The Teachers’ File

ECOFEMINISM: WHAT ONE NEEDS TO KNOW

by Nancy R. Howell

Abstract . Ecofeminism refers to feminist theory and activism in-

formed by ecology. Ecofeminism is concerned with connections
between the domination of women and the domination of na-
ture. Although ecofeminism is a diverse movement, ecofeminist
theorists share the presuppositions that social transformation is
necessary for ecological survival, that intellectual transformation
of dominant modes of thought must accompany social transfor-
mation, that nature teaches nondualistic and nonhierarchial sys-
tems of relation that are models for social transformation of
values, and that human and cultural diversity are values in social
transformation. Ecofeminist theology, ethics, and religious per-
spectives are particularly concerned with the integration of sci-
ence and religion. Examples of religious or spiritual ecofeminisms
are North American Christian ecofeminism, North American
womanist Christian theology, neopagan Wiccan ecofeminism,
Native American ecofeminism, and Third World ecofeminism.

Keywords: animal rights; common creation story; diversity; dual-

ism; ecofeminism; ecology; epistemology; feminism; hierarchy; patri-
archy; religious pluralism; womanism.

Ecofeminism emerged as part of the 1970s feminist movement and took

its name from Françoise d’Eaubonne’s term ecofeminisme, which ap-
peared in 1974 in Le féminisme ou la mort, where d’Eaubonne calls for a
feminist revolution to assure global ecological survival. Writing in out-
spoken French feminist style, d’Eaubonne holds patriarchal systems and
male power responsible for “the destruction of the environment and for

Nancy R. Howell is Associate Professor of Religion at Pacific Lutheran University. Her

address is Department of Religion, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA 98447. A version
of this essay was first presented to the Highlands Institute for American Religious Thought
in June 1996 under the title “Through the Looking Glass: Ecofeminist Reflections on Science
and Religion.” Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this article for class use, with this
note: Reprinted from Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science.

[Zygon, vol. 32, no. 2 (June 1997).]

© 1997 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon. ISSN 0591-2385

231
232 Zygon

the accelerated pollution that accompanies this madness, bequeathing an

uninhabitable planet for posterity” (1981, 64). The ecological revolution
that d’Eaubonne charges to lead the opposition requires destruction of
male power to make way, not for female power or matriarchy, but for
new egalitarian gender relations between men and women and between
humans and nature (d’Eaubonne 1981, 66–67; Merchant 1990, 100).
Definitions of ecofeminism suggest not only that ecology and femi-
nism can be profitably linked for the sake of analysis and activism but
that integrative thinking about ecology and feminism requires support-
ing political, economic, social, and cultural analysis. Rosemary Radford
Ruether, an ecofeminist theologian, features the interplay of feminism
and ecology in her definition of ecofeminism: “Ecofeminism brings to-
gether these two explorations of ecology and feminism, in their full, or
deep forms, and explores how male domination of women and domina-
tion of nature are interconnected, both in cultural ideology and in social
structures” (Ruether 1992, 2). Ruether’s ecofeminism approaches eco-
logical issues through analytical frames provided by cultural, historical,
religious, and social studies. Janis Birkeland, an ecofeminist environ-
mental planner, sees ecofeminism as the logical conclusion of feminism
that “theorizes the interrelations among self, societies, and nature”
(Birkeland 1993, 17–18). Birkeland’s definition of ecofeminism stresses
the importance of the analytic frame provided by politics for investigat-
ing gender power dynamics at play in ecological disaster: “Ecofeminism
is a value system, a social movement, and a practice, but it also offers a
political analysis that explores the links between androcentricism and
environmental destruction” (Birkeland 1993, 18).
As Ruether’s and Birkeland’s definitions of ecofeminism indicate,
ecofeminism refers to an interconnection between women and nature, as
in Ruether’s reference to the interconnection between the domination of
women and the domination of nature. The interconnection between
women and nature, for Ruether and others, leverages a critique of systems
hostile to women and nature. Carol J. Adams, an ecofeminist animal
rights and antiracist activist, locates a critique of oppression in her de-
scription of ecofeminism: “Ecofeminism identifies the twin dominations
of women and the rest of nature. To the issues of sexism, racism, classism,
and heterosexism that concern feminism, ecofeminism adds naturism—
the oppression of the rest of nature. Ecofeminism argues that the connec-
tions between the oppression of women and nature must be recognized to
understand adequately both oppressions” (Adams 1993, 1).
Ecofeminism recognizes that historical ideological association of
women and nature has not been advantageous for either women or
nature. Ecofeminist theologian Anne Primavesi describes ecofeminism
with reference to how ideological association of women and nature is
 Nancy R. Howell 233

harmful: “Ecofeminism stresses the connections between woman and

Nature on the grounds that Nature, in our distanced, masculine-scien-
tific culture, has also been made ‘other,’ something essentially different
from the dominant human male who has an unlimited right to exploit
‘mother’ earth” (Primavesi 1991, 42). Primavesi claims that male domi-
nation of women is a pattern repeated in scientific and technological
concepts of “absolute mastery over matter” (Primavesi 1991, 42).
Whereas ecofeminist critique of the disastrous consequences of ideo-
logical connection of women and nature is common in definitions of
ecofeminism, descriptions of ecofeminism that focus on constructive
ecofeminist thought retain the connection of women and nature on
different terms. Women’s biology and subjectivity as values suggest an
analogy or premise that supports the intrinsic value of nature. Irene
Diamond and Gloria Orenstein, editors of an ecofeminist anthology,
describe the constructive task of ecofeminism as seeking to “reweave new
stories that acknowledge and value the biological and cultural diversity
that sustains all life” (Diamond and Orenstein 1990, xi).

ECOFEMINIST PRESUPPOSITIONS
Although ecofeminists are quite diverse in their approaches to ecology
and feminism, it may be possible to identify some common presupposi-
tions, principles, precepts, or beliefs that shape ecofeminist thought.
Some ecofeminist presuppositions are given in analyses by Janis
Birkeland and by Ynestra King, who developed ecofeminism in the mid-
seventies at the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont. A first presup-
position and expectation of ecofeminism is that social transformation is
necessary for the sake of survival and justice. Social transformation must
reassess and reconstruct values and relations toward equality, cultural
diversity, and nonviolence in associations that are nonhierarchical, non-
competitive, and fully participatory (Birkeland 1993, 20). Ecofeminism
imagines and requires that power-based, hierarchical relationships must
be replaced with reciprocity and mutuality. The goals for social transfor-
mation cannot override the values stressed by ecofeminists; therefore,
process is as important as goals, and patriarchal or hierarchical power
tactics are excluded as means to enable survival and justice. Without
compromising commitment to cultural diversity, social transformation
must be part of a decentered global movement that advances common
goals and opposes all forms of oppression and domination (King 1989,
20). Recalling feminist arguments that all theory is value laden and
perspectival, ecofeminism is praxis, the integration of theory and action.
Ecofeminist thinking about domination of persons and nature requires
activism consistent with analysis and ecofeminist movement toward so-
cial transformation.
234 Zygon

A second presupposition and expectation of ecofeminism is that social

transformation must include an intellectual transformation. Whereas
normative logic relies on formulaic dualism and hierarchy, ecofeminism
urges nondualistic and nonhierarchical forms of thought. Ecofeminism
questions fundamental assumptions about dualisms of culture/nature,
mind/body, reason/emotion, human/animal, subjectivity/object, indi-
viduality/interconnection, and public-male/private-female (Birkeland
1993, 20; King 1989, 19–20). When coupled with a value hierarchy, the
dualisms translate into attitudes and behaviors that privilege certain civi-
lizations, intellectual worldviews, and human persons over persons who
are identified with the body, emotions, nonnormative worldviews, and
animals—even privileging intelligent animals, such as the great apes and
dolphins, over other animals. These dualist and hierarchical habits of
mind negatively associate women with nature. Because dualist and hier-
archical thinking justifies devaluation and domination, opposition to
this negative association of women and nature is the basis of ecofeminist
criticism and activism that argue that the struggles of nature are, in fact,
the struggles of women (King 1989, 19). Ecofeminism calls for new
intellectual frames of reference that integrate the false dualisms that
function divisively to separate male and female, privileged persons from
“others,” and humanity from “environment” (Birkeland 1993, 20).
A third presupposition of ecofeminism is that reforming the way that
nature is valued should transform human relationships with nature.
Ecofeminism calls for a shift from instrumental value to intrinsic value
in assessing nature (Birkeland 1993, 20). There must be a corresponding
shift from treating nature as commodity and object to respecting nature
in itself rather than for its usefulness to humans. Valuing nature entails
valuing the wisdom intrinsic to nature. Ecofeminism borrows from the
science of ecology, itself a theoretical construction and interpretation of
nature’s wisdom. Ecology teaches that life comprises interconnected and
interdependent processes. An ecological perspective makes it difficult to
maintain with certainty that nature is organized hierarchically;
ecofeminism claims that hierarchy is projected onto nature from the
perspective of human social models (King 1989, 24). A biocentric view
rejects hierarchy and the human illusion that it is possible to manage or
control nature and instead favors reciprocity in relationship with nature.
Biology further teaches the importance of diversity for survival. Simplifi-
cation of the gene pool limits the capacity for adaptation and survival.
Ecofeminists value biological diversity within nature and among hu-
mans, resisting inordinate interference with biological speciation and
classist and racist genocide among humans (King 1989, 20).
A fourth ecofeminist presupposition is that what ecology teaches
about nature is equally relevant to humans, since humans are part of
 Nancy R. Howell 235

nature and participants in ecological processes. Biological diversity sug-

gests to ecofeminists that human diversity is valuable. Under this princi-
ple, women, persons of color, and the poor should be recognized for
their intrinsic value and subjectivity. Some ecofeminists are careful to
mention the value of diverse human expressions of sexuality, religion,
ability, and nationality, as well as the diversity within constructed catego-
ries of humans. Within power-based hierarchies, domination and exploi-
tation of humans along the lines of class, race, gender, religion,
nationality, or sexuality jeopardize ecological survival and human well-
being. Human and ecological survival and justice are linked with nurtur-
ing the interdependence of diverse humans.

ECOFEMINISM, SCIENCE, AND RELIGION

Ecofeminism, as both a theoretical and an activist movement, is an
innovative player in the dialogue between and integration of science and
religion—this claim is the central contention of my commentary on
ecofeminism. In particular, ecofeminist theology, ethics, and spirituality
or religious perspectives are engaged in the critical and constructive tasks
of integrating science and religion toward ecofeminist praxis: activist
theorizing or reflective activism.
Ian Barbour, who prepared the 1989–1991 Gifford Lectures, makes a
case for the value of ecofeminism within the field of science and religion.
In Barbour’s Religion in an Age of Science, the first volume of his Gifford
Lectures, he points out the challenges that three often marginalized
perspectives pose for science and religion. Third World and feminist
perspectives pose the problem that both science and religion are embed-
ded in cultural-historical contexts that privilege Western economic and
gender biases (Barbour 1990, 76–81). Religious pluralism poses the
challenge and complexity of cross-cultural perspectives for the integra-
tion of science and religion, since religion is more problematic for con-
sensus than science (Barbour 1990, 81). The advantage of ecofeminism,
where there is no absolute consensus, is that it is a cross-cultural and
plural movement inclusive of Third World, feminist, and plural religious
perspectives.
Ecofeminism as a Critical Perspective. Ecofeminism draws from femi-
nist critical perspectives on science and on religion. Both science and
religion are held accountable by feminism for limiting access to the pro-
fessions for women. In the absence of women’s voices, science and relig-
ion suffer from androcentric methodological biases, language, and
models.
Carolyn Merchant’s The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the
Scientific Revolution (1980) exemplifies a feminist analysis and critique.
236 Zygon

Her historical analysis examines the rise of modern science within the
context of an overarching paradigm shift in Western European images
shared by women and nature. Her historical review demonstrates that
science and religion (Christianity), as well as philosophy, art, literature,
economics, medicine, politics, and society, incorporated values that
emerged in the paradigm shift from organicism to a mechanical world-
view. In sixteenth-century Europe, organism was the central metaphor
representing a worldview that understood self, society, and the cosmos as
interdependent, that attributed vitality to all things in the cosmos, and
that subordinated individuals to the purposes of communities (Merchant
1980, 1). Organismic theory used the metaphor nurturing mother to
describe orderly earth as beneficent provider. Relating to the earth as
nurturing mother served as “a cultural constraint restricting the types of
socially and morally sanctioned human actions allowable with respect to
the earth” (Merchant 1980, 2). Simultaneously in the sixteenth century,
a second image of the earth as wild and uncontrollable female described
nature as violent and chaotic. With the rise of modern science and the
emergence of a mechanical model that interpreted the cosmos as a ma-
chine, the wild, uncontrollable woman gradually gained prominence as
the dominant metaphor. Mastery and control of nature replaced respect
for nature, since the appropriate response to the wild woman was to
tame and control her (Merchant 1980, 2). The religious image of do-
minion was adopted in the political and social sphere (Merchant 1980,
3). The scientific revolution submerged organic, animistic assumptions
about nature and replaced them with the assumption that nature was
constituted by dead, inert particles that could be manipulated externally
(Merchant 1980, 193). The death of nature accompanied the metaphori-
cal shift from nature as nurturing mother to wild woman, as the scien-
tific revolution addressed the seventeenth-century struggle for order and
stability. Merchant’s historical analysis, then, demonstrates how the or-
ganic and mechanical models entailed images associating women and
nature and how the paradigm shift to mechanism resulted in the death
of nature and altered roles for women in science, production, and society
(which I have not discussed here).
Ecofeminism as a Constructive Religious Perspective. Since the focus
of this introduction to ecofeminism is the constructive work of
ecofeminism in integrating science and religion, I now give examples of
ecofeminist models from North American Christian ecofeminism, North
American womanist Christian theology, neopagan Wiccan ecofeminism,
Native American ecofeminism, and Third World ecofeminism and
religion.
Rosemary Radford Ruether and Sallie McFague construct Christian
ecofeminist models from the perspective of North American educated
 Nancy R. Howell 237

women privileged by education, class, and race in the United States.

Their models have in common a holistic view of the cosmos rather than
a focus upon particularity or species. Ruether’s constructive ecofeminist
theology recently has been developed in her Gaia and God (1992), where
she proposes a theocosmology. Gaia and God reflects upon creation and
destruction stories that were formative of a Christian synthesis and upon
scientific creation and destruction stories, as well as the origins of domi-
nation. Just as early Christianity emerged from and responded to Greek,
Babylonian, and Hebraic traditions, contemporary Christianity is poised
to respond to emerging scientific discovery and the ecological crisis.
Ruether’s theocosmology sketches an ecofeminist theology of nature in-
debted to the creation spirituality of Matthew Fox, the cosmological
theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and the process metaphysics of
Alfred North Whitehead. Ruether’s theocosmology affirms three princi-
ples: that we must accept the integrity and transience of our personal
centers and the personal centers of all beings, that we must affirm the
value and interdependence of all living things, and that we must act
upon the value of communion and kinship with other personal centers
(Ruether 1992, 251–52). In Ruether’s theocosmology, God and Gaia are
commingled. Christians encounter Gaia as
the wellspring of life and creativity from which all things have sprung and into
which they return, only to well up again in new forms. . . . the great Thou, the
personal center of the universal process, with which all the small centers of personal
being dialogue in the conversation that continually creates and recreates the world.
The small selves and the Great Self are finally one, for as She bodies forth in us,
all the beings respond in the bodying forth of their diverse creative work that makes
the world (Ruether 1992, 253).

McFague, first in Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear

Age (1987), and more recently in The Body of God: An Ecological Theol-
ogy (1993), pursues ecofeminist metaphorical theology in search of new
images and models of God and the God-world relationship. The Body of
God proposes that the Big Bang theory (and the theory of evolution)
might function as a Common Creation Story enabling a religiously
plural world to remythologize the scientific story in particular religious
contexts for the sake of a common global point of contact. The common
creation story expresses the common origin of all bodies in stardust and
the evolution of a diversity of bodies (McFague 1993, 38–47). The
model of the world as the body of God breaks down the spirit/body
dualism, values the body, and expresses divine concern that the basic
human needs of all bodies be met. Continuing the work of Teilhard de
Chardin and Whitehead, McFague describes her model as agential-or-
ganic and panentheist. These labels are shorthand for a theology of
nature that affirms divine purpose in the universe, God as the spirit (life)
238 Zygon

of the body (cosmos), God as transcendent and immanent, God and the
world as interdependent, and all bodies (living and nonliving) as inter-
connected, interdependent, and valuable in the divine body (McFague
1993, 140–41).
Whereas Ruether and McFague construct holistic theological cos-
mologies, Carol J. Adams constructs an ecofeminist perspective con-
cerned with particular animals rather than the whole cosmic matrix. As
an animal rights activist also engaged in feminist and antiracist activism,
Adams, in Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism in Defense of Animals
(1994), uses science critically to examine the technology and sexual
politics of meat eating, the fur industry, and animal experimentation.
Although the bulk of her analysis is a critique of the dualism and objecti-
fication that support the masculine domination of animals, women, and
persons of color in interlocking systems of domination, Adams’s collec-
tion of essays also suggests how feminist theology can transform “beastly
theology.” Beastly theology is patriarchal, absolutist, hierarchical, and
dualistic and thus supports domination in its logic and language (Adams
1994, 179–85). Feminist theology offers an epistemological shift to ex-
perience as a corrective to beastly authority and ontology (Adams 1994,
194). Adams’s proposal is a “second-person” theology. Just as human
personhood is formed in relationship and interdependence with other
humans who teach us the arts of personhood, God, too, is known and
unfolds in relationships with humans. Because commoditized animals
are caged and isolated from relationships with animals and humans,
animals are excluded from experiencing the relational God (Adams
1994, 195). Adams raises two transforming theological questions: “Does
the creation of some beings solely for the purpose of being objects make
sense in the face of an intrinsically and radically relational divinity? If
God is process, being, and revealed through relationship should we not
situate all beings within that divine relationship, seeing with loving
eyes?” (Adams 1994, 195). Second-person theology restores subjectivity
of animals and human relationship with animals (Adams 1994, 197.)
Womanist theology has emerged recently as an African-American
ecofeminist theology. It is not that African-American women have fol-
lowed the course of white ecofeminist theologians, but intrinsic to a
theology that objects to racist dehumanization of African-Americans is
awareness that there is an analogy between assault upon the earth and
assault upon black women’s bodies. Delores S. Williams describes the
“sin of defilement” as “human attack upon creation so as to ravish,
violate, and destroy creation: to exploit and control the production and
reproduction capacities of nature, to destroy the unity in nature’s place-
ments, to obliterate the spirit of the created” (Williams 1993a, 25). The
sin of defilement applies to nature and black women’s bodies, and Wil-
 Nancy R. Howell 239

liams argues that Christianity, science, and politics conspire to render

the defilement invisible by associating permanent negative valuation to
the color black (Williams 1993a, 28). Williams’s constructive theology
Sisters in the Wilderness (1993b) uses the biblical story of Hagar, Abra-
ham and Sarah’s Egyptian slave, as a literary frame to interpret a woman-
ist theological motif of survival and quality of life. Wilderness has
spiritual and political significance as a symbol of resistance to and free-
dom from enslavement; encounter with God, who is not liberator but
participant in survival, visionary, and source of promise; and black
women’s liberating power and resourcefulness (Williams 1993b, 20–22,
120–30). Nature as wilderness is not romantically associated with
women’s embodiment but ambivalently symbolizes hope and risk (Wil-
liams 1993b, 29–31.)
Neopagan ecofeminism and Native American ecofeminism are cate-
gories of earth-based spirituality. The Wiccan ecofeminism of
Starhawk is an example of neopagan ecofeminist spirituality. Assisted
by Ruether’s and Merchant’s historical analyses of the persecution of
witches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Starhawk offers an
ecofeminist criticism of how established Christianity and science
usurped the power, healing, and spiritual wisdom of women who prac-
ticed the Old Religion (Starhawk 1982, 183–219). Starhawk’s con-
structive ecofeminist reflection names three roots of earth-based
spirituality: the immanence of spirit (god, goddess) in the living cos-
mos (which could be referred to as pantheism), the interconnection of
everything in the living earth, and the community of beings who are
part of the living cosmos (Starhawk 1990, 73–74). Neopagan earth-
based spirituality requires integrity and activism, and in particular,
Starhawk writes about both antinuclear and environmental activism
(Starhawk 1982; 1990).
Paula Gunn Allen, a Laguna Pueblo/Sioux, provides one example of
Native American ecofeminism. Allen’s novel, poetry, and essays speak to
the North American cultural assault on Native American traditions
about nature, women, and spirit, but above all, Allen recovers Native
American traditions and myths that speak to women, nature, and crea-
tion. Allen recovers diverse stories of Thought Woman, Old Spider
Woman, Earth Woman, Corn Woman, and Serpent Woman—all names
for the quintessential spirit who pervades everything, bestows sacredness
with her blessing, and informs right balance and harmony (Allen 1992,
13–14). What these female spirits make is the earth, creation, and crea-
tures. Quite distinct from images of reproduction used to describe crea-
tion, the spirit Creatrix thinks or names beings into life (Allen 1992,
15–16). Native American mythology entails understanding the earth as
female, Grandmother Earth, a physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional
240 Zygon

being (Allen 1990, 52). Myth, ritual, and tradition support reciprocity
with nature and between women and men.
One example of Third World ecofeminism is Vandana Shiva’s critical
reflection on Indian Hindu cosmology and women’s work in food pro-
duction, water management, and silviculture. Shiva uses ecological sci-
ence to corroborate the sound ancient practices of women whose care for
land, water, and forests was supported culturally and religiously by the
notion of Shakti as dynamic energy, the feminine principle, and of Prak-
riti as nature, the manifestation of Shakti (Shiva 1989, 38). Shiva con-
trasts Indian cosmology with a Cartesian concept of nature and Indian
ethnoscience with reductionist Western science, and she argues that
Western science, technology, politics, and economic development have
exploited nature and marginalized women (Shiva 1989, 40, 219). Her
constructive Indian ecofeminism calls for the recovery of Indian cosmol-
ogy and ethnoscience to replace Western maldevelopment and to restore
cultural harmony for women, men, and nature, ecological sustainability,
and biological diversity (Shiva 1989, 223).
Ecofeminism that reflects upon both science and religion is not a
single theoretical or activist movement but represents historical, contex-
tual, and plural approaches to the integration of ecology and feminist
religious perspectives. Diverse ecofeminist alternatives are not intent
upon consensus but engage in coalition toward common goals ending
domination of women and nature and ensuring ecological survival with
human justice and ecojustice.

REFERENCES
Adams, Carol J. 1993. “Introduction.” In Ecofeminism and the Sacred, ed. Carol J. Adams.
New York: Continuum.
_____. 1994. Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York:
Continuum.
Allen, Paula Gunn. 1990. “The Woman I Love Is a Planet; the Planet I Love Is a Tree.” In
Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman
Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
_____. 1992. The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Barbour, Ian. 1990. Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures 1989–1991, Vol. One.
San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Birkeland, Janis. 1993. “Ecofeminism: Linking Theory and Practice.” In Ecofeminism:
Women, Animals, Nature, ed. Greta Gaard. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
d’Eaubonne, Françoise. 1981. “Feminism or Death.” In New French Feminism: An Anthology,
ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron. New York: Schocken Books. Originally
published as Le féminism ou la mort (Paris: Pierre Horay, 1974).
Diamond, Irene, and Gloria Feman Orenstein, eds. 1990. Reweaving the World: The Emergence of
Ecofeminism. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
King, Ynestra. 1989. “The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology.” In Healing
the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism, ed. Judith Phanta. Philadelphia and Santa Cruz:
New Society.
McFague, Sallie. 1987. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
 Nancy R. Howell 241

_____. 1993. The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution.
San Francisco: Harper and Row.
_____. 1990. “Ecofeminism and Feminist Theory.” In Reweaving the World: The Emergence
of Ecofeminism, ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra
Club Books.
_____. 1992. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. New York: Routledge.
Primavesi, Anne. 1991. From Apocalypse to Genesis: Ecology, Feminism, and Christianity.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1992. Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing.
San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Shiva, Vandana. 1989. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. London: Zed Books.
Starhawk. 1982. Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex & Politics. Boston: Beacon Press.
_____. 1990. “Power, Authority, and Mystery: Ecofeminism and Earth-based Spirituality.”
In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria
Feman Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Williams, Delores S. 1993a. “Sin, Nature, and Black Women’s Bodies.” In Ecofeminism and
the Sacred, ed. Carol J. Adams. New York: Continuum.
_____. 1993b. Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk. Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books.