Bridging Feminism, Ecology, and Logic: The Eco-Feminist Perspective

What does feminism have to do with ecology? This intersection is known as eco-feminism. But then, what role does logic play in this discourse? Ecology, as defined in my dictionary, is "the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings." At a glance, one might see how a feminist lens could be applied to such relations, given that feminism critically examines the dynamics between men and women. However, if we were to limit the connection to this parallel alone, the link between feminism and ecology might seem tenuous. Eco-feminism, therefore, is not merely about drawing superficial parallels but about applying and, in some cases, generalizing the critical insights of feminism regarding the relationships between men and women to those between humans and the non-human world.

Eco-feminism, in essence, extends the feminist critique of the relationship between men and women to include our interactions with non-human animals and nature. While it's clear that animals and nature do not engage in societal functions as humans do—they don't marry or form political parties—the focus of eco-feminism is on identifying connections rather than dwelling on these differences.

Val Plumwood, a philosopher and logician, performed a conceptual analysis of the power dynamics between men and women in terms of "dualism", offering a systematic framework for understanding not only the relationship between man and women, but other relationships such as that between humans and animals or nature. A dualism “results from a denied dependency on a subordinated other. Denied dependency determines a logical structure of domination/subordinatio that shapes the identity of both the relata.”(Plumwood, p.41).

Dualism encompasses various binaries, such as master/slave, reason/passion, men/women, and extending to human/animals and human/nature. Plumwood, applying her analytical logician skills, delineates necessary and sufficient conditions for a dualism, including "backgrounding," "hyperseparation," "relational definition," "instrumentalism," and "stereotyping." These conditions collectively push the subordinated side into the background, completely separating and negating it, using it for the dominant side's ends, and generalizing it into a uniform class that is silenced and exploited.

Although I'm simplifying the concept for brevity, the aim is to illustrate how Plumwood's analysis of dualism links the dynamics between men and women to those between humans and the rest of the natural world.

Now, how does logic tie into this? Once we identify a conceptual framework like Plumwood's, we can explore the logic that maintains the coherence of these conditions. Plumwood argues that classical logic, with its rigid structures, is particularly suited to upholding the integrity of dualisms. For example, the concept of hyperseparation in dualism resonates with the logical principle of explosion, which I discuss in Logic in the Wild. This principle posits that any contradiction within a theory trivializes it, highlighting a strict intolerance for contradiction. Such intolerance is crucial for maintaining dualisms, as acknowledging overlap between the dominant and subordinated could undermine the artificial separations—such as those between master and slave, or men and women—maintained by societal constructs.

And that, according to Plumwood, is what links feminism, ecology and logic.

Reference: Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Opening Out. London ; Routledge, 1993.