Sexing the Field: A note on intersectional ecofeminism in geographical fieldwork.
PREFACE before things get juicy:This is an essay I wrote in November 2018. Looking back it has nowhere near the level of critique I now hold for geographical undertakings of ecofeminism. It does however hold true that intersectionality in geographical fieldwork RE climate change is now, more than ever, a pressing need. Just look to XR’s tricky navigations of identity, privilege and protest or to work by environmental feminist press (Gal-Dem/Clitbait etc.) Talking specifically about geographical research in the field, I suggest that possibly, intersectional ecofeminism/post-humanism is a discourse still heavily thrown into the recycling bin for much geographical work today – so easily discussed within its own rubric of academia (and its stubbornness to be ‘locatable’ and easily understood in everyday circumstances) and ways to approach knowledge production. I would like to see, instead, more development and progress in this area in terms of practice. What can I, we, all do? Those who are underrepresented are dying, those who are overlooked, are drowning, those not involved, will be erased if we don’t.
The dominant epistemology of Western geographical fieldwork has origins in 17th Century positivist instructional literatures and 19th century scientific exploration rooted within Imperial endeavours (Withers, 2011). However, the rise of so-called ‘radical’ geographies in the mid-twentieth century initiated a deviation from the Anglo-American epistemological favouring of quantitative positivism, and gave birth to two progressive, paralleled movements. Firstly, the environmental ecological movement with its genesis in works such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), and the 1972 United Nations Conference on Human Environment, prompted the politicisation of the ecological crisis. Additionally, second-wave feminism directed thinking away from first-wave political agency and towards situatedness and masculine heteronormative knowledge production within, but not exclusive to, the geographical academy (Gregory, 1996). Popular discourse around both movements concentrated analyses on Western geographical knowledge with feminism largely executed by white, middle-class female scholars (Ibid). Therefore, the concept of ecofeminism, attributed to Francoise d’Eaubonne in the 1970s and defined as the synthesis of both the ecological and feminist movements, has also been heavily criticised for this characteristic (Muzaffar, 2016). However, the proposal of an explicitly intersectional ecofeminism by recent scholars such as A.E. Kings, transcends these white, middle-class structures of validity and offers a conceptualisation of ecofeminism as both theory and praxis (Kings, 2017).
An intersectional ecofeminist perspective offers that women (by race, body and class) are tied to nature via a mutual oppression by masculinist structures, and objectification as feminine providers (Gaard, 2014; Kings, 2017). This ecofeminist perspective on geographical fieldwork can surface anthropogenic causes of climate change and suggest mitigative action which has valid capacity for enacting climate justice. I therefore examine examples of contemporary climate change research through ecofeminism which does not neglect historically marginalised or homogenised social groups. I contend it addresses issues of demarcation between the ‘human’ and ‘physical’ geographical disciplines whilst also critiquing historical fieldwork to provide a relevant fieldwork method and methodology in climate geographies.
Using an Intersectional Ecofeminism to Evaluate Geographical Fieldwork
The utility of ecofeminism as a theoretical framework has been supported by commentators, both within and beyond geography, in its ability to allow critical engagement with social and environmental experiences of discrimination and degradation (Birkeland, 1993; Li, 1993; Kings, 2017). A common thread between conceptualisations of ecofeminism is the multiplicity of disciplines it straddles. Ecofeminism is often defined as a synthesis of ecology, feminism and socialism (Gregory, 1996; Birkeland, 1993). The nature of this multidisciplinary definition allows ecofeminism to challenge the epistemological and methodological divide between the physical sciences and the study of human nature.
In several ways, ecofeminism holds a mirror to the rise of environmental geography as championed by Castree, Demeritt and Liverman in A Companion to Environmental Geography (2009). Within this work, environmental geography is defined as any geographical inquiry which considers nature and society in some relation to each other (Castree et al., 2009). Also true for ecofeminism, this version of geography can produce applied fieldwork knowledge which highlights both the ‘culture’ of physical geography and ‘nature’ of human geography. Ecofeminism, as a more nuanced version of environmental geography, can not only be used to dissolve categorisations for what methods and work are carried out in the field but also consider identities involved in fieldwork.
Beyond challenging categorisations of geography which set theoretical boundaries to methods and methodologies which are seen as ‘optimal’ both for ‘human’ and ‘physical’ fieldwork (notably through differentiations between qualitative and quantitative methods), ecofeminism can be used to critique historical conceptualisations of the field. The field is defined in multiple manners. Within this essay, the field is defined as a process of construction through practices of cultural and spatial geographical enquiry enacted by a physical movement through space (Driver, 2001; Katz, 1994). The argument I make here is that a look to the past is crucial in formulating an ecofeminist geographical fieldwork methodology which reshapes how the field is viewed, and situates the researcher within gendered, classed, bodied and raced geographical work.
Conceptualisations of the field determine the methods and approaches of fieldwork. Analysing fieldwork is therefore key to understand wider debates within geographical knowledge creation. This contention is supported by Carl Sauer’s notion of fieldwork as the place of greatest pedagogical value to the geographer, therefore what is both brought to, and learned within the field shapes our relationship with it (Sparke, 1996; Sauer, 1956). Western definitions of fieldwork as Imperial missions of discovery centred around sensate empiricism and logical positivism have disseminated and formed the basis of geographers’ pedagogical experience (Livingstone, 1992). Historical accounts of fieldwork therefore are symptomatic of Anglo-American geography’s disciplinary inclination, which includes sexualising research and feminising the field as the ‘Other’ (Sparke, 1996). A shift needs to occur in geographical fieldwork which dissolves the separation of researcher from the people and places in the field. Though there exists much feminist critique of Othering through sexing of the geographical field, ecofeminist critique has often focused solely on contemporary examples rather than historical ones (Domosh, 1999; Gaard, 2014). This does not mean historical critique does not exist and cannot be carried out.
David Stoddart (1986)’s On Geography and Its History, calls for a salute with Joseph Conrad in respecting men who in their hearts bore a spark of ‘the sacred fire’ whilst carrying out endeavours of militant geographical fieldwork. Conrad’s use of ‘the sacred fire’ explicitly frames fieldwork as primal, instinctive and invasive. Sparke (1996), suggests Stoddard utilises Conrad’s 20th century conceptualisation of fieldwork to claim traditional fieldwork is founded within violent masculinist discourses. Though I am not denying this point, I question Stoddart where this ‘sacred fire’ exists? Though presumptive, it is most likely the field. Stoddart and Conrad’s feminine, submissive field is invaded and engulfed, existing as a nature ‘out there’ waiting to be explored by the militant male geographer. This example may seem on the surface insignificant, but multiple accounts and analyses of historical geographical fieldwork use similar metaphors for the field which are critiqued in work by Felix Driver (2000; 2001) and within feminist work such as Barbra Rubin (1975) and Matthew Sparke (1996). Such critiques elude to the need for an alternative framework in geographical fieldwork to allow considerations of positionality, the people and environment involved in forming the knowledges which are often written out of final fieldwork products. None more so is this needed than in climate change discourses where viewing physical and human processes as co-dependent is essential to guide policy to benefit marginalised groups just as much as white, middle-class Western groups’ ability to mitigate (Dowler and Sharp, 2011). An intersectional ecofeminism fulfils this very need.
Intersectional Ecofeminism Applied in the Field
Previous analysis has centred around theoretical form, I now move towards the conceptualisation of ecofeminism as praxis: its methodology and possible application in specifically reviewing climate change research. Using an intersectional ecofeminism in fieldwork can reveal those who will be most severely impacted by climate change and work to include historically marginalised groups in implementing climate justice. Firstly, methodology, as the epistemological stance taken in approaching climate research, is assessed (England, 2006). Though similar to intersectional ecofeminism’s theoretical form, its methodology deals with the theory which specifically underpins the methods carried out in the field.
Forms of ecofeminism which are not explicitly intersectional are unable to capture the lived experiences of marginalised groups such as black women’s experiences of climate change (Kings, 2017). An intersectional ecofeminist methodology therefore can avoid the pitfalls of reductionism which is so often attributed to ecofeminism (Li, 1993). This problem of reductionism claims that ecofeminist methodology creates a fieldwork which is too heavily focused in tracing interrelated problems of climate change to sexual polarisations; ecological degradation as attributed to ‘maleness’ and ecological sensibility to ‘femaleness’ (Ibid). What an intersectional ecofeminism brings to fieldwork are other forms of identity, it values gender as just one of multiple; raced, classed, bodied identities. In doing so, intersectional ecofeminism does not reduce research into a singular category of nature/women, but instead invites reflexivity towards the approaches and situatedness of those carrying out the research (Kings, 2017). Work of ecofeminist Donna Haraway (1988), addresses this very issue of a lack of situatedness in dominant masculine structures of geographical work, though not specifically fieldwork. Haraway (1988) describes the quest for a usable doctrine of objectivity and positivism as climbing a greased pole. The impossibility of a singular objective truth of climate change geography is both irresponsible and unlocatable (Haraway, 1988) The specificity and partial nature of an intersectional ecofeminism champions multiple sites of fieldwork, at different scales (Katz, 1994). Situated and partial fieldwork dismantles the masculinist sexing and objectification of the people and places which make up the field, working to redistribute power to them.
One issue which has become clear is the absence of research on climate change which explicitly recognises its intersectionality. By not acknowledging the intersectionality of contemporary ecofeminist climate geographies, one could argue the dominance of masculinist fieldwork methodologies are sustained, further obstructing marginalised groups engaging with and creating geographical knowledge. Though not explicitly intersectional, the methods and application of intersectional ecofeminism are exemplified in Erum Muzaffar (2016)’s study on the Environmental Impacts on Agricultural Communities of Sindh, Pakistan. Muzaffar (2016), incorporates a socialist ecofeminism into the field methods, namely through survey questionnaires. Results concluded that in the Sindh region of Pakistan, women’s agricultural activities have declined owing to prolonged drought, rainfall leading to flooding, and deforestation (Muzaffar, 2016). The intersectional ecofeminist perspective is noted in Muzaffar’s discussion over the depletion of women’s well-being due to this decline in agricultural activity. For women in this specific region and culture, limited forms of agricultural labour are the most common sources of income, therefore threats to this pose a great risk to their livelihoods in comparison to their male counterparts (Ibid). The rural economically- and politically-neglected area of Karachi was determined to have the most severe impacts of these environmental changes (Ibid).
What Muzaffar’s study brings to climate change research is an assessment of impacts not only regarding women, but owing specifically to their class and economic status. Fieldwork which addresses these issues show a departure from masculinist universal conclusions of traditional geographical fieldwork and show that intersectional climate change research can be applied. Muzaffar used intersectional ecofeminism to guide the formulation of the survey questions used in fieldwork, therefore methods of fieldwork can be achieved which adhere to an intersectionality. Other studies work from the opposite perspective, including Kings (2016), whom considers environmental burdens of insufficient menstrual hygiene management infrastructure in rural Nepal, India and Pakistan. In this case, fieldwork is centred around environmental impacts but first acknowledges the different registers of identities and social groups which are tied to issues of menstrual hygiene. An intersectional ecofeminist perspective can therefore be incorporated into fieldwork both explicitly in guiding the methods used, but also in terms of situating environmental change within issues of physical and anthropogenic forcing as a wider context. The broad scope of this epistemology as having no hard boundaries, also attributed to Castree et al. (2009)’s environmental geography, is a strength rather than a weakness. The diversity of intersectionality lends to a framework which can be applied to different stages of the fieldwork process at varying degrees, thus has scope to be applied in all manners of climate change work.
Like many post-structuralist theories in geography, ecofeminism’s dismantling of a masculinist fieldwork is easier said than done (Sparke, 1996). It is one thing to propose an epistemology and method of fieldwork, but the credibility of an intersectional ecofeminism requires acceptance within the geographical academy. This brings us back to the question of masculinist structures which dominate the construction and acceptance of knowledge (Grasswick, 2014). These structures remain a barrier for the widespread adoption of an intersectional ecofeminism, given the conservative approaches of Anglo-American academies and geographical institutes (Castree et al., 2009). I however argue that intersectionality is and can be an integral starting point for ecofeminism’s success in geographical work, not just limited to climate change issues. By transcending boundaries of ‘human’ and ‘physical’ forms of fieldwork, an intersectional ecofeminism can produce geographical knowledges which are dynamic and multidisciplinary. In a world where social and environmental issues are messier and more entangled than ever, this approach can provide an awareness which has been previously neglected within geography.
Reference List
Birkeland, J. (1993). “Ecofeminism: Linking Theory and Practice” in Gaard, G. (ed), Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), pp. 13-59.
Castree, N., Demeritt, D., Liverman, D. and Rhoads, B. (2009). A Companion to Environmental Geography. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).
Domosh, M. (1999). Sexing Feminist Geography, Progress in Human Geography, 23(3), pp. 429-436.
Dowler, L. and Sharp, J. (2011). “Framing the Field”, in Del Casino, V., Thomas, M., Cloke, P., Panelli, R. (eds), A companion to social geography. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 146-160.
Driver, F. (2000). Editorial: Field-work in geography, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(3), pp. 267-268.
Driver, F. (2001). Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration and Empire. (Oxford: Blackwell).
England K. (2006). “Producing feminist geographies: Theory, methodologies and research strategies”, in Aitkin, S. and Valentine, G. (eds), Approaches to Human Geography. (London: Sage), pp. 286-297.
Gaard, G. ed. (1993). Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).
Gaard, G. (2014). What’s the story? Competing narratives of climate change and climate justice”, Forum for World Literature Studies, 6(2), pp. 272-281.
Grasswick, H. (2014). Climate Change Science and Responsible Trust: A Situated Approach, Hypatia, 29(3), pp. 541-557.
Haraway D. (1988). The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective, Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575-599.
Katz, C. (1994). Playing the Field: Questions of fieldwork in geography, The Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp. 67-72.
Kings, A. (2017). Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism, Ethics and the Environment, 22(1), pp. 63-87.
Li, H-L. (1993). “A Cross-Cultural Critique of Ecofeminism”, in Gaard, G. (ed), Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), pp. 272-294.
Muzaffar, E. (2016). Environmental Changes and their Impact on Agricultural Communities of Sindh: An Ecofeminist Perspective, Pakistan Perspectives, 21(1), pp. 103-127.
Rubin, B. (1975). Prostitution in Nevada, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 65(1), pp. 113-115.
Salleh, A. (1997). Ecofeminism as politics. (London: Zed Books).
Sparke, M. (1996). “Displacing the Field in Fieldwork”, in Duncan, N. (ed), BodySpace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. (London: Routledge), pp. 212-233.
Stoddart, D. (1986). On Geography and Its History. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Withers, C. (2011). “Geography’s Narratives and Intellectual History”, in Agnew, J. and Livingstone, D. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Geographical Knowledge. (London: SAGE), pp. 39-50.
