Nature plays a great role in children’s lives. As Peter H. Kahn and Stephen R. Kellert (2002, p. vii) assert, “for much of human evolution, the natural world constituted one of the important contexts children encountered during their critical years of maturation.” Dobrin and Kidd (2004, p. 5) also believe that “childhood experiences in, of, and with the natural world are often deeply formative.” In this respect, children’s experiences and impressions of the natural world are very important in shaping their awareness of nature. As has been noted, “trees, gardens, animals, water and views provide many physically and emotionally healing benefits, in addition to enhancing a child’s knowledge of the natural world. Indeed, if we are to save this planet, exposing children to the wonders of nature at a very young age is essential” (Olds, 2001, 78). Understanding nature and the inhabitants of the natural world is a key element in raising children’s awareness of the importance of the preservation and protection of nature from destruction. It is not surprising then that saving nature is a common theme in children’s literature.

The emergence of ecological issues in works for children aiming to create awareness of ecological problems resulted in studies probing children’s literature from an ecocritical perspective (Dobrin and Kidd 2004; Mackenzie et al., 2014; Goga et al., 2018; Kerslake 2018; Liam 2018). The term “ecocriticism,” Dobrin and Kidd (2004, p. 2) note, “was introduced in 1978 by William Rueckert … but did not become popularly used until …1989 … when Cheryll Glotfelty employed the word as part of a vocabulary for a critical approach to studying nature writing.” Glotfelty (1996, p. xix) defines ecocriticism as examining the “interconnections between nature and culture, specifically the culture artifacts of language and literature … [A]s a theoretical discourse, it negotiates between the human and non-human.” One basic tenet of ecocriticism is that “human culture is connected to the physical world, affecting it and affected by it” (Glotfelty, 1996, p. xix). Thus, ecocriticism seeks to highlight and reinforce the interrelationship between humans and nature.

Part of this integral connection is the relation between women and nature, and children and nature. In this respect, ecofeminism has become an essential, overt framework through which works for children are approached. Dobrin and Kidd (2004, p. 10) argue that “it is critical to recognize that any ecocritical look at children’s literature must include ecofeminist perspectives.” David Rudd (2010, p. 169) also believes that “ecofeminism, a more critical branch of ecocriticism, has much to offer children’s literature” when it comes to the “criticism” of the “domination of discourses around individual maturation that keep the human subject forever at the center.” The term ecofeminism was coined by the French feminist Françoise D’Eaubonne in her book Le Feminism ou la Mort (1974), which “called upon women to lead an ecological revolution to save the planet” (Eaton, 2005, p. 3). Combining ecocriticism or ecology with feminism, ecofeminism seeks to highlight the relation between women and nature on one hand, and the relation between the patriarchal domination and the degradation of women and nature, on the other. Gaard (1993, p. 1) briefly describes ecofeminism as “a theory that has evolved from various fields of feminist inquiry and activism: peace movements, labor movements, women’s health care, and the anti-nuclear, environmental, and animal liberation movements.” She adds that, “drawing on the insights of ecology, feminism, and socialism, ecofeminism’s basic premise is that the ideology which authorizes oppressions such as those based on race, class, gender, sexuality, physical abilities, and species is the same ideology which sanctions the oppression of nature” (p. 1). Ecofeminism originated as a form of political activism in the 1970 and 1980s, but it was in the 1990s that it began to be examined in relation to literature, as Gaard and Murphy (1998, p. 5) assert: “In the 1990s ecofeminism is finally making itself felt in literary studies. Critics are beginning to make the insights of ecofeminism a component of literary criticism.” Ecofeminism thus examines the relation between the subjugation of women and nature. To Gaard (1993, p. 1), the aim of ecofeminism is to “end to all oppressions, arguing that no attempt to liberate women (or any other oppressed group) will be successful without an equal attempt to liberate nature.” Similarly, Karren Warren (2000, pp. 1–2) emphasizes the importance of viewing ecological problems through a feminist lens: “trees, water, food production, animals, toxins, and, more generally, naturism (i.e. the unjustified domination of nonhuman nature) are feminist issues because understanding them helps one understand the interconnections among the dominations of women … and the domination of nonhuman nature.”

In the context of children’s literature, the aim of ecofeminism is to liberate children from the dominance of adults and to engage and empower children to play a positive role in ecological issues. Realizing that children also suffer from “environmental exploitation” (Ruthanne Kurth-Schai, 1997, p. 198), ecofeminists attempt to promote an inclusive vision in which children can have an important role in saving and protecting the environment. Recent studies have noted that writers have been using young green heroines. For example, several writers for children have explored the impact of Greta Thunberg and produced non-fiction biographies about her (Moriarty 2021). Such books are focused on the biographies of real green girls. Recently, there has also been academic interest in ecofeminism within children’s fiction (Hoing 2022). However, children’s theater has hitherto been neglected. This makes the present study a fresh contribution to this field. Kelly and Walter Eggers (2010, p. xi) assert that children’s theater “has a supreme power to affect the [children’s] personal and social development.” Exploring children’s theater through an ecofeminist lens is a way to show how the children’s ecological awareness is enhanced though the theatrical experience. This paper examines two award-winning American plays for children through an ecofeminist lens: Baba Yaga and the Black Sunflower (2000) by Carol Korty and The Girl Who Swallowed a Cactus (2020) by Eric Coble. It proposes that the two plays, which target late childhood (8–13 years old) and reflect different cultures, are examples of ecofeminist works that foreground and empower young girls to become actively involved in the protection of nature. This article aims to focus on the young girls in the two plays who, compared with the boys, are given a more influential and bigger role in preserving nature, thus highlighting the responsibility of women/girls in becoming role models to men/boys, to save nature.

Carol Korty is an American Professor Emerita at Emerson College. She is a children’s writer and director who has rewritten several dramatizations of famous folktales. Baba Yaga and the Black Sunflower, as stated in the author’s note, “was first developed at Department of Theatre and Dance in the School of Performing Arts at the University of Maine, … in 2014 and subsequently toured to 10 schools in Maine with an ensemble of university students” (p. 4). The play won several awards, including the American Alliance for Theatre and Education Unpublished Play Reading Project Award, and the Kennedy Center New Visions, New Voices Award. Korty (2018, p. 5) asserts that it is “inspired by traditional Russian folktales of the complicated character Baba Yaga, who has been seen alternately as goddess, witch, shaman, crone, helper and destroyer.” It deals with the orphan girl Maryushka who is bullied by the people in her village. To borrow Geraldine Massey and Clare Bradford’s words (2011, p. 117), the play “is built on a humanist trope common in children’s texts: the predicament of the outsider rejected by his community, who eventually earns respect by being true to himself.” To escape loneliness, Maryushka believes that the forest can act as the refuge to protect her from the people, who see her as lazy and good for nothing because she does not conform to their roles (doing household chores and harvesting the crops). Maryushka, unlike the rest of the people in the village, wishes to be free and to venture into the woods every day. Eventually, her journey into the woods brings her to Baba Yaga, who steals Maryushka’s baby brother as a punishment for Maryushka’s act of picking a black sunflower. To retrieve her brother, Maryushka agrees to complete the three tasks assigned to her by Baba Yaga. With the completion of the tasks, Maryushka’s character develops as she learns the importance of nature. The journey into the woods helps her find her inner strength and gain her rightful position in the village. Thus, this unwanted, ostracized, and marginalized girl learns the true value and power of nature.

Eric Coble is also a well-known American playwright for young audiences. Coble’s works have been performed all around the United States. His play, The Girl Who Swallowed a Cactus, won the AATE Distinguished Play Award for Best Adaptation in 2022. This play, as mentioned in the author’s note, “was workshopped and presented as a rehearsed reading in April 2018 at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as part of New Visions/New Voices 2018” (2020, p. 4). The play was “subsequently premiered in October 2019 at Metro Theater Company” (2020, p. 4). The Girl Who Swallowed a Cactus revolves around the brave young girl, Sheila, who decides to reconcile with the natural world and its inhabitants after discovering the injustice done by humans to the natural world. One night she and her friends build a tree house with all the junk material that is discarded in the desert. After the construction is over, they accidentally witness a raid by the animals on their world which ends in stealing an orange traffic cone from their tree house. Curious to learn the identity of the thieves, they follow the animals and discover that the stolen items from the tree house and the junk left in the desert have been collected by the animals for their war against humans, as a just retaliation for the destruction done to their world. By giving voice to the animals, Coble shows how Sheila realizes the harm done to nature and attempts to end it.

The protagonists of both plays are positioned at the center of the conflict between humans and nature, thus exposing the systems of domination, hegemony, and exploitation that ecofeminists aim to bring to light. These plays, which have not previously been discussed critically, were selected as texts in which young girls are given a central and active role in protecting the natural world from the harm caused by adults. The girls’ resistance and struggle to protect nature and to stand against their communities is the central force that influences the action and influences the other characters to save nature. Moreover, the plays raise awareness about the importance of saving and coexisting with animals. In revealing the connection between the two young girls and nature and their decision to take a stand in saving and protecting the natural and human worlds, the plays reveal the “two principal tasks” that ecofeminists seek to fulfill: “to expose this logic of domination and to seek alternatives that replace destructive ways of relating to each other and nature” (Harvester and Blenkinsop, 2010, p. 123). This paper will argue for a view of the plays as ecofeminist texts that deconstruct patriarchal views of nature while constructing alternative views that empower girls to become active protectors of nature and seekers of change.

The Natural World Versus the Human World: Oppositions and Threats

In the two selected plays, the natural and human worlds are portrayed as two separate, distant, and even opposing worlds. The plays introduce the human characters as residing away from nature. The moment the worlds come into close contact, threats arise. Significantly, both plays show how the young girls are the link between nature and humans. In Baba Yaga and the Black Sunflower, Maryushka’s connection to nature is stressed throughout. She is the little village girl who is mocked by the little boy in the village, Vanya, as well as by the Starukhe, “the bossy farm women” (p. 9), who call her “wild one.” The Starukhe seem to reiterate the male narrative that confirms the need to control women and nature. As Carolyn Merchant puts it (1996, p. 132), “like wild chaotic nature, women needed to be subdued and kept in their place.” In the author’s note, Carol Korty (2000, p. 9) explains what “wild” means: “Maryushka … chafes at the confines of her village and longs for power. She loves the world of nature, but most of the villagers don’t like its wildness - or the wildness in her.” Thus, the wild is found in both: nature and Maryushka. This view coincides with Irene Klaver’s belief that the term “the wild” is characteristic of both humans and nonhumans: “Wildness pervades us if we are open to it and participate in it. It is implicit in us and we in it” (1995, p. 124). In this respect, “the wild … is characterized as a quality that escapes both social control and fixed conceptual definitions … Therefore, it is impossible to demarcate wild nature in geographical areas or as a disparate process” (Kronlid, 2003, p. 38). The “wild” then “is what connects humans with nonhuman nature, not that which separates us from it” (p. 39). To the Starukhe, wild means being distant from the human world, whereas to Maryushka and Baba Yaga, the witch residing in the woods, it signifies an affinity with nature. Hence, the connection between Maryushka and nature is emphasized from the opening of the play.

The audience learns that Maryushka is ostracized by the entire village and is constantly criticized by the Starukhe. Their hostility towards Maryushka is visually presented, as the audience almost always sees them standing on the other side of the stage, a clear kinesthetic sign of their opposition to her. Maryushka thus suffers from what Ruthanne Kurth-Schai (1997, p. 196) calls “adult centrism”: “Children in adult-centered societies are subjected to forms of discrimination similar to those experienced by women under patriarchy – they are conceptually privatized, singularized, and stripped of their agency.” The adults in the play are the elder women who seek to marginalize Maryushka. As a result, she loves venturing into the woods every day to collect wildflowers because her mere presence in the woods is a means of escape. In this respect, the woods emerge as “a natural sanctuary where wild animals may dwell in security far from the havoc of humanity going about the business of looking after its ‘interests’” (Thompson et al., 2009, p. 121). Throughout the play, Maryushka’s visits to the natural world are an outlet for her desire for freedom from the confines of her own village, a result of her constant humiliation and of being criticized:

MARYUSHKA. I’ve never been this far. No one from the village comes here. It feels magical. … I want to find something really powerful. Something with magic to protect me. From the starukhe. Those old women hate me. They’re turning everyone against me. Even Granny. They want to get rid of me, but where could I go? … No other village would let me in. Nobody wants an orphan. (p. 12)

These lines show how, to Maryushka, the woods are a place of power and magic, which is visually and acoustically presented to the audience by the change in the lighting and the music. Maryushka’s experience of the woods deconstructs the typical male view of nature as inferior or what Greta Gaard calls “Cartesian rationalism” (2017, p. xix), which is set on the dualism of human (subject) versus nature (object). The above extract thus reflects one of the important ecofeminist views of nature as dominant over humans and not the other way round. Maryushka’s words about her search for a powerful natural element confirm how humans are strongly influenced by the powers of nature. Maryushka seeks this power as a means of protection from the old women and even from Vanya, the young boy who mocks her. The audience learns that Maryushka’s view of the woods strongly contrasts with that maintained by the people in the village. From an ecofeminist point of view, the image of the woods as terrifying because it is the home of Baba Yaga, the frightening witch, is a constructed image made by the human world: the village.

The mere existence of the isolated witch is a challenge to the dominant and accepted norms of the patriarchal order. According to Julia Kristeva (1982, p. 70), in a male-dominated society, “that other sex, the feminine, becomes synonymous with a radical evil that is to be suppressed.” The image of the witch as an evil figure is strongly reinforced by the villagers in the opening scenes of the play. In this respect, both Baba Yaga and Maryushka are ostracized female characters who suffer from a constructed image. Hence, the audience sees why Maryushka at one point rejects the villagers’ view of the woods and of Baba Yaga and even says “I’d like to meet her” (p. 21). As she ventures into the woods, Maryushka finds a unique sunflower. The stage dims as she moves towards the center to pick it, whereas Baba Yaga watches from the dimmed background area of the stage. Entering the territory of Baba Yaga and breaking her circle of magic to pick the black sunflower poses a threat to the protected world of the witch and its inhabitants. Therefore, Maryushka’s initial encounter with Baba Yaga and her anthropomorphized minions, the geese, the cat, and the other creatures, seems threatening. Later, the audience understands that this threat is a reaction to Maryushka’s theft. In this respect, the two worlds, the natural and the human, appear as in conflict from the very beginning.

The Girl Who Swallowed a Cactus revolves around Sheila, the young protagonist, and a group of young children. It is a one-character play in which the narrator enacts the roles of the child characters. Upon her appearance on the stage, which is filled with junk pieces, the narrator tells the child audience about Sheila’s qualities as a brave young girl who leads her group of adventurous friends, girls and boys, on an adventure into the natural world. By foregrounding the female narrator, the play subverts the hegemonic patriarchal voice as the events are narrated from her own subjective viewpoint and experience; the audience discovers later that she is one the twin girls who accompanied Sheila on her journey into the natural world. Using narration on stage has several important functions. According to Kelli Jo Kerry-Moran and Juli-Anna Aerila (2019, p.4), narration and storytelling “refine [the children’s] thinking” and enable them to “practice and develop the capacity to think critically through image, movement, and language as they learn logical thinking and inference skills.” Additionally, narration and storytelling “play an important role in modelling appropriate social interactions such as being kind, sharing, using good manners, and being considerate of other people, as well as portraying the downfalls of negative behavior including greed and cruelty” (p. 5). In addition, the play’s use of narration helps the child audience be innovative and creative; this is because the narrator’s innovation in seen in the fact that she takes items from the junk found on stage during the performance and uses them, almost like puppets, to enact the roles of the different characters, including the protagonist, Sheila. Such a visual enaction, which is accompanied by acoustic voice variation to portray the different characters, is meant to enrich the young audience’s imagination. According to Theresa May (2005, p. 86), “imagination is an ecological force, and representation, in its many manifestations as stories, celebrations, and patterns of signification, is one of the ways people participate in their material/ecological condition.” The narrator engages in both telling stories of the green girl Sheila and instigating the imagination of the child audience by making them think of the importance of reusing junk in a creative and innovative way instead of littering nature with waste material.

The narrator selects an electrical fixture that is found on stage to represent Sheila, a symbol of her vivacity and energy. She describes her as similar to “a little cactus plant in the sand and rock” in the desert in New Mexico (p. 7). This early description helps the audience understand that Sheila is part and parcel of the land, of the natural world. Her oneness with nature is further strengthened when she and her friends use junk material to build a tree house where they can feel distant from the city and where they have a firsthand experience with the world of animals. Ironically, the raid of the animals on their human world, their city, represents the threat coming from the natural world. It is initially viewed as a subversion of the typical hegemonic human power over nature. Gradually, the audience learns that such an attack is merely an act of retaliation against humans’ injustice, constant raids, and invasion of the natural habitat of animals as the animals’ leader Coyote (or Prince Desert Marigold) announces:

(As Coyote.) The whole point of this meeting, this Council of Howls, is to destroy your world. For lifetime after lifetime you have shoved us aside to make room for another wood-and-metal building, another tar-and-stone road. You have pushed the desert as far as it will go. Starting tonight … the desert will push back into you. And you—you have given us the tools to dethrone you!

(As Sheila) We did not give you any tools!

(As Coyote, gestures to the junk.) Haven’t you? All of your unwanted metal and sticks and iron and plastic—we have been collecting it here and when I give the signal, the Jackrabbits and Roadrunners will charge at top speed down your highways … My brother and sister Coyotes will travel disguised as Two-Legs into your very offices and schools where we will open our briefcases to release a hundred Rattlesnakes, sending your kind screaming into the wilderness! (pp. 24–25)

The threatening tone of Coyote is visually and verbally presented by the narrator, who gathers the used material that represents both Sheila and Coyote against one another while quickly shifting from the angry tone of Coyote to the worried one of Sheila. The above words underlie the voice of nature, which has been silenced for some time by the dominant and destructive humans. It stands in contrast to the emotional appeal that is often used by animals in texts for children, as Massey and Bradford (2011, p. 120) argue: “advocacy on behalf of endangered species in children’s texts … is liable to emotionality through images of attractive (and potentially suffering) individual creatures.” The use of such an angry tone alerts Sheila, and the young audience as well, to the dangers of the continuous destruction of the natural world. It aims to deconstruct the image of the domineering humans who assume full control over nature. In other words, the above exchange sums up the main ideas that ecofeminism strives to fight against and to deconstruct; that is, the domination of man over nature. The words “dethrone you” confirm how humans have been controlling nature and animals. This is also confirmed in the words of Coyote, “The Two-Legs have proven they do not want us in their world” (26). The human view of nature, to borrow Harvester and Blenkinsop’s words (2010, p. 123), “is a major contributor to environmental degradation.” The more humans look at nature as an object, the more it is destroyed. Coyote’s words critique the egocentric view of nature as an instrument to serve humans. Such a view “is a denial of mutuality, interdependency, and symbiotic relationships, and is key to the process of anthropocentrism, the conviction that humans are superior to nature” (Harvester and Blenkinsop, (Harvester 2010) , p. 126). Giving voice to the animals in the play allows this idea to be articulated and accentuated.

One of the tenets of ecofeminism stresses the need to “direct our attention to what animals are telling us about themselves, instead of relying on what other humans are telling us about them. Listening with humility is an important part of authentic dialogue” (Harvester and Blenkinsop, 2010, p. 129). Ronnie Zoe Hawkins (1998, p, 165) argues that it is essential to understand and view the “differences” between humans and nonhumans, not for the sake of causing further subjugation of the “other,” but to help us “grasp how they might be differentially oppressed by our actions, as well as how certain alterations in our actions may improve the situation for specific kinds of nonhuman others.” In light of this, Coyote’s words instigate the audience to question the dominance of man over nature. They are an invitation to re-evaluate our relationship with nature and an enlightening call to end all forms of aggressions on the world of animals. The message sent in this confrontation is that “humans should not attempt to ‘manage’ or control nonhuman nature, but should work with the land” (Birkeland, 1993, p. 19).

Rebirth in Nature: Finding Peace and Reconciliation

With the human and the natural worlds standing in opposition and conflict, it is the young girls who are entrusted with the mission of bringing harmony and peace. Despite the threats coming from the natural world, they never resort to violence, or any form of domination. On the contrary, they exhibit a sense of understanding and responsibility. Gaard (1993, p. 2–3) states that “a sense of self as separate is more common in men, while an interconnected sense of self is more common in women.” She adds that “these conceptions of self are also the foundation for two different ethical systems: the separate self often operates on the basis of an ethic of rights or justice, while the interconnected self makes moral decisions on the basis of an ethic of responsibilities or care” (1993, p. 2–3). In both plays, the two girls show this “interconnected self.” Their responsibility towards nature is exhibited throughout their actions: Maryushka tries to reconcile with Baba Yaga, hoping that this act can save her, her brother, and the people in the sick village, and Sheila does the same with Coyote. Both girls seem attuned to the natural world, believing in their responsibility towards this world and the world of humans as well. This moral responsibility will gradually lead to the fulfillment of the core goals of ecofeminism, which is reaching a true understanding of the value of nature: “Ecofeminism is also a holistic value system” and one of its basic concepts is that “everything in nature has intrinsic value. A reverence for, and empathy with, nature and all life (or ‘spirituality’) is an essential element of the social transformation required” (Gaard, 1993, p. 19). Indeed, the presence of threats and conflict between both worlds prompts the girls to revisit their views of nature: Maryushka begins to learn that stealing from or tampering with nature is a disruptive act entailing serious consequences and Sheila starts to realize the gravity of the destructive actions of humans and their effects on the animal and natural world. This realization takes place when the girls undergo a journey of self-discovery in nature. In Baba Yaga and the Black Sunflower, the physical journey of Maryushka is the beginning of the moral journey of self-discovery. On accidently stepping into the territory of Baba Yaga, Maryushka’s brother is stolen by the witch’s geese. When Maryushka asks for help, the village boy Vanya simply tells her that she “is on [her] own” (25) while running for his life. The stage dims as she stands alone after being abandoned by everyone. She decides to embark on the journey alone. Maryushka utters the following lines in a decisive tone as she moves towards the center of the stage, addressing the audience:

MARYUSHKA. … I never meant my brother harm. And you throw me out! This is worse than any trick I ever played. What good did it ever do to try to please any of you? If I don’t do exactly as you say, you will not have me. Well, I won’t have you either. Granny, I used to love you. But I can’t trust you any more than the rest of the villagers. Well, live together with each other. I hope you’re happy now that I’m gone! (Holds up the black sunflower.) I’m going into the forest. I’m not afraid. The animals there can’t be any worse than all of them. I have this magic flower. You’ll help me, won’t you, Little Flower? I will find Baby Brother. (26)

The test then is finding her brother, who has been taken by the witch as a punishment for Maryushka’s act of picking the black sunflower. Significantly, the audience learns that Baba Yaga has been observing Maryushka for some time and wishes to teach her a lesson: “I’ve had my eye on you. Now that you’re here, I have things for you to do. Do the tasks well, and I might help. Fail and it will be the worse for you” (34). She asks Maryushka to complete three tasks:

BABA YAGA. The first is to clean my house, both inside and out. No one has yet succeeded.

.. .

The second is to make me a stew, a delicious stew. If it’s not big enough and if it’s not tasty enough, you’ll go in it, too. The third is to answer this riddle:

  When you give up what you hold,

  The path you seek will then unfold. (34)

These tasks are interpreted ecologically. The act of cleaning the house of Baba Yaga symbolizes the need to clean nature from the destruction and pollution of humans. In other words, it is essential to understand that protecting nature from pollution also means the protection of human existence, and that both worlds depend on one another. As a symbol of perfect and harmonious being with nature, Baba Yaga shows a great understanding of every plant and flower. She even tells Maryushka that they have great powers. Hence, by stealing them, symbolically destroying nature, cutting off plants, or even deforestation, people will suffer. Because of the disappearance of the black sunflower, Baba Yaga cannot help Petya, the little boy who lives “across the river on the other side of the mountain” (p. 14) and whose village is suffering because of a mysterious disease. It is only the knowledgeable Baba Yaga who, with her natural ingredients, can heal them, an act which points to the importance of nature to humans. As Sallie McFague (1997, p. 17) asserts, “our relationship with nature is like our relationship with our own bodies: we can live only in and through them, we are nothing without them, we are intrinsically and entirely embodied.” This connection with nature is an inseparable and intertwined bond that can never be severed.

The second task, namely cooking the stew, allows Maryushka to understand the importance of every living animal. In other words, Maryushka needs to learn, to borrow Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva’s words, that there is a “special strength and integrity of every living thing” (2014, p. 14). The task is also meant as a test: will she cook the hedgehog that is squeaking for help all the time, symbolic of the animals calling for rescue? Symbolically, the first two tasks are completed because of the kindness and love Maryushka shows the minions of Baba Yaga. She refuses to put the hedgehog in the stew, realizing that she cannot do such a cruel act to a living animal: “(Starts to put Hedgehog into the pot. He whimpers wildly.) I don’t like this any more than you do. (Stops.) I can’t do it” (40). Her act reflects two important, interconnected ecofeminist ideas: vegetarianism and dialogue with animals. Gaard (2002, p. 117) asserts that “meat-eating [is] a form of patriarchal domination … that suggests a link between male violence and a meat based diet” (p. 118). Vegetarianism is directly related to the “liberation of animals” and with “giving equal moral consideration to the interests or the rights of … animals” (Gaard, 2002, p. 117). In this respect, by refusing to eat the hedgehog, Maryushka reflects the ecofeminist belief in “working towards authentic dialogue with other animals” (Harvester and Blenkinsop, (Harvester 2010) , p. 129). On Maryushka refusing to be inhumane to the hedgehog, Baba Yaga’s minions encircle her and tell her that the hedgehog is nothing but her own brother. The act of transforming the brother into a hedgehog might seem at first a punishment from Baba Yaga, but, from an ecofeminist perspective, it is a clear reflection of the suffering of animals whose voices are never heard by the dominant humans. Another level of symbolism lies in the intertwined connection with nature: harming animals is synonymous with harming humans.

With every act of kindness and understanding towards nature and its inhabitants, Maryushka learns a lesson, saves a life, and, eventually, saves herself. Such emotional immersion in the natural world is a clear subversion of the hegemonic male dependence on logic and reason in approaching and interacting with nature. Maryushka thus exhibits a core ecofeminist tenet, which is the need to have an “open, embracing, caring … non-domineering” relation with nature (Merchant, 2022, p. 16). Maryushka’s last act of kindness, which is giving back the black sunflower that has magical powers in order to prepare a potion that can save the kind boy Petya and his people in the other village, is a clear demonstration of her feelings towards not only nature but also humans. Upon the return of the black sunflower to its natural habitat, Baba Yaga simply announces, as she puts her hand on Maryushka’s shoulder: “Your three tasks are now finished” (p. 57). With the end of the journey, Maryushka establishes peace with nature and wins the appreciation of her own grandmother, who for the first time is seen defending her granddaughter when the Starukhe call her “witch”. The Grandmother moves to the other side of the stage to face the Starukhe, declaring in an angry tone: “Foolish old wom[e]n. Can’t you see that the girl’s brave, and she’s smart. She’s grown wiser than you!” (p. 56). The quest into the woods has thus changed the constructed image of Maryushka. Interacting with Baba Yaga and the animals has made her wiser, more understanding, and insightful: MARYUSHKA. Why did you help Petya and not me?

BABA YAGA. Is that what you think? What help did you need?

MARYUSHKA. To find my baby brother.

BABA YAGA. Yes.

MARYUSHKA. And to get back home.

BABA YAGA. All right.

MARYUSHKA. And to stop starukhe from making me miserable. …

Ah. Now I see.

BABA YAGA. Finally. I’m off.

MARYUSHKA. May I come with you?

BABA YAGA. Your work is in the village for now.

MARYUSHKA. What?

BABA YAGA. Learn to live with the people there. (p. 57)

The play ends with a powerful visual sign as Baba Yaga and Maryushka stand together, signifying their close relationship. Peace with the natural world is finally reached and misconceptions are cleared up. For the first time, Maryushka sees Baba Yaga not as a witch but as a “grandmother” (p. 58). The stereotyping of the witch is thus reversed. In this respect, the ending stresses that nature and its inhabitants are peaceful beings who have helped Maryushka find her inner strength. Baba Yaga, who is a symbol of the perfect and harmonious connection to nature in the play, allows Maryushka to understand the real worth of nature. Her desire to live in the woods at the ending of the play stands in contrast to the Starukhe who are afraid of the woods. This dual view of the natural world illustrates the difference between the social construction of nature which means that “most of what we refer to as ‘nature’ … has in fact been shaped by human actions” and construism, the view that “what is ‘constructed’ in this sense is not the physical objects themselves – not the trees or animals or rivers – but their identities and worth in a particular context” (Peterson, 1999, p. 343). In this sense, viewing the woods as wild and frightening is a constructed idea made by the adults in the village, which has served to widen the gulf between them and nature. By reversing and deconstructing this view through Maryushka, who is fascinated by the wood and its dwellers, the play invites the audience to rethink their own conception of nature. Moreover, by asking Maryushka to stay in the village, Baba Yaga is urging her to influence her community. In this respect, Maryushka is assigned a new task by Baba Yaga, that of becoming a green advocate. Maryushka will influence other people in her village so that they can revisit their own negative views of the woods, just as they have changed their view of Maryushka.

In The Girl Who Swallowed a Cactus, Sheila also undergoes a journey. Like Baba Yaga, Coyote gives Sheila a task, that of eating “The Death Cactus” (p. 29). As the narrator informs the audience, she is the only one who accepts this challenge, whereas her friends are afraid. After she has “pulverized the prickly spines” (p. 30) and eaten the cactus, Coyote begins to respect her for her dauntless spirit and courage: “And Coyote—he would never in a thousand million years admit this—but he was beginning to have just the tiniest … speck of respect for these Two-Legs” (p. 29). In fact, what makes the animals appreciate her even more is her peaceful outlook on both the human and natural worlds: “You see? We can use our people brains to live with animals as much as animals can use their brains to live with humans! Let’s try to work together! Let’s make a change” (p. 30). Sheila’s proposal does not emerge because of fear of nature or animals but stems from realizing their importance. In other words, Sheila views nature as a subject, not an object, which is one of the ecofeminist ideas discussed by Sallie McFague. To McFague (1997, p. 108), looking at nature from such a perspective will eventually lead to the disappearance of the idea of superiority over nature; that is, the relationship between humans and nature will be that of a subject to a subject, opening “the way to speak of animals, trees and plants, mountains, oceans, and even the earth as a whole as subjects, as agents which both influence others and are influenced by them” (1997, p. 108). Sheila’s words highlight the importance of harmoniously coexisting with the natural world. She thus reflects ecofeminists’ views on the importance of how “the well-being, diversity, and continuity of nonhuman populations and ecosystems, as well as relationships between humans and nonhuman elements, are accepted as worthy of moral consideration” (Kurth-Schai, 1997, p. 207). In fact, her words, “let’s make a change,” reflect the fundamental basis of ecofeminism: “the very essence of ecofeminism is its challenge to the presumed necessity of power relationships. It is about changing from a morality based on ‘power over’ to one based on reciprocity and responsibility (‘power to’)” (Gaard 1993, p. 19). Besides reversing the “power relations,” the play also proposes another type of relationship with nature based on love and compassion. After his angry proclamation and adamant insistence on war, Coyote changes his mind the moment he senses the love of humans:

(As Coyote.) “I’ll have NONE of this! Two-Legs and Desert-Trotters can never live together! We were born hating each other and we will die hating each other, and tonight that hate will fill every crack and crevice of your and our world—”

But then he looks down …

And holding each of his paws … just gently holding them … Were the Twins.

(Becomes one of the Twins gently holding and stroking a paw, looking up sweetly, innocently, at the tall Coyote.) …

They were … stroking his fur. And … smiling at him.

In that pure wonderful way that only the most open-hearted can, with their very souls and breath, even when they’ve only just met you. For the first time these children had shown him people willing to see him and his fellow animals, willing to take their challenges and meet them. And beyond that … to love him. (p. 30–31)

Embracing nature and its inhabitants and interacting with them emotionally is fully enforced in this moment. Besides taking a rational stance to reevaluate our relationship with nature, the play invites the young audience, through the interaction of the girls with Coyote, to emotionally connect with the dwellers of the natural world. This emotional level is the core of change within ecofeminist thought, for “central to an ecofeminist consciousness is the development of a new way of being in relation to nonhuman nature. Ecofeminist ethical concerns extend beyond humanity to embrace all aspects of the biophysical world. … Learning to respond to the biophysical world with responsibility and care becomes a moral imperative” (Kurth-Schai, 1997, p. 207). To create change, humans must understand the importance of accepting and “embracing” all living beings. The close interaction between the girls and Coyote in the previous exchange clarifies that it is only when love seeps through our view of nature and animals that coexistence is possible. Such a view of nature will help, first, in understanding what nature has been subjected to and, second, in protecting this world. The immediate reaction of Coyote is verbally and visually presented by the narrator who enacts his role: her voice softens as she slowly speaks the following words: “Or. You know. Maybe. Maybe we don’t have to destroy all the Two-Legs and their homes and cities” (p. 30–31). Such a change in the tone, from angry and resentful to relenting, connotes the emotional connection between animals and humans, which in turn results in a peace proposal. The play thus seems to suggest that the first step to save nature has to come from the human world. The need to raise generations with ecological awareness is one of the important messages of the play. The call to protect nature and its creatures is clearly stressed when the narrator finally reveals her own identity to the young audience, saying that she is one of the twin sisters who were with Sheila on that day. As an eyewitness, she can directly address the audience and urge them to act. The narrator stands in the center of the stage, and utters the following lines with vivacity to instigate the young audience to become like Sheila:

And Sheila did work to make room in the towns and cities for more wildness. And Prince Marigold did come back to pick her up and they’d meet for Full-Moon Tea in the desert once a month. ... There came a night, when Sheila was 23 or 24 years old, that Prince Marigold drove up to her house and Sheila had a suitcase. … it looked like she was going to stay away for a long time this time. … And since then, people have moved further into animal’s space, and the animals have started coming back into our cities—coyotes and deer and moose and foxes—but it’s all mish-mash chaos and people and animals are starting to get mad again and we need someone to make sure we’re talking again!

And that’s going to be me.

Because I’ve done it before. …

But with Sheila gone, it’s time to step up again. Me and whichever of you want to go. (p. 34–35)

The disappearance of Sheila could be seen as symbolic of a return to nature as the real habitat of humans. However, it can also stand for the absence of green girls who are needed to protect and save the natural world. In fact, by the end of the play, Sheila is a symbol of every member in the community who seeks to create a real ecological change. Therefore, the narrator’s use of the pronouns “us” and “we” (p. 35–36) is significant, and is accompanied by pointing to the audience to instigate them to take action. Gaard (1993, p. 17) asserts that “Healing the powerful psychological undercurrents created by thousands of years of Patriarchy requires rigorous self- and social criticism. We must move beyond limiting conceptions of both masculine and feminine in ourselves and in our societies.” Thus, the use of the pronoun “we” at the end of the play is an invitation to all the audiences regardless of their gender to become actively involved in preserving the natural world. Sheila’s efforts to save nature are not enough; it has to be a collective endeavor. More importantly, the narrator asks the audience to reflect upon their interaction with animals and that one day they will answer their call, just as Sheila did when she went with Coyote. However, she asks the audience “whether we’ll answer in human words … or just smile and throw our heads back and say (A coyote howl)” (p. 35). The last question posed by the narrator instigates the child audience to think about the call of animals to become more attuned to the natural world; the dream that Sheila and the narrator have been seeking to fulfill.

Conclusion

The two plays highlight the domination of humans over nature. They aim to enhance the children’s ecological awareness of the natural world. It is through the two young girls that the inseparable connection with nature is highlighted. Both Maryushka and Sheila’s concern for nature brings the human and natural world together. Both defy and subvert adult patriarchal views of the power of humans over nature. Together, they advocate an alternative vision in which humans and nature coexist, understand, and love each other. Through the two green girls, the plays show how oneness with nature is a worldview that should be adopted. Both plays thus advocate the ecofeminist view of reshaping our relationship with nature; a message sent through foregrounding the two girls as seekers of change. Whether it is the desert or the woods, these plays invite the audience to look at all forms of nature and natural places as partners; to see nature as “intrinsically valuable – a ‘good in itself’ (or an end-in-itself) – because of its own intrinsic properties and not because of its usefulness for some (human) purpose or end” (Warren, 2000, p. 74). Such a proposed connection with nature guarantees the survival of both worlds. Harvester and Blenkinsop (Harvester 2010) , p. 130) assert that “ecofeminism … include[s] animals as ‘knowers’ and storytellers … Perhaps through the use of metaphor, narrative, imagination, and a sense that other beings are autonomous agents of knowledge, we can inch closer to meeting each other with grace.” These plays not only present girls as “agents of knowledge” and change, but also give voice to the animals who emerge as “knowers” and “storytellers” who enlighten humans. Both emphasize the relation between young girls and the natural world as interconnected and inseparable, and end with an enlightening lesson to the children audience on the importance of maintaining a deep understanding of nature.