Introduction note from the Editor

Notes
¹ Bhabha (2004) questions the defined roles of colonizer and colonized, suggesting a dependent relationship between the two. His theory of hybridity suggests that the while the colonized are defined by the colonizer, the colonizer, too, is defined by the colonized, resulting in a complex dialectical relationship, similar to the relationship between the “oppressor” and the “oppressed,” articulated by Freire (1970).
² I must give credit to Dory Lightfoot for raising this interesting point with me. Often the argument is made against anthropomorphism of animals, but we do not object to the anthropomorphism of humans in narrative fiction.
References
Argueta, L. (Producer), Fusco, C., Heredia, P. (Directors). The Couple in the cage

[motion picture]. USA: Mamboreta, Inc.

Ayers, W. (2001). To teach: The journey of a teacher, 2^nd ed. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.

Bowers, C.A. (2001). Educating for eco-justice and community. Athens, GA: University

of Georgia Press.

Bowers, C.A. (2003). Mindful conservatism: Rethinking the ideological and educational

basis of an ecologically sustainable future. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Burnham, P. (1993). The Ethnographic Zoo [Review of the books, Ota Benga: The

pygmy in the zoo and Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display]. Transition, 60, 184-191.

Crocke, V. (1997). The modern ark: The story of zoos, past, present and future. New

York: Scribner.

Dewey, J. (1902/1990). The child and the curriculum/The school and society. Chicago,

The University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.

Dierking, L., Falk, J. (1992). The Museum Experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback

Books.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Fromm, E. (1997). To have or to be? New York: Continuum.

Gartenhaus, A. (1997). Minds in motion: Using museums to expand creative thinking.

San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap Press.

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In Hall, S. (Ed.), Representation: cultural

representations and signifying practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 13 – 74.

Hancocks, D. (2001). A different nature: The paradoxical world of zoos and their

uncertain future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hesse, H. (1956). The journey to the east. New York: Picador.

Hopkins, L.T. (1937). Integration: Its meaning and application. New York: D. Appleton-

Century Company.

Kirby, A. (2003, August 14). Afghanistan snow leopard trade booms. BBC News.

Retrieved http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3150667.stm

Lather, P. (1991). Deconstructing/deconstructive inquiry: the politics of knowing and

being known. Educational Theory 41(2), pp. 153-173.

Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

Malamud, R. (1998). Reading zoos: Representations of animals and captivity. New York:

NYU Press.

Martel, Y. (2001). The Life of Pi. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Moussaieff-Masson, J., McCarthy, S. (1995). When elephants weep: The emotional lives

of animals. New York: Bantam.

O’Brien, T. (1990). The things they carried. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Orr, D. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Pinar, W., Grumet, M. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall

Publishing.

Quinn, D. (1992). Ishmael. New York: Bantam.

Roberts, L. (1997). From knowledge to narrative: Educators and the changing museum.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.

Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA:

Beacon.

Rothfels, N. (2002). Savages and beasts: The birth of the modern zoo. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins Press.

Said, E. (1994/1978). Orientalism (25^th Anniversary Ed.). New York: Vintage

Schubert, W. (1981). Knowledge about out-of-school curriculum. Educational forum

45(2), 185-199.

Schubert, W. (1986). Curriculum: perspective, paradigm, and possibility. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schubert, W. (2008). Curriculum in theory. In Connelly, F.M., He, M.F., Phillion, J. (Eds.),

Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schubert, W.H. and Ayers, W. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher lore: Learning from our own experience. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Schultz, B. (2007). Spectacular things happen along the way. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books.

Somekawa, E., Smith, E. (1988). Theorizing the writing of history: or, “I can’t think why

it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention”, Journal of Social History (22)1, 149 – 161.

Tillman, L. (1991). Critical fiction/critical self. In Mariani, P. (Ed.), Critical fictions: The

politics of imaginative writing, Seattle, WA: Bay Press.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
Natural Anarchism and Ecowomanism: Crafting Coalition-Based Ecological Praxis
Jessica Spain Sadr

Texas Woman’s University


Abstract: Anarchism and womanism are two seemingly disparate ideologies, yet despite their differences both frameworks for positive social change are concerned with issues pertaining to the natural environment. Ecological currents within these respective rubrics overlap in their response to environmental destruction and commitment global sustainability for planetary well-being. This overlap is especially apparent upon considering natural anarchism, an emerging body of ecoanarchist literature concerned with restoring balance between human life and nonhuman nature. This article demonstrates that despite significant differences between anarchist and womanist philosophies, natural anarchism and ecowomanism share conceptual and practical similarities for addressing ecological degradation and remedying uneven relationships between humans and non-human life. The parity I outline here may guide global citizens to “combine even potentially contradictory positions in a zigzagging pattern of mixed strategies” and confront the destruction of our world (Braidotti, 2006, p. 134). No doubt environmental crisis must be actively resisted from all sides.


Nomadic politics is a complex and multi-layered approach that does not pursue right lines or straight paths, but combines even potentially contradictory positions in a zigzagging pattern of mixed strategies. The ultimate political aim of this strategy is twofold: firstly to create both concepts and values that break from the established norm and do not reproduce it. Secondly, to produce dynamic transversal interaction or movement among the heterogeneous and diverse sites and strategies. Conceptual and ethical creativity is the key term here.

-Rosi Braidotti, Transpositions: On Nomadic Ethics

Introduction

Anarchism and womanism are two seemingly disparate ideologies. Anarchism is a multitudinous collection of ideas, arguments, theories and calls to action that reject imposed authority, hierarchy, and domination. There is no singular anarchist position on political, social, or environmental issues, but anarchist thought does maintain a unity of purpose. Anarchists seek to “establish a decentralized and self-regulating society consisting of a federation of voluntary associations of free and equal individuals. The ultimate goal of anarchy is to create a free society which allows all human beings to realize their full potential” (Marshall, 2010, p. 3). As a political tradition, anarchism highlights the corrupting nature of power and rejects the State and its government in favor of communities based on sharing resources, caring for one another, and improving the collective lives of all.

Womanism, on the other hand, is a world view or:
a social change perspective rooted in Black women’s and other women of color’s everyday experiences and everyday methods of problem solving in everyday spaces, extended to the problem of ending all forms of oppression for all people, restoring balance between people and the environment/nature, and reconciling human life with the spiritual dimension. (Phillips, 2006, p. xx)

More than a theory or an ideology, womanism is an overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; it is an all-encompassing spiritual movement for positive social change.

Regardless of their obvious differences both anarchist and womanist frameworks for positive social change are concerned with issues pertaining to the natural environment. Indeed, ecoanarchist and ecowomanist currents within these respective frameworks often overlap in their response to ecological destruction and commitment global sustainability. This overlap is especially apparent when considering natural anarchism, an emerging body of ecoanarchist literature concerned with restoring balance between human life and nonhuman nature.

In this article I demonstrate that despite significant differences between anarchist and womanist philosophies, natural anarchism and ecowomanism share conceptual and practical similarities for addressing ecological degradation and remedying uneven relationships between humans and non-human life. The parity I outline here may guide global citizens who “combine even potentially contradictory positions in a zigzagging pattern of mixed strategies” to confront the destruction of our world (Braidotti, 2006, p. 134). No doubt environmental crisis must be actively resisted from all sides. As Winona LaDuke (1999) reminds us

Ecosystems are collapsing, species are going extinct, the polar icecaps are melting, and nuclear bombings and accidents have contaminated the land . . . The writing is on the wall, in bold letters. There is no easy answer, and even scientists themselves seem to recognize the necessity of finding new strategies and understandings [for remedying ecological crisis]. (p. 197)
To this end I place natural anarchism and ecowomanism in dialogue with one another. I do so by outlining the ways in which natural anarchism and ecowomanism engage four concepts underlying their respective ecological frameworks: nondualism, interconnectedness, nonviolence, and respect for nonhuman animals. Highlighting the intersections between these two seemingly disparate worldviews is my own contribution to the development of new strategies and understandings for halting ecological degradation and healing the planet.
Nondualism

There is a rich history of environmental concern within anarchist political philosophy. Peter Kropotkin, one of the most influential Western anarchist philosophers of the late nineteenth century, was a geographer who devoted much of his energy to outlining the ecological basis for free communes (Purchase, 1997, p. 62). Kropotkin’s ecologically oriented anarchism inspired twentieth century manifestations including social ecology, anarcho-primitivism, bioregionalism, animal rights, and deep ecology (Hall, 2011, p. 379). Environmental scholars and activists have criticized each of these strains of ecoanarchism for a variety of reasons. For example, ecofeminist Val Plumwood rejects social ecology for its rootedness in Enlightenment humanism arguing that social ecology “maintains the traditional role of reason as the basis of human difference and identity and the chief justification of human superiority over nature” (Plumwood, 1993, p. 15). Feminist environmental philosophers often point to heirarchical taxonomic orderings of the natural world as central to the ongoing human project of dominating nature. As a philosophical project, social ecology does little to address hierarchies based on the elevation of rational human consciousness over other ways of knowing and being in the world (Plumwood, 1993, p. 44; Warren, 2000, p. 23).

Additional critiques of ecoanarchism address anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-primitivists tend to identify civilization and the idea of progress as the root of all ecological problems; they romanticize a pre-civilized past, and call for the “re-wilding” of society (Smith, 2007, p. 472). While social ecologists like Murray Bookchin criticize anarcho-primitivists for being anti-Enlightenment, antirational, and quasi-religious, others have argued that “wildness as an exemplary principle is not focused on the construction of ecological relationships that form the bedrock of an environmental culture” (Hall, 2011, p. 382). Put differently, wildness is not a sufficient framework for understanding interconnectedness, or the self-in-relation to nature, and therefore cannot undergird effective environmental politics grounded in universal egalitarianism. Neither social ecology nor anarcho-primitivism solves the problem of uneven, nonhierarchical relationships between humans and nonhuman nature.

Natural anarchism is part of an emergent body of ecoanarchist literature that maintains the rejection of state power, the abolition of private property, and other major tenets of anarchist thought. However, natural anarchism differs from more visible ecoanarchist theory in that it moves beyond human/nature, civilization/wildness dualisms. Posited in the writings of pattrice jones, natural anarchism takes a radically liberatory approach to understanding ecology and human relationships to nonhuman nature. Recognizing that the rearrangement of power relations simply among humans will not curb ecological crisis natural anarchists view “plants and nonhuman animals as allies in a shared struggle for peace and freedom for everybody” (jones,2 2009, p. 236). In fact, animals and plants are model natural anarchists as they resist socially constructed governments and refuse human imposed borders through their migrations and various forms of self-governance. Flattening out the human/nonhuman hierarchy, jones asserts that environmentalists must refuse human constructions of consciousness and purpose that inherently favor human life. Bias toward human faculties facilitates ignorance of the ways in which awareness and intention might be realized in nonhuman beings.

Similarly, disrupting the normalized human/nonhuman nature hierarchy is central to ecowomanist philosophy. Ecowomanism is a womanist approach to ecological issues or “a social change perspective based on a holistic perception of creation encompassing humans and all living organisms plus the nonliving environment and the spirit world” (Phillips, 2010, p. 8). Layli Maparyan (2010) notes that the term ecowomanism is nearly redundant because womanism always already prioritizes the natural environment: “womanist concerns with healing, justice, and other modalities of transformation apply just as much to the natural environment as they do to people and society (not to mention the self)” (p. 278). Nevertheless, the term ecowomanism highlights environmental social change praxis occurring under a womanist rubric. Natural anarchism and ecowomanism demonstrate parity in that both ecological ideologies recognize humans—in relationship to nonhuman nature—as situated within a vast ecological framework. Maparyan writes:
[H]uman beings are “part of nature.” We are not separate from the rest of creation . . . [W]e are not “a species apart” or designed to exercise dominion as domination. Our optimal state is harmony with and embeddedness within the rest of nature, that is, the ecosystem. (p. 37)
Both natural anarchism and ecowomanism challenge the notion that humans are inherently separate from and superior to nonhuman nature. Because ecological crisis is rooted in humans’ sense of dominion over nature, resisting hierarchical dualisms differentiating humans from nonhuman nature is key to curbing environmental degradation and generating a sustainable ecological framework for future generations.

The rejection of dualisms is integral to Shamara Shantu Riley’s Afrocentric ecowomanism. Riley contends that the all-encompassing Western dualistic worldview is the cause of modern ecological destruction. With dualistic thinking humans, nonhuman nature, ideas, and spirit are categorized as different and intrinsically opposed to each other. Riley observes that womanism and ecology posses similar theoretical approaches in that both recognize all parts of an ecosystem, or matrix, as having equal value. Womanist social change considers the equality of all races, genders, and sexual preferences for a just society. Ecology claims that without each element in the ecosystem the biosphere as a whole cannot function properly for planetary well-being. Consequently, Riley asserts that womanist liberation politics are useless if people are required to live on a planet that cannot support the liberated lives of all. It is equally useless, she argues, to save the planet without disrupting oppressive social relations that marginalize people around the world. Thus, “[i]f the planet as a whole is to survive, we must all being to see ourselves as interconnected with nonhuman nature and with one another” (Riley, 2003, p. 400). If dualistic worldviews connoting separation are the problem, placing value on the interconnectedness of all things, living and nonliving, provides at least a partial answer to ecological crisis and social oppression.

Interconnectedness
Layli Maparyan (2012) echoes Riley’s holistic perspective for understanding the inextricable interconnectedness of social and ecological oppressions. She writes
[D]isease at the physical level is assumed to be interconnected with (if not caused by) imbalance and disequilibrium at emotional, mental, and spiritual levels, and to also manifest outward socially and environmentally . . . [T]he implication here is that all social and environmental problems, as well as all individual human problems, are simply macrocosmic and microcosmic, or systemic, resonances of the same thing. (p. 54)
Natural anarchism functions from within a similar appreciation of the intersection of oppressions and the radical interconnection of all things. This is expressed in natural anarchists’ acknowledgment that all forms of oppression from sexism and speciesism to racism and environmental exploitation are symptoms of the same problem (jones, 2009, p. 321). Pattrice jones writes
At the heart of the problem is alienation, separation, disassociation. In order to “own” a piece of land, you must first alienate yourself from it, psychologically tearing yourself out of the seamless fabric of your ecosystem in order to lay claim to part of it . . . Estrangement is both cause and consequence of the problem. We are cut off from the earth, other animals, each other, and ourselves. Those disconnections, in turn, allow us to do terrible things to the earth, other animals, each other, and ourselves. These actions increase the estrangement, and the cycle of violation and separation continues. (p. 322)
For both ecowomanists and natural anarchists actions that disrupt nondualist interconnectedness, or what jones refers to as “the web of relationships that is the basis of all life,” are the root causes of both environmental degradation and human suffering (p. 237). Both natural anarchism and ecowomanism assert that environmentalists committed to “saving the world” must accept the inextricable, nonhierarchical connections between all that lives so that they may intercede at the source of all forms of oppression: violent separation from self, others, and the Earth.

Despite the philosophical parity outlined here, natural anarchism and ecowomanism maintain significant differences particularly in terms of recommended action for positive social change. This divergence is characterized by ecowomanism’s emphasis on spiritualized activism, or social change that is informed by spiritual or faith principles. For example, Riley (2003) contends that African cosmology offers a solution for transcending philosophical dualism and the human/nonhuman nature hierarchy responsible for environmental degradation and other various forms of social injustice. “In utilizing spiritual concepts to move beyond dualism,” she writes, “precolonial African cultures, with their both/and perspectives, are useful forms of knowledge for Afrocentric ecowomanists to envision patterns toward interdependence of human and nonhuman nature” (p. 407). Riley explains that traditional West African cultures view all things as being alive on varying levels of existence. She invokes the Nyam concept, which is rooted in numerous West African languages, to illustrate the West African spiritual belief that all life possesses enduring power and energy. Accordingly, “all forms of life are deemed to posses certain rights, which cannot be violated at will” (p. 407). As such, many ecowomanists assert that Afrocentric spirituality offers a framework for humans to see the ways in which the Earth is not merely a source for human survival, but intrinsically valuable in itself. Unlike mainstream Western religions, Afrocentric world views demonstrate a pattern of living in harmony with the rest of nature, rather than seeking to disconnect from it. Elevating West African spiritual concepts socially might work to transform relationships between humans and nonhuman nature, which could also partially halt environmental exploitation and generate interconnectedness strategies for sustainability. If dominant society begins to explicitly honor and respect nonhuman nature as having intrinsic rather than instrumental value then it will no doubt become difficult to continue exploiting the Earth’s natural resources. Disrupting dualisms also challenges systemic hierarchies grounded in difference and pushes eco-activists to reconcile rampant social, political, and economic inequality worldwide.

In a similar manner, Maparyan (2012) invokes womanist spiritual activism for addressing ecological crisis. According to Maparyan spiritual activism is “social or ecological transformational activity rooted in a spiritual belief system or set of spiritual practices or activities” (55). She asserts that spirituality undergirds womanism entirely, and that womanist social and ecological transformation methodology rests on a belief in the invisible, spiritual world and some active, communicative relationship with that world. For Maparyan, interconnectedness extends beyond human-nonhuman connectivity to incorporate the cosmos and cosmic realm. She notes, “womanist spiritual practices may be received passively, trained or taught interactively, developed over a course of intensive study, transmitted directly by spiritual teachers and guides, or simply made up when a womanist is so moved” (55). Thus, spirituality is not rigid or dogmatic, and spiritual activism can and does take a variety of forms.

Womanist spiritual activism may include nurturance, or the spirit of care-taking. Womanist nurturance does not imply power differentials between caretakers and those receiving care but implies a “humanizing hierarchy” that recognizes the unique knowledge, resources, or skill caretakers have to offer those who are in their care (p. 47). Maparyan asserts that because of the ways in which humans have damaged the ecosystem human efforts at repair are morally mandated; we must nurture the Earth back to health using our unique knowledge and resources. Ecowomanist spiritual activism provides a litany of practical application for ecological nurturance ranging from obtaining maximum use from the things we must consume to respecting animals and plants as sentient, volitional creatures.

While natural anarchism is not explicitly “spiritphobic” little is written about the role of spirituality in natural anarchist eco-thought and activism. Jones does note that many anarchist eco-activists—particularly feminists—embrace atheism due to an inability to reconcile the power differentials justified by what she calls “patriarchal ‘faiths’” with a commitment to freedom for all (p. 332). But religion and spirituality should not be conflated as they are not interchangeable concepts, and some ecoanarchist currents embrace a form of spirituality that might be understood as similar to womanist spirituality. For example, many anarcho-primitivists support “mystical” aspects of deep ecological consciousness and draw inspiration from Tao Te Ching, Wicca, and other sources of spirituality to inform and enact environmental praxis (Carter, 2010, p. 470). And revolutionary environmentalists “adopt spiritual outlooks and see nature as sacred” (Best and Nocella, 2006, p. 20). However, ecological anarchist currents, including natural anarchism, do not place spirituality at the center of ecological thought and activism in quite the same way womanism does. Natural anarchists highlight liberation as an undergirding principle not directly associated with any particular cosmology or spiritual framework. And while spirituality is not completely eschewed, it is not a foundational component of natural anarchist worldview.