All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances
--William Shakespeare
Gerta Lerner, like Shakespeare, uses the play as a historical metaphor.[1] An essential difference for Lerner is the insertion of women back into the narrative. She writes, “we realize that the story of the performances over thousands of years has been recorded only by men and told in their words.”[2] Lerner states that with men as the primary storyteller, the emphasis of thousands of years of history relies mostly on the male experience.
Expanding upon Lerner’s metaphor of man’s history, if the setting of the play is the global stage and the storyline is our economy, then men have been writing the narrative, setting the stage, and defining the traits of the leading characters for hundreds of years. In this story, key characters are the neoclassical market, and buyers and sellers. The traits of these characters are teleologically canonical and therefore infallible. This story is built upon a gendered paradigm of individual autonomy, accumulation, perpetual growth, and male domination. Wealth becomes narrowly defined and the characters in the play remain in perpetual pursuit of accumulation and maximizing a return on investment regardless of the consequence to livingkind.
If we look at the reality of today, we can see how the narrative of classical market economics fails those who are not center stage. While economists are focusing on gross domestic product, return on investment, and growth rates, a quick glance at the global stage reveals that we are in a time of extreme inequality, debilitating climate change, and financial instability. In other words, the story of global unsubstantiated and infinite growth economies – the backbone of classical market theory – is not going well.
The play narrated by free market economics is a tragedy. But we are people who care and we can choose to insert a new narrator – one who stands for justice and equity at the margins. A new cast of characters will speak for the voices of the earth, the health of our communities, and our mutual embeddedness in earth’s ecosystem. From this perspective, writing a new script means re-examining our current economic systems and how they perpetuate injustice in the world. Moving beyond the categorized, disciplined, and boundaried discussion of restorative justice, our narrator will ask us to think more deeply around the concepts of justice and how justice is directly connected to what we believe. Because justice is served by those who believe in justice, we will be asked to think about what do those who believe in justice stand for, and what do they embody.
The ideologies and belief systems which inform capitalism today include a Western philosophy of individualism, survival of the fittest, and a model for wealth based on accumulation. It is a paradigm which tends to universalize, hegemonize, and create boundaries. As a contrast, our new narrator will work to imagine building a community of relationships outside this construct. Considering belief systems which support the deconstruction and decolonization of our Westernized philosophies, our narrator will inquire into ways of healing through transforming relationships and structures which strive to transform the community and the social conditions that create and perpetuate harm.
While it is just a metaphor, it is an important one to explore in order to write a new story of global economics. How will we write the new one? Scholars have been using ecofeminism as a methodology to understand the sacred relationships we have with nature and each other. Author and historian of feminism, religion, and spirituality Charlene Spretnak writes, “The central insight of ecofeminism is that there is a strong correlation in Eurocentric cultures between the ways in which nature and the female are regarded, that is, with fear, resentment, and denigration.”[3] From this understanding, Spretnak says that ecofeminists seek economies which acknowledge our interdependent relationship with the self-regulating ecologies of the earth’s atmosphere and biomass. Recognizing our mutuality means humans are part of the unfolding and emerging output between the earth and each other. As a contrast, Western constructs hierarchically delineate nature as something to be conquered and therefore dominated. Perceiving “both the body and nature as sacred”[4] ecofeminists inquire about the relationship between the two as a source of healing.
Defining Ecospirituality
Professor of Philosophy and Religion Mara Keller writes from a spiritual ecofeminist perspective.[5] In doing so, she acknowledges that relationships, connections, and community bonds are sacred. Throughout time, androcentric ideology has led to women’s experiences either being erased or never recorded. Because of this, Keller uses archaeomythology as a way of discovering the early relationship between women and nature.[6] A term first used by Professor of European Archeology Marija Gimbutas, Keller describes archaeomythology as a combination of archaeology, mythology, linguistics, history, and folklore.[7] By drawing upon Gimbutas’ scholarship of the religion of our earliest human ancestors – prepatriarchal humans who venerated the life-giving forces of the goddess – Keller blends archaeomythology and ecofeminism. In doing so, she tells a story where we have always been embedded with each other and nature, and that our dependency – from life through death – was perhaps first manifested through a spiritual connection. She defines this connection as ecospirituality.
According to Keller, ecospirituality evolved out of the blending of gynocentric ways with nature. It speaks to the relationship that occurs when we care for mother earth as the spirit which guides our connection to all livingkind – including the human race. Western religion and spirituality teaches us to care for our families and neighbors as well as to be generous, helpful and do good deeds such that we become pillars in the community. Ecospirituality reminds us to do the same but with the inclusion of nonhumans – plants, animals, and the earth, because doing so is sacred. Ecospirituality recognizes that our relationship with mother earth and all her properties like, air, water, oxygen, plants, minerals, and animals, is vital to both body and mind.
When considering economics, if we were to center a philosophy of ecospirituality, one might consider the management of the home – the economics of daily life – as a spiritual one. Spretnak says we are struggling because we don’t incorporate spirituality inside our understanding of economic systems. “How are we supposed to develop our atrophied sensitivity in order to grow in awareness of the intricate, moment-to-moment dance of creation, disintegration, and recreation?” [8] Spretnak says the antidote to the classical economic model of patriarchy – a model that has sought to both disparage nature and women – can be found in feminist ecospirituality.
Exploring the historical impact feminists have had on economic theory, one can see their work through waves. First-wave feminist economic theory incorporated unpaid care labor and environmental consumption into the classical market theory. Second-wave economic feminists recognized the short-comings as first-wave only served to commodify unpaid, reproductive labor and environmental resources. As a result, second-wave economic feminists explored the interdependence between each other and the earth. Recognizing our interdependence invited discussion around new methodologies and frameworks which incorporate a feminist philosophy and a shift in language from economic theory to ecological theory. Continuing to broaden ecological boundaries, third-wave ecological feminists questioned how we could bring spirituality into the conversation of economics without inquiring about justice.[9] Acknowledging the embedded relationship of spirituality and justice, ecofeminists explored the reciprocal relationship between the earth and all livingkind through a lens of social justice. When we care for each other and the land in an ecological manner, then justice becomes a reflection of wealth and security which is rooted inside a community bonded by the natural laws that govern the biosphere.[10] Using nature as a model to live by, our earth’s ecosystem becomes an economic model for a cooperative system of reciprocity and gratitude.[11]
Ecofeminism as spirituality speaks to the nonmaterial ties and bonds that unify us. Rev. angel Kyodo Williams writes about liberation, whiteness, oppression and the “unwrangleability of love.”[12] Rev. angel speaks to spirituality and justice as a kind of radical self-care and radical self-love. Both are rooted in the notion that we take care of ourselves by taking care of each other. In this way, spirituality is a reflection of our relationships. Perceiving our connections as sacred, we can expand the sphere of empathy and compassion to include those who are suffering. Ecofeminism as spirituality guides people to heal their own sense of suffering with the radical notion of doing so by first caring for others. The feminist ecology of spirituality and justice can bring us together to acknowledge the expansiveness of our community boundaries – boundaries which define us as unified on a single planet as opposed to the inside/outside conditions created by geopolitical borders or ontological dualisms of self and other, human and nature, man and woman.
For the rest of this essay, I will explore how to begin re-writing the story of global economics, using a methodology of feminist ecospirituality, as a way of working toward a world where justice is part of our daily way of life.
Ecospirituality as a Methodology
Traditional economic theory uses a neoclassical framework centered around socially constructed Western dualisms of supply and demand, scarcity, and accumulation. One can find a significant amount of literature on capitalist economies and how they are driven by competitive, autonomous individuals, corporate wealth, and are reliant on an indefinite growth model which does not consider the health of the earth or the plants, animals and humans who live here. While ecofeminist theory recognizes our interdependence, ecospirituality introduces justice. Applying ecospirituality to feminist economic theory means one incorporates cooperative and regenerative systems which serve to restore and replenish.
Early formulations of feminist economic theory introduced the concept of care-work as paid and unpaid reproductive labor.[13] Introducing care-work into neoclassical economic models countered the framework of dualism (by offering an additional perspective against the singular lens of patriarchal capitalist economic models) as well as inserted a feminist analysis of the cost of performing care work. Over time, this model failed because it simply argued to give women a seat at the table where they could then commoditize unpaid, reproductive labor[14] – a type of labor that isn’t necessarily commodifiable, and perhaps shouldn’t be. Not to mention, simply adding women’s labor to the economic growth model, while it added to greater labor participation, ultimately resulted in greater gender inequality as well as a persistent shortage of time issue for many women now working double-duty – both on the job and at home.[15]
Noticing the flaws, early contributors to feminist economic theory began using gender to examine the relationships between humans and the natural world. As a result, feminist economic theory, birthed ecofeminism – a methodology which acknowledges that we are embedded with each other and nature.[16] Ecospirituality as a methodology inquires as to whether or not this embeddedness is an indication of our spiritual connection with each other and nature.[17] From this perspective, women’s ecospirituality as a methodology, explores knowledge making in a way that brings the relationships women have with the earth into focus. Folding in economic systems into the discourse I’m curious how the methodology can inform new economic paradigms – ones that might have been previously missed by the required commodification of neoclassical market theory?[18]
Three Economic Theories
This next section is an exploration of three different economic theories – Neoclassical Economics, Environmental Economics, and Ecological Economics. From there, I will overlay ecospirituality as a methodology for interrogating the way in which spirituality and justice lives in these three economic models.
Neoclassical Market Economics– “What I Have”
Neoclassical market theory uses money as currency. The economic unit of success is built upon individual self-interest, return on investment, and gross domestic product. This economic theory is predicated on a social construct of competition and scarcity. Foundational to neoclassical market theory is that man is the primary default and nature is a constant source for commodification. Competition reduces capacity while supply and demand allocate all resources. Central to the free market is the belief that there is no limit to growth and that individual wealth will seek to decrease poverty and protect the earth. Neoclassical market theorists study decision making in the face of scarcity and how people use their resources.[19] A quick look around and one can see that the flaws are glaring – neoclassical market theory fails to consider the ecosystems that are our life support as well as fails to adequately provide for everyone. Not only that but the ideologies of capitalism are delivering great blows to our planet, while, in the greatest irony of all, those who will suffer the most from climate change – women and the poor – are the ones who are the least responsible for the crisis.[20]
Environmental Economics – “How Much I Use”
Environmental economic theory relies on carbon as the currency while the economic unit of success is found in a triple bottom line sometimes known as, “people, planet, profit” or more recently “people, planet, prosperity.” It utilizes the same paradigm of neoclassical economic theory where competition and scarcity are socially constructed to be undisputed laws. The difference being, instead of supply and demand of products, it is now the price and supply of carbon emissions. Foundational to environmental economic theory is belief that the earth’s resources are limited or finite, therefore one should consider the cost of depleting resources and the excesses of carbon emissions into the costs of the full life-cycle of a product. Theorists who prioritize economic health, believe that the welfare of a community can be commodified through state and non-profit intervention, and that the natural economy is governed by the laws of a market system. While wealth and security are measured through the reusability of resources and the efficiency of a welfare state, environmental decisions are made by considering the cost/ benefit tradeoff of depleting a natural resource next to the intergenerational impact of a lost resource.[21] While environmental economics raises the profile of the environment, it fails to step outside of the neoclassical paradigm of competition and scarcity found in classical market theory. It also ignores the glaring omission that carbon alone does not account for the crisis in climate. Centering the discussion on caps, trading and carbon emissions, environmental economics fails to illuminate the current suffering of the climate vulnerable as well as the rich’s understanding of its responsibility.[22]
Ecological Economics – “What I Give”
Ecological economic theory relies on relationship as the currency while the economic unit of success is measured through community well-being, sharing, and the health of livingkind. Ecological economics differs from both neoclassical economics and environmental economics in that it requires a paradigm shift in the way we perceive competition. Beginning with the notion that there are limits to growth, ecological economics is based on a model of earthly abundance. Where the neoclassical economists are focused on supply and demand and environmental economists are trading carbon offsets, ecological economists are centering community sharing under a model of gratitude and reciprocity. Ecological economists believe that the natural world is a gift, not a given, and that there are social and moral agreements for indirect reciprocity which secure our bond together as people mutually embedded in a community. For ecological economists, diversity is the antidote to scarcity, wealth and security are measured through community health. Ecological economists inquire how human economies can be modeled after the earth’s ecological systems – which have been successful for over 2 billion years. Decision making for the ecological economist incorporates both the regenerative and restorative impact on livingkind.[23]
Overlay of Ecospirituality
Overlaying the methodology of ecospirituality onto neoclassical economics, environmental economics, and ecological economics, this next section explores the impact of justice and spirituality.
Ecospirituality and Neoclassical Economics
Striving to emerge as the autonomous individual, neoclassical economists model assumptions about self and other. Individuation can strip us of our connections while theorists of ecospirituality intentionally weave stories about our interconnectedness. “Ecofeminists note that the dominant, patriarchal traditions… are based on a spirituality that seeks, rather desperately, to transcend nature and the body – especially the female body.”[24] Using ecospirituality to better understand the flaws of neoclassical economics, one can see how it fails to acknowledge our interdependency. Neoclassical economists also fail to acknowledge its dependency on non-commodifiable or unpaid work. In this way, “economic man and his markets rely on hidden subsidies.”[25] While neoclassical economics is primarily focused on equations and models for reproducing growth, theorists of ecospirituality are primarily focused on the ecological and social justice issues that arise as a consequence of poor modeling and theorizing.[26]
Ecospirituality and Environmental Economics
A core assumption of environmental economics is the idea that economic growth can be “green,” and as a result, removed from negative environmental effects. Advocates of environmental economics believe that economic growth will be maintained as technology creates better products, which will in turn “green” production and then consumption. This isn’t always the case, however. During the Industrial Revolution in 1865, Williams Stanley Jevons noticed that as technological changes increased the efficiency of coal, total coal consumption rose. In other words, because coal was easier to produce, more people could buy it and continue to pollute the air. Economists refer to this rebound effect as Jevon’s Paradox.[27] Based on this information it would seem that simply “greening” the production process, may only lead to an increase in consumption of a potentially hazardous product or products related to increased distribution of the hazardous product. Ecospirituality as a methodology might inquire about the need for a product that would compromise the health of the earth we share? Likewise, practitioners of ecospirituality question what motivates our need to consume things which sacrifice someone else’s livelihood.
Ecospirituality and Ecological Economics
An ecospiritual approach to ecological economics means constructing an understanding of self into an essential component of the greater whole. While neoclassical economics constructs self in the dualistic sense of self and other, ecological economics argues that autonomy and rugged individualism only serves to reinforce racism, classism, and sexism.[28] Understanding self as a part of the greater whole encourages all of us to identify our sacred self in the context of nature and each other. In this way, there is no ontological division between nature and self or self and other. Ecospirituality as an approach recognizes our mutual embeddedness as both material and non-material thereby reconnecting us to the sacred bonds we have with the earth and each other.
Conclusion
Justice, spirituality, and ecology are the main components of ecospirituality and when viewed from this perspective, practitioners of ecospirituality are also activists for social and environmental justice. Buddhist practitioner Zenju Earthlyn Manuel writes when we speak of our embodiment – we speak of all of us, not just ‘those people’ over there.” Ecospiritual activists embody the community relationships and essential connections in the natural world. The ideologies and belief systems which inform capitalism today are Western philosophy of individualism, survival of the fittest, and a model for wealth based on accumulation. It is a paradigm which tends to universalize, hegemonize and create boundaries. Centering justice and spirituality, ecospirituality as a methodology seeks to deconstruct and decolonize our Westernized philosophies. In doing so, ecological economists can begin to inquire into ways of healing through transforming our relationships and structures which create the conditions which both create and perpetuate harm. Spiritual ecofeminists blend the non-material with the material by first acknowledging our interdependence and then secondarily by recognizing our mutually embedded relationships as sacred.
Bibliography
Burkett, M. (2009). Climate reparations. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 10, no. 2. (2009) 509-542
Dengler, Corinna and Birte Strunk, “The Monetized Economy Versus Care and the Environment: Degrowth Perspectives On Reconciling an Antagonism.” Feminist Economics, 24, no.3 (2017) 160–183
Elkington, John. “Enter the Triple Bottom Line.” In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up?, edited by Henriques, A., & Richardson, J. 1-16. London: Routledge, 2004
Gimbutas, Marija. 1989. The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. San Francisco: Harper & Row. 1989
Keller, Mara L., “Divine Mistresses of Nature, Plants, and Animals in Ancient Greece: A Spiritual Ecofeminist Perspective” (Forthcoming. Association for the Study of Women and Mythology. Proceedings. 2019
Kimmerer Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions, 2013.
Kimmerer, Robin W, “The Serviceberry: An Economy of Abundance,” recorded December 10, 2020, https://emergencemagazine.org/story/the-serviceberry/
Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. Women and History, V. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. 1986
McMahon, Martha. “From the Ground Up: Ecofeminism and Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 20, no. 2 (1997): 169-187
Meade, James E. A Neo-Classical Theory of Economic Growth (Routledge Revivals). London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2012.
Nelson, Julie A. and Marilyn Power, “Ecology, Sustainability, and Care: Developments in the Field,” Feminist Economics, 24, no.3 (2018): 86-92
Raworth, Kate. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1996. Women Healing Earth: Third World Women on Ecology, Feminism, and Religion. Ecology and Justice. New York: Orbis Books (99-106)
[1] Gerda Learner, “The Creation of Patriarchy: Women and History, V. 1.” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) 13 [2] Ibid. [3] Charlene Spretnak, “Earthbody and Personal Body as Sacred,” in Spiritual Ecofeminism, ed. Carol J. Adams (New York: Continuum, 1993) 261 [4] Ibid. [5] Mara Lynn Keller, “Divine Mistresses of Nature, Plants, and Animals in Ancient Greece: A Spiritual Ecofeminist Perspective” (Forthcoming. Association for the Study of Women and Mythology. Proceedings. 2019) [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] Carol J. Adams, Ecofeminism and the Sacred. New York: Continuum, 2013 [9] Sabrina Schmitt, Gerd Mutz, and Birgit Erbe. “Care economies—feminist contributions and debates in economic theory.” Österreich Z Soziol 43, 7–18 (March 2018): 15 [10] (Wall, 2013). [11] (Kimmerer, 2013). [12] Rev. angel Kyodo Williams, Radical Dharma: Talking Race, Love, and Liberation. Oakland: North Atlantic Books, 2016 [13] Sabrina Schmitt, Gerd Mutz, and Birgit Erbe. “Care economies—feminist contributions and debates in economic theory.” Österreich Z Soziol 43, 7–18 (March 2018): 15 [14] Ibid. [15] Corinna Dengler and Birte Strunk, The Monetized Economy Versus Care and the Environment: Degrowth Perspectives On Reconciling an Antagonism,” Feminist Economics, 24, no.3 (2017): 167-8 [16] Julie A. Nelson and Marilyn Power, “Ecology, Sustainability, and Care: Developments in the Field,” Feminist Economics, 24, no.3 (2018): 86-8 [17] Mara Lynn Keller, “Divine Mistresses of Nature, Plants, and Animals in Ancient Greece: A Spiritual Ecofeminist Perspective” (Forthcoming. Association for the Study of Women and Mythology. Proceedings. 2019) [18] Corinna Dengler and Birte Strunk, The Monetized Economy Versus Care and the Environment: Degrowth Perspectives On Reconciling an Antagonism,” Feminist Economics, 24, no.3 (2017): 161-2 [19] James Meade, A Neo-Classical Theory of Economic Growth (Routledge Revivals). (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2012), 1-7 [20] Burkett, M. (2009). Climate reparations. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 10(2), 509-542. [21] John Elkington, “Enter the Triple Bottom Line.” In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up?, eds. Henriques, A., & Richardson, J. (London: Routledge, 2004) 1-16 [22] Burkett, M. (2009). Climate reparations. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 10(2), 509-542. [23] Robin Wall Kimmerer, “The Serviceberry: An Economy of Abundance,” recorded December 10, 2020, https://emergencemagazine.org/story/the-serviceberry/ [24] Ibid. [25] Martha McMahon, “From the Ground Up: Ecofeminism and Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 20, no. 2 (1997): 168 [26] Ibid., 165 [27] Corinna Dengler and Birte Strunk, The Monetized Economy Versus Care and the Environment: Degrowth Perspectives On Reconciling an Antagonism,” Feminist Economics, 24, no.3 (2017) 170 [28] Martha McMahon, “From the Ground Up: Ecofeminism and Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 20, no. 2 (1997): 169
Comments