsurvivalandeconomicwell-being.Apartfromdisruptingtheindigenouspractices,GreenRevolutionwasalsointendedtodestroythewidevarietyofplantspecieswhichareatrademarkofthetropicalregionsbyvirtueoftheirfavourableclimaticconditions.Itpromotedthepracticeofmonocultureswhichisawayofhomogenizingandhencetakingaway theveryessenceof the richbiodiversity. It is especiallytrue in the age of globalization because, in a quest for bringing inuniformity and integration in the global markets, monocultures become imperative for the capitalist class. There is a generalmisconceptionthatdiversity-basedproductionsystemsarelow-productivitysystems.However,thehighproductivityofuniformandhomogenoussystemsis a contextual and theoretically constructed category, based on taking
112 Jindal Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 1
into account only one-dimensional yields and outputs. The allegedlow-productivityoftheoneagainsttheallegedhighproductivityoftheotheris,therefore,notaneutral,scientificmeasurebutbiasedtowardscommercial interests for whom maximizing the one-dimensionaloutputisaneconomicimperative(Shiva,Mies&Salleh2014)
Monoculturecanbeseenasawaroraformofviolenceagainstnature’sdiverse species which pushes species towards extinction and thushelps in its own self-propagation. Green Revolution also unleashedviolence against nature by destroying the diverse ecosystems of theplanet andglobalizing the cultureandeconomyofan industrialagriculture.Itisresponsibleforwipingoutthousandsofcropvarietiesand substituting themwithmonocultures of rice, wheat andmaizeacross theThirdWorld (Shiva 1997). The current conditionof stateslikePunjab,HaryanaandotherstateswhowerethedirectbenefactoroftheGreenRevolutionspeaksvolumesaboutthetwo-sidedtaleofthenot so green revolution. Soils have become toxic due to excessive use ofthenitrogenousfertilizers;groundwatertablehassunkbelowsafeandreplenish-ablelevels;thetraditionallygrownvarietieshavebeenlostinthepast,littlevarietyinthefoodgrainchoiceshasresultedinreduced nutrients in our daily diet. So not only has it led to ecological degradation but has also changed the societal structures based on mutual obligations within the cultivators and affected the wholepoliticaleconomyoftheagriculturalsectorcomprisingofthevillages,financialinstitutions,governmentandotherstateinstitutions.
CONCLUSION
Theconsequencesofestablishingdominationovernaturearefarrangingandencompassnotonlytheenvironmentalaspectsbutcoverthewholepolitical,economicandsocialspectrumofacountry.Theneo-colonistsin the form of big corporations and technologists are given leeway,underthepretextofdevelopmentandfoodsecuritytomanipulateandtamperwiththeagrariansocietywhichIndiahasalwaysbeen.Itishightime that the ecofeminist concerns come to the fore and are addressed throughproperpolicyactionlestweloseconnectionwithnature.Thisbelongingness with the ecology is the very foundation of life and is the inherent characteristic of the life in its elemental form. In that light, therefore,itbecomesimperativetofreethenaturefromtheclutchesofthecapitalistpatriarchymoresointhecountriesoftheeastlikeIndiawherenature,alsocalled‘Prakriti‘isconsidereddivineandiscelebratedsinceancienttimes.Timeisripetorestoretheregenerativecapacities
113Prakriti and Shakti: An Ecofeminist Perspective
Burn our land burn our dreamspour acid onto our songscover with sawdustthe blood of our massacred peoplemuffle with your technologythe screams of all that is free,wild and indigenous.DestroyDestroyOur grass and soilRaze to the groundevery farm and every villageour ancestors had builtevery book, every lawand all the equity and harmony.Flatten with your bombsevery valley; erase with your editsour past,our literature; our metaphorDenude the forestsand the earth till no insect,no birdno wordcan find a place to hide.Do that and more.I do not fear your tyranny I do not despair everfor I guard one seeda little live seedthat I shall safeguardand plant again.
Poverty Programmes: Room for Revision? The Journal of Development Studies,vol.44,no.2,pp.165-197.
Harding,S1986,The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Mellor, M 1997, Feminism & ecology, 1st edition, New York University Press, WashingtonSquare,NewYork.
Merchant, C 1993, Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England. 3rd edition, University of North Carolina Press, London.
Ortner, S 1972, Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture? Feminist Studies, vol.1,no.2,pp.5-31.
Shiva,V,Mies,M&Salleh,A2014,Ecofeminism, 1st edition, Zed Books, London.Shiva,V1991,The Violence of the green revolution, 1st edition, Zed Books, London.Shiva,V1997,Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. 1st ed, South End
