Deep Ecology or Ecofeminism: The Embodied, Embedded Hybrid

Abstract

The human subject and how he or she fits into the wider web of ecological relationships has been a contentious subject of debate for ecofeminists since the inception of the ecocritical movement. Identity — defined here as a textual construct — is determined through the construction, negotiation and redefinition of the boundaries of the self. When identity is formulated in specific relation to the natural world or the nonhuman other, these boundaries are rendered flexible enough to take the other — at some level — into the self. This dialogic relationship sees the self variously lose itself in the other, expand itself to encompass the other or develop a mutually agential relationship with the other. In each of these reformulations, human consciousness necessarily defines the medium of representation; as Rigby (2004b: 427) argues, ‘An acknowledgement of the centrality of the human actant, however contingent, contextualised, and decentred she might be in herself, is also a necessary condition for there to be such a thing as literature’. The deep ecology and ecofeminist movements place differing emphases on human centrality, particularly in relation to the positioning of the ecological other. Deep ecologists advocate an expanded sense of self to encompass the needs of the nonhuman other, whilst ecofeminists advocate a plurality of perspectives to extend solidarity to the nonhuman other.