 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Feminist political ecology is afeminist approach withinpolitical ecology, drawing on theories fromMarxism,post-structuralism,feminist geography,ecofeminism andcultural ecology. Feminist political ecology uses feministintersectional frameworks to explore ecological and political issues. Areas of focus include development, landscape, resource use,agrarian reconstruction andrural-urban transformation (Hovorka 2006: 209). Feminist political ecologists argue thatgender is a crucial factor in shaping access to, control over, and knowledge of natural resources.
Feminist political ecology combines three gendered areas:knowledge,environmental rights, andgrassrootsactivism. Gendered knowledge encompasses the maintenance of healthy environments at home, work, and/or in regional ecosystems. Gendered environmental rights include issues of property, resources, space, and legality. Gendered environmental politics and grassroots activism emphasizes the surge in women's involvement in collective struggles over their natural resources.[1]
Mainstream environmental policies are often based ongender-neutral assumptions, overlooking women's knowledge systems in resource management. Hearn and Hein (2015) argue that this approach reflects a traditional decision-making framework that draws a binary distinction between "scientific knowledge" and "local experience," contributing to the marginalization of women's practical knowledge.[2] Mollett (2017) further critiques developmentalist discourse for portraying women primarily as passive victims of environmental crises, rather than subjects with political agency. This narrative conceals structural power inequalities.[3] From apostcolonial perspective, it is revealed that the gender blindness in policies is essentially a continuation of colonial logic, which devalues non-Western ecological knowledge as "irrational".[4]
Reconstruction of economies, environments, and cultures at a global and local level (Mitchell, 2000) has increased the importance of studying the relationship between environments, gender, and development more important. Feminist political ecology rejects gender differences in environmental impact as rooted in biology. Instead, it argues that these differences stem from social constructs of gender, which vary depending on culture, class, race, and geographical location, and change over time across individuals and societies. A key moment in the development of this approach was the publication ofFeminist Political Ecology, edited by Dianne Rocheleauet al. atClark University in 1996. The book not only demonstrated gendered underpinnings in environment and labor patterns but also illustrated the specific negative effects of environmental problems on women (Rocheleauet al. 1996). In contrast, these concerns were largely absent in the better-knownpolitical ecology volumeLiberation Ecologies, which was published in the same year and also developed at Clark (Peet & Watts, 1996).
Feminist political ecology positions itself as central to the understanding of environmental injustice. It challenges the preference for macro-scale solutions in traditional ecological research. Resurrección (2024) proposes the concept of climate coloniality, emphasizing that the bodies of women in the Global South bear multiple forms of exploitation from industrial pollution to reproductive health risks.[5] This exploitation is not only material but also cognitive. For example, quantitative models in disaster research often ignore gendered bodily experiences.[6]
In a study on the Rural Federation of Zambrana-Chacuey (a peasant federation) and an international nongovernmental organization (ENDA-Caribe) in the Dominican Republic, Dianne Rocheleau examines social forestry within the region. The study illustrates that although women are involved in the forestry industry, previous research (including summary statistics and "regional maps of forestry-as-usual" (Rocheleau, 1995: 460) did not represent the "different publics (differentiated by gender, class, locality, and occupation) within the Federation (p. 460)."
The ecological resistance of indigenous women in Latin America contributed to a unique political epistemology. The practise of physically occupying oil fields not only challenges the material consequences of resource exploitation but also deconstructs the linear narrative of developmentalism by juxtaposing gender violence and ecological violence.[7] This practice reveals the colonial roots of the dichotomy between nature and culture, but is often misinterpreted by international environmental organizations as pre-modern nostalgia,[4] exposing the cognitive fracture of cross-scale alliances.[8]
Rocheleau's study draws upon post-structuralism to "expand our respective partial and situated knowledges through a politics of science that goes beyond identity to affinities then work from affinities to coalitions" (p. 459). In other words, the study does not assume that the identity of a person defines them but instead focuses on "affinities" (defined as "based on affiliations, and shared views of interests, subject to change over time"). The purpose of this was to "address women within the context in which they had organized and affiliated themselves" (p. 461). The purpose of the study was to include women in the general study of the area in a way that gave justice to the "ecological and social contexts that sustain their lives" (p. 461), instead of separating them from the context and thereby rendering them invisible.
The symbolic resistance of the ecological movement faces the risk of being co-opted by mainstream discourse. Although the gesture of tree hugging in the Chipko movement constitutes a symbolic protest against commodification,[9] it is often simplified to a cultural landscape at the policy level, thereby avoiding the underlying land rights struggle.[10] This depoliticization process highlights the fundamental contradiction of liberal environmentalism, which romanticizes Southern practices as primitive wisdom but denies their political-economic significance.
In a Botswana study on urban poultry agriculture,Alice J. Hovorka (2006) examines the implications of fast-pacedurbanization on social and ecological relations within a feminist political ecology framework. Men and women are both involved and affected by development issues, and therefore "gender is an integral part of a key element of agrarian change and rural-urban transformation" (Hovorka 2006:209). Before urbanization took off, socially constructed gender roles played a significant part in gendered experiences of the landscape. Gender determined distinct roles, responsibilities and access to resources. Although Botswana women gained the right to vote in 1966, they remain excluded from political power. Gender issues are rarely raised in this country where "powerful conventions restrict women's domain to the household and women's autonomy under male guardianship" (p211). With urbanization, land use is becoming more accessible to Botswana women. However, studies have revealed that "women's access to social status and productive resources remains limited compared to men's" (p213). Traditional gender roles affect women's economic situation, their access to resources and land, their education, and their participation in the labor market.
The neoliberal economic system shifts the cost of ecological restoration to women within households through individualization strategies, forming an oppressive cycle of poverty, unpaid care labor, and environmental risks.[11] This structure is particularly evident in the agricultural sector. Women in Africa preserve biodiversity through seed banks, but are regarded as informal practitioners by national policies.[12] In South Asia, tourism shapes women as providers of green services, but deprives them of decision-making authority over resources.[13] This triple oppression reveals the interconnected mechanism between capitalism and patriarchy.
The core of ecological resistance of the African Seed Bank is the struggle against the cognitive paradigm. The traditional seed exchange system constitutes an implicit critique of agricultural industrialization, but its knowledge system is regarded as a development obstacle by national development frameworks.[14] This exclusion reflects the cognitive hegemony of the modern agricultural paradigm, which relegates local knowledge to the "other" of the modernization process.[15]
Alice Beban expands on these concepts in her research on land tenure in Cambodia, which applies a gender lens. Her study is related to the Cambodian Constitution and Land Law of 2001 which increased private land ownership under land titles.[16] As a result, land owners without formal titles lack land rights and risk loss of land. Women are more vulnerable to insecurity in this situation.[17] Men are more likely to be land owners, and if women are in abusive relationships, they have limited choices as men own the land they rely on.[18] Similar to the Botswana case, women have less political power in this situation.
In 2009 Feminist Political Ecology took a new analytical turn with the publication ofEco-Sufficiency & Global Justice: Women write Political Ecology edited by Ariel Salleh. For further analysis, see Bonnie Kime Scott, 'Righting the Neoliberal Ecology Debt' in theAustralian Women's Book Review volume 22.1 (2010).
Environmental justice research must incorporate an intersectional analysis of race, class, and gender. Spronk (2020) argues that the water crisis in American Black communities is essentially the intersection of institutionalized racism and gender division of labor.[19] Women bear the responsibility of family health care, but are excluded from governance decisions. This intersectional oppression is further complicated in immigrant labor groups, forming a multidimensional deprivation structure.[20]
The fragmented design of the SDGs exposes the deep flaws of instrumental rational governance.[25] Scholars have noted that the disconnection between Goal 5 (gender equality) and environmental goals makes clean energy projects ignore the energy needs in the field of household reproduction. This paradox stems from liberal pluralism simplifying complex socio-ecological relationships into quantifiable indicators,[26] ultimately reproducing rather than dissolving structural injustice.
The technologically neutral discourse of the EU's Green New Deal conceals institutional exclusion. Karpinska and Śmiech (2023)[27] found that the energy poverty of elderly women in Eastern Europe is attributed to individual choices, rather than barriers to access to photovoltaic cooperatives. This cognitive distortion stems from neoliberalism reconstructing structural oppression as individual responsibility,[28] thereby avoiding the analysis of power relations in policy design.
Visualization technology is not only a research tool, but also a political practice of cognitive struggle. Dadey's (2022)[29] drone mapping project revealed that the systematic erasure of women's farming areas in the land registration system constitutes a form of epistemic violence. The innovative significance of this approach lies in challenging the cognitive hegemony of state spatial governance,[30] and transforming "informal rights" into political facts that can be claimed.
The oral history method reconstructs the narratives of the marginalized and deconstructs the objectivity claim of mainstream discourse. The intergenerational stories of fisherwomen recorded by the oral history method reconstructs the narratives of the marginalized and deconstructs the objectivity claim of mainstream discourse. The intergenerational stories of fisherwomen recorded by Andrews et al.[31] reveal how coastal privatization destroys community livelihood networks, and this narrative constitutes a fundamental challenge to the developmentalist, progressive narrative. At the methodological level, the objective facade of quantitative data often conceals the value of women's ecological practices,[32] and narratives can restore the suppressed local ontology.[31] reveal how coastal privatization destroys community livelihood networks, and this narrative constitutes a fundamental challenge to developmentalist and progressive narrative. At the methodological level, apparent objectivity of quantitative data often conceals the value of women's ecological practices,[32] and narratives can restore the suppressed local ontology.
The application of climate technology often replicates existing gender power structures. George (2024) argues that the design of disaster warning apps is based on the assumption of male mobility, ignoring the digital access barriers faced by rural women.[33] This technology-neutral myth is further reflected in pregnancy health apps, and the cultural biases implicit in the interface design become a mechanisms of exclusion.[34]
The application of blockchain in fair trade exposes the inherent contradictions of green capitalism.[35] The application of blockchain in fair trade exposes the inherent contradictions of green capitalism. Although technology can trace the ecological contributions of female producers, its data ownership structure perpetuates the cognitive deprivation of the North in relation to the South.[35] This ethical certification system converts local knowledge into commodities through data capture,[36] but fails to establish equitable mechanisms for benefit sharing.
The critique of the essentialist tendencies of ecofeminism drives the transformation of theoretical paradigms.[37] It also emphasizes that the romantic narrative of women as guardians of nature conceals class and racial differences, such as the exploitation of Dalit women's labor by high-caste environmentalists. This requires going beyond identity politics and building liberatory alliances across species and genders, anchoring ecological struggles in the reconstruction of power relations rather than essentialist assumptions.[38]
| Academic fields | ||
|---|---|---|
| Related subjects | ||
| Feminist theorists |
| |
| Lists | ||
.svg)
