appropriating rape
March 29, 2007 by thinking girl
I’ve been taking a course this term on environmental justice. It’s been interesting for me, because I’m not very eco-savvy. Despite that my best friend is an environmental goddess. I’ve never been all that concerned about these matters, but it seems like the time is well afoot to be concerned, so yeah. Why not take a class about it? Also very interesting for me has been the intersection between environmentalism and gender, class, and race issues. That’s where the “justice” part comes in.
One of the things I’ve noticed in this class, both in the readings and in the discussion among my fellow students, is how common it is to appropriate rape as an analogy to describe environmental destruction: “raping the earth” is a phrase that has come up a number of times.
Whenever this term has been tossed out into the classroom, a common space shared by all of us as students as well as our instructor, I’d say about 60% of whom are female, it has hit me like a ton of bricks. I can only describe the emotional reaction I have had as one of shutting down. I can’t concentrate on what is being said beyond that point; it’s like there’s been a wall erected in my learning environment. I hear that phrase, and I can’t hear anything else. I am paralyzed by it. I can no longer participate, not even to register my disappointment and distress at the use of this analogy. This creates a hostile learning environment for me.
I am very disappointed that people choose to use this analogy in talking about environmental degradation. By saying that destroying the earth is like rape, two things are done. First, rape survivors feel it. In a room with 20 females, statistically speaking, 5 of them are survivors of sexual violence. They don’t need this reminder. They also don’t need their experiences appropriated in order to make a rhetorical point. It is not appropriate in any way to compare something done to the earth to something that real women have experienced and continue to experience everyday on a widespread scale as part of their gendered oppression. It is not at all appropriate to discuss the violation of a person’s body and psyche with the extraction of resources from the earth, or the destruction of an ecosystem. The earth is not a living being in the same way that humans are living beings, and it is not a valid analogy to draw. If these people using this analogy are so concerned with exploitation, they should consider the exploitation of women and rape survivors to be a high priority.
Secondly, comparing environmental destruction to rape positions women as something like the earth: not really thinking, feeling beings, but irrational, passive resources to be used and exploited for gain. It places women on par with nature, and further from humanity. It “others” women, making women more “natural”, more impulsive, more essentialized. It makes women no more than our sex, our bodies, the most “natural” thing about us, and makes women’s sexuality and reproduction in particular a point of departure for exploitation.
And as this rhetorical device serves to make women more like the earth and nature, at the same time it feminizes the earth. The earth isn’t made strong, independent, masculine - it is made to submit to the desires and whims of humans. We can even tear apart mountains if we want to, cut into diamonds to create multifaceted jewelry, plunge the depths of the ocean floors. There isn’t a single inch of this earth that can’t be bent to humans’ will, forced to behave, to become tame, to be destroyed to build our “civilizations.” Conceptually, “Mother Earth” is just a woman after all, something that has been dominated for many centuries. Anytime we want to dominate something, our best bet is to begin by feminizing it, making it womanly, making it submissive.
The last time this happened in class, I posted a note on the class online discussion board, explaining how this phrase makes me feel and some of the ideological ramifications, and asking that my colleagues refrain from using this inappropriate analogy any more. My request has been supported thus far, for which I am grateful. I’m also glad to sneak in a bit of feminist theory in a non-feminist class any chance I can!
“Rape the earth” isn’t an analogy or a comparison. The word “rape” has multiple meanings and the non-sexual meaning (i.e., to plunder, to seize) is actually older than the sexual meaning. Unless the person who is using the word has said that it is an analogy to the rape of a woman, I would assume that the person is using the word in its generic, non-sexual meaning.
mmm, yeah, I doubt that’s true. While you may very well be correct on the etymology, generally when someone says the word “rape”, one thing comes to mind, and that is sexual violence. And for the record, one of the analogies made in class was explicitly comparing environmental destruction to raping a woman: “building a pipeline and asking for indigenous people’s input as to where it should go would be like someone coming to my house and saying, ‘I’m going to rape you, which room do you want to be raped in?’” (speaker was female). So, yes, it is an analogy and an appropriation, and I’m very certain what kind of analogy is being made.
Well, that clearly is wrong. But it isn’t true that only “one thing comes to mind” when somebody says “rape” - especially in the context of “raping the earth.”
I would say that the use of the world ‘rape’ hints at the fact that people using it still think what we are doing to the ecosystem, is an action made on something external to us.
Once you realise how much we depend on the ecosystem for our survival, it’s harder to use this word as the destructions harm us as much as the ecosystem.
There are huge chances that even if the current ecosystem collapses, another will take its place. We have started the sixth global extinction of species, but in the previous ones, even with half the species gone, biodiversity had risen back after about a million years.
So it is the fragile species that are at risk, and we are among them as we are very dependant on our intricate civilization and other species for survival. The destructions harm us more than the ecosystem.
“The earth isn’t made strong, independent, masculine”. I don’t think it’s desirable to have this idea as it seems to me as wrong as the “weak, dependant, feminine” description.
And, as a footnote, earth is a big ball of iron that will most certainly go on existing for 4.5 billion years. So people should refer to the world ecosystem or environment when they say something can be destroyed or harmed or raped.
I’m assuming you’ve likely heard of the Eco-Feminism movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism
I personally have no objections to referring to the Earth as being raped as I do view the Earth as a living entity. I view the domination of the Earth as being in some manner directly related to the domination of females; I also view the Earth as being female. So, basically we are coming at this argument from two completely different angles. You apparently view the Earth as being passive and non-thinking. I view the Earth as being very much alive, powerful, full of wisdom, energy, and resources. I personally find it a high honor to be likened to the Earth. It is the fact that the Earth is so powerful that men exploit it, not vice-versa.
“There isn’t a single inch of this earth that can’t be bent to humans’ will, forced to behave, to become tame, to be destroyed to build our “civilizations.””
Wow. The entire planet can be bent to the will of man? Um, no. You are essentially arguing that man can tame nature. Man can not and never has “tamed the Earth”. Man believes he can tame the Earth…therein lies the problem.
macht - Yes, that analogy is clearly wrong. But I think I’m not far off in saying that the analogy is pretty obvious, that using the phrase “raping the earth” is about drawing an analogy to sexual violence and dominating women.
Sophie - that’s a good point, that those using such an analogy are not viewing themselves as part of the ecosystem. The old “man vs. nature” dichotomy…. and women being part of “nature”.
No, I don’t think it’s helpful to think of the earth as “Strong, independent, masculine” either. To me it seems silly and ultimately harmful to talk about the earth as gendered at all.
Faith - welcome, and thanks for commenting. Yes, I’ve heard of ecofeminism. The way I understood it was that the domination of the earth is tied to the domination of women (kind of in an ideological way like I talked about in my post, where women were equated with the earth and vice versa in an unhelpful way that allows for easier dominatino of both) - but not that the earth is female. Like I said to Sophie, I think it’s silly to view the earth as gendered, and I think that is exactly the problem that allows us to treat the earth and women so poorly. So, I’m OK with the first part, but as for the earth being gendered, that is a no-go for me.
Well, I dunno about me putting words in my mouth that I think the earth is passive. That’s just what I think is accomplished by making the earth feminine. I actually don’t think the earth is passive at all, I think that’s how people who desire to exploit the earth view is, and I think it helps to think of the earth as feminine in order to do it. But you’re right that I don’t think the earth “thinks.” Again, anthropomorphism is a bad idea.
Yeah, I totally cop to that last point, bad writing skills on that one. What you were saying is what I was meaning. We think we can tame the earth, but we can’t really. Sorry, what I wrote and what I meant were completely different things. What I should have written was “The attitude is…” - I have to stop posting at 2 in the morning…
It just always seems that folks use the term “rape” when discussing violating the environment as a way to stress the immorality of the act. Kind of like a shock tactic that has become so embedded in environmental rhetoric that it no longer sounds shocking.
When I was a music major in college, there was a group of guys who would always use the word “rape” when they thought they had performed something really well. Example: “Dude, that fast lick was awesome. You totally RAPED it.” They used the word to assert their dominance over difficult music. That always totally offensive to me, but I didn’t have the feminist consciousness back then to find the language to tell them to stop.
It would have been nice if I could have shown them this post.
Tracey - whoa! “raped” a lick? FUCK.
Actually, the other day in my women and music class (which has got to be the most fun I’ve ever had in a classroom), the prof was discussing gender encoding in music (not just lyrics, but in the music itself), and how one musicologist, Susan McClarey I think, had analyzed Beethoven’s 9th Symphony as a musical rape… when the first theme returns to dominate the second, there’s this kind of pulsing rhythmic violent terrifying driving force to the music that she thinks signifies rape. YIKES!
TG, I like the term rape used in an environmental context. First of all, it doesn’t assume a gender of the earth because men can be raped too. It implies exactly what’s intended - that we are taking advantage of this living system in a way that’s totally unwarranted and absolutely horrific. When I hiked in B.C. and hit a clear cut area, it felt the same as it does to hear a friend talk about experiences with sexual abuse. My knees buckled and my stomach lurched. It’s painful to me to think about what’s being done right this minute to a very delicate ecosystem that is struggling to protect itself against our greedy, entitled behaviour - it especially hits me when I recognize my place as an exploiter, as someone who’s benefitting from past exploitation (like recognizing benefitting from racist behaviour).
I like the term because I want it to hit people in the same way as it does when we talk about women being raped. It’s evil, and we have to make it a priority to stop it.
By the way, I’m reading “Heat” by George Monbiot right now. I highly recommend it.
I kinda agree with Sage, here. Are you not just taking the analogy too far? I can see your point, too, as no analogy survives much scrutiny, but the purpose of using an analogy is to make a quick point, that everybody understands immediately, without having to use many words.
Sage likes the term because it’s so negative. But you don’t for the same reason. Are you objecting to the analogy itself, or the negative connotation it has? Can you think of any analogies, then, with positive connotations that you also object to?
And don’t they saw rape isn’t about sex or gender, per se, but power and domination? In which case, the analogy makes sense to me.
Interesting post. I’ve heard the word “rape” used with reference to the environment before, but never gave it much thought. You make some interesting points about how this leads to the feminization of the earth and mankind’s “dominance”
over it. Really, I see the earth and nature as feminized all the time, but using “rape” to describe humans’ relationship with it really works to instill a tone of dominance, just like you said.
One thing did cross my mind as I read this though, and I think it adds another perspective to what you are saying about a group using a specific word to make a point. Isn’t the environmentalists’ use of the word “rape” somewhat similar to your use of the word “racist?” Both words have significant negative connotations and strong ties to people’s emotions. In both your case and the case of the environmentalists, you’re using a strong word to get to people’s gut, like Sage was describing. The environmentalists could use a very similar argument to the one you employ to defend your use of the word “racist.” “Why should we sugarcoat it? Why use another word when the one we have works perfectly fine?” I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with this, because I definitely do not agree with your definition of racist, but I thought it was worth bringing up. However, at the risk of sounding like I’m trying to piss you off, I would say that the environmentalists’ use of the word “rape” is more apt than your use of the word “racist,” because their use does not require a redefinition of the word as yours does. But that’s an argument for a different thread.
TG,
I understand what you were trying to say now that I read your comment and reread the post. You’ve got to stop making posts at 2 a.m., I’ve got to stop making comments at 7 a.m. while I’m drinking my coffee.
Sage - well…. I just have to disagree. I think the use of the term “Raping the earth” does presuppose the earth as female - rape happens to men too, of course, but male-male rape simulates male-female rape in that it seeks to make the victim submissive by emasculating him, making him more like a woman. And statistically speaking, rape is still largely a crime perpetrated on women (despite the problems with under-reporting etc. involved with male rape).
I can empathize with the position of wanting to use terminology that will get the point across in a way that emphasizes the impact environmental degradation has on the earth. But, I don’t see the earth through a deep ecology lens. I don’t appreciate any kind of anthropomorphism in regards to the earth, I think it’s harmful, and I don’t have much stock in a kind of mystic connection with the earth. What I see as the most devastating effects of environmental degradation have less to do with the ecosystem itself - to me, the worst environmental effects are the ones that destroy culture and people’s ability to exist within the global ecosystem.
Matthew - no, I don’t think I’m taking the analogy too far, I think those who use it aren’t taking it far enough. I dislike it because it appropriates the experiences of rape survivors, and it carries on the gendering of the earth as female, which I don’t think is helpful to either the earth or women.
And, while rape is about domination and power, it is absolutely fair to talk about it as a gendered crime, as both the majority of rape survivors/victims and the paradigmatic rape survivors/victims are female. Rape is definitely a gender-related act.
Kyassett - no, I don’t think environmentalists who use the term “raping the earth” are doing the same thing as me saying “whites are racist.” In fact, I think what is closer to using “raping the earth” is insisting that “white people experience racism, too” - the favourite “race-neutral” definition of racism that everyone is so upset that I refuse to accept and keep accusing me of trying to re-define. Why? Because both groups are appropriating the experiences of a group of people (in the environmentalists’ case, rape survivors, in the white supremacists’ case, people of colour) to support their rhetorical cause, trying to take on the oppressed group’s burden in a way, in order to accomplish their goal of protecting something that is important to them (the earth/their privilege).
Faith - it’s a deal! Thanks for checking back.
First off, I have to say I completely understand your original reaction. While not that exact terminology, an ongoing classroom discussion of a theorist who utilized a molestation trope caused me to have to leave the classroom. Just the casual way it fell from my colleague’s lips made me want to scream. I respect your courage in speaking up.
Having said that, I can also understand that sometimes the personal is just –personal.
I think the idea behind using the term “rape of the earth” (particularly among self-aware ecofeminists) is not to lower women, but to elevate nature. Some people believe that the continuum is not so wide as we think. (Interestingly enough, comparing the language of ante-bellum era abolitionists to PETA rhetoric today yields some interesting insights into “what it means to be human.”
There is a school of thought that the earth is a biological being, and as such is capable of being raped. It’s called the Gaia theory. (http://www.answers.com/topic/gaia-hypothesis-1)I’m not conversant enough in it to think anything beyond “whoa, cool.”
Most importantly, someone mentioned the idea that its a “shock term” and another poster said that she responded in the same visceral way to a devestating scene as you did when hearing the term. There are people who do have that kind of connection to the earth.
And the one point I’d like to make is that rape, according to us feminists, is not about sex; it’s about power. Therefore, anyone who exercises domination over someone/thing else regardless of gender (or, to some minds, even human-ness) is guilty of rape. I guess I’m saying it’s not limited to a physical, sexual, male-upon-female act. We understand its broader implications, so the term is used more broadly than we might prefer.
Still–ug. How distressful for you.
TG, have you checked out Andrea Smith’s “Conquest”? Must read. She draws a direct linkage between rape of women of color, rape of Native culture and the concomitant raping of Native women, rape of the earth which. Very, very compelling.
Do you notice how racists use every opportunity to press their own colorblind (NOT) agenda wherever they can? Exhibit A: Kyassett above
I don’t think those who use the analogy have the intention to undermine rape survivor’s experiences. I think, as prosehack65 said, it is “not to lower women, but to elevate nature”, especially when environmentalists use the analogy. But I personally don’t feel comfortable with any analogy that uses rape like you; the problem is that it’s up to each person who hears the analogy how to interpret it, and it’s possible that rape survivors are rightly offended (regardless of the good intention) so probably it’s wiser not to use the “rape” analogy.
That’s exactly right, Freeslave, I was totally pressing my racist agenda with that comment. If you’ll look at my other comments here you’ll see that I really do take EVERY opportunity I get to press my “colorblind (NOT)” agenda. Good job catching that. Man, if I had a quarter for every self-righteous, Malcolm X-wannabe douche bag that has called me out on my agenda-pushing…well shit, I’d have one quarter. But as you pointed out, the importance of my comment absolutely lies in my racism and has nothing to do whatsoever with the validity or content of what I was saying. You’re absolutely correct in pointing out that my reasoning behind what I said stems from a desire to push a racist agenda and has nothing to do with the fact that this topic is from an ongoing discussion on white racism and is what I believe to be a valid comparison, whether Thinking Girl agrees or not. The gist of my comment was that both groups use a similarly loaded word to get their message across. Totally racist.
FS: Scratch hard enough, and you’ll find…well, you can see for yourself.
KYASSETT: You undermined every shred of credibility that you’d garnered by using a personal attack against FS. Of course, you’re frustrated because you think you’ve been misunderstood, but…can’t you find a better way to frame that?
Equating x to y doesn’t always work, except inside our own heads…heads that are surrounded by the fishbowl of our own ideology. For example, in another thread I wonder aloud something similar–if the definition of the word “racist” needs to evolve like other words have–and I know that it comes not just from a desire for greater language precision, but from a racial point of view.
I would certainly like my attempts to shed my socialization to be recognized on some level; hence, my revulsion at sharing a label with the KKK or some such. I said that not wanting to be labeled a racist is akin to TG not wanting to have someone label her, if they find out she doesn’t recycle, as a “rapist.” Sadly, though, I have to understand that ultimately I may not be able to understand how that x cannot equal y.
Liberallatte: We had a great discussion at the dissertation defense on Friday regarding the language of illness. I won’t bore you with all the details, but it made me think of TG’s post and your comment as well.
So many people writing memoirs of surviving a serious illness use war metaphors: the illness is the enemy, I am a warrior, engage, battle, defeat…and so forth.
On the other hand, some writers–particularly feminists (Sontag was one I can remember off the top of my head)–consider those problematic and call for new ones.
Interesting discussion.
prosehack; Thanks, actually I would love to know more about the debate, as I know nothing about medical matters like that. Do you mean that an illness is an internal problem that can’t be separated from oneself and shouldn’t be treated as an enemy attacking one from outside?
Another example of the language issue I’m reminded of is that some argue that comparing any genocide to the Holocaust is (indeed, any kind or comparison is) to water down the atrocities committed by Nazis. Thus, “the” Holocaust. However, others could say that the analogy is to emphasise the extent of a gnocide in question rather than to offend the Holocaust victims. Analogy in general is tricky as it can always be interpreted in two ways; elevating one to another’s level, and downplaying another to one’s level…
Hi TG:
I’ve been thinking about this post a lot.
As we discussed, I do think that “raping the Earth” is not useful in either environmental dialogue or, feminist dialogue for the same reasons you outline in your initial argument. In this day and age the use of this term does echo and tie the feminization of the planet to the oppression and exploitation of women.
What isn’t sitting well with me is your view that it isn’t ever right to view the Earth in a gendered way. There are many cultures who refer to the Earth as a feminine entity and many of those cultures have been around for a long time. Some of those cultures like the Quechua/Inca or South Asian/Hindu have maintained a mix of very ancient traditions with relatively newer ones.
In fact, viewing the Earth as feminine sometimes predates the “systematic spread” of patriarchy/misogyny that exists today. For example, some hunter-gatherer societies do have a division of labour between genders but, don’t systematically oppress woman.
I don’t think that feminizing the Earth correlates directly with the oppression of women throughout history. Rather, I think that the feminine view of the planet is a very old and even feminist view. At one time viewing the Earth as feminine was a way to recognize and value woman and women’s power based on principles of respect and equality that wasn’t just based on biology. Some people today who view the Earth as feminine also do this. I also think this might be what some of your commentors were getting at in expressing their view point of a feminine Earth and even in their support of using “raping the Earth” in environmental dialogue.
I don’t know exactly when, where or how patriarchy/misogyny began and spread throughout the world for it to develop into what it is today but, I would be interested in finding out. From what I have studied, feminizing the Earth wasn’t always a negative thing like it is now.
So, in a small way, maintaining this very old view point with current day feminist issues in mind, can also be a form of resistance against the oppression of women. Some of us are taking back the feminine view of the Earth and using it to redefine approaches to natural resource use and exploitation that have traditionally ignored the feminist view point. “Sustainability” is ever increasingly also feminist in the environmental field and I believe both are necessary for intact ecosystems where human beings are just one of many species of equal value and importance.
Thanks!
XXXOOO
Freeslave, I owe you an apology. That personal attack was way out of line and I shouldn’t have said it. Truthfully, I still resent some of the things you said and I’m still not at all fond of the way you’ve addressed me and other people who don’t completely agree with you. I know you’re doing it in an attempt to drive your message home, but regardless of your intentions, I think it’s a crappy way to engage people who are really trying to have a discussion about something. Shooting people down for not understanding or not agreeing and writing whatever they say off as “not willing to see the truth” is not the best way to get people to understand you, in my honest opinion.
However, having said all that, I was still way out of line. There were about a thousand ways for me to address what I saw as a problem and I picked the least civilized, least effective, and most ignorant one, and for that, I sincerely apologize. I let my frustration get the best of me and acted like an idiot.
As to what Prosehack said about throwing all credibility away, part of my frustration came from the fact that I wasn’t exactly treated like I had much credibility to begin with. Any dissent was automatically written off as a result of privilege. The amount of truth in this line of thinking is something neither one of us can actually prove, and that’s what really bothers me. It bothered me when Thinking Girl did it in another argument and it bothered me when you did it here. But, yet again, ad hominem attacks are not then answer by any means, and I’m sorry. I’m also sorry for taking so long to apologize. My pride kinda got stuck in my throat on the way down.
Kyassett: No apology required.
I have to ask though, could it be that your resistance to what I am saying is the cause of your distress - the possibility that the shoe may fit? I mean, if someone accuses me of being sexist (which has happened), I’m going to be resistant but I’m also going to look at what they are saying. Why? Because I’m a guy and I have some awareness of sexism and how it may advantage me over women, some awareness of how it manifests in me. But because I can’t know all of the ways it manifests in me, I know that - SOMETIME - it is going to be people telling me how they see me that provides important information.
You don’t have to agree with me, honestly. But if what I’m saying doesn’t apply, why get so bent about it?
Aye, self-realization can be an ugly thing. I’d be lying if I said that coming to terms with how the way I live affects others is a comfortable area. Not just in regards to racism, but in all aspects of life. Honestly though, on this and other recent threads, it was more the conversation itself that frustrated me. I know that I sure as hell don’t know everything and I definitely cannot speak for you and your experiences. I also know that I don’t have to agree with you. I actually take comfort in that fact - the idea that we’re both mere mortals and neither one of our experiences negates the other. It’s just that sometimes I lose sight of that, and sometimes I feel like others lose sight of it.
LOL, FS, I think I asked you if you were being sexist with me.
Kyasssett: takes a big person to apologize.
Liberallatte: the candidate wrote about scriptotherapy (self-writing to heal trauma) and autopathology(self-writing as a way to heal). I normally would hesitate to bring it up on a thread so as not to hijack anything, but it kind of ties in here. She studied rape survival memoirs and situated them in a theoretical background of trauma healing. (DiSalvo?) Amazing stuff, really: the act of telling one’s story as a way to healing. To use the words fearlessly and rob them of their power over us, their power to hurt us again and again. Using words to move us from being a victim to a survivor. (My own work with slave narratives touched on this, but I wish I’d had the access to the more recent works in the field of trauma study. hmmm, perhaps an article…
The candidate also studied authopathology, using illness survivor memoirs. As a side issue to that, she discussed metaphors of illness, and the Foucauldian notion of the body as a “site” rather than as, well, the patient’s body! One thing that she forgrounded was the tendancy of those experiencing illness to fall into martial metaphors when describing their “battle” with it. She addressed both the negative aspects of that language (using Sontag and HellifIcanremember) and the positives…how the warrior image can work to reclaim and rechannel anger in an almost Freudian transference.
She tied those together into a way for teachers to use first-person stories (both to read and to write) as a way to engage their students and to practice and teach empathy in the classroom. In addition to the benefits of empathetic teachers, students who learn to engage with themselves also tend to open their worldview to “the other,” because they recognize that “I could be you.” Making them think about themselves–modeling empathy, as bell hooks puts it–makes them think about others.
The most amazing line I came across (and one that made me think about this thread) was Audre Lord’s: “Your silence will not save you.” I do believe if I were a tatooing woman, I’d have that put someplace I’d see it every day, many times a day. Only by speaking up, whether it be about racism or our trauma stories, or even our discomfort with a common metaphor, can healing begin.
Crap: it’s 4 am, and I’m tired.
I meant Lorde. Audre Lorde.
Susan Sontag seems to be saying that doctors/medical guides using martial metaphors can have a negative impact upon patients as it overstates what patients have to ‘fight’ against (correct me if I’m wrong).
When such a metaphor is used in scriptotherapy, it would be mostly positive (as patients themselves are using it). I don’t know, but I’m wondering if those who have experienced illness try to find a meaning in their experience, and by using ‘battle’ metaphor these suffering they had to endure was worth it because they brought “victory”.
I really love the concept of ‘Freedom Through Expression’; it’s absolutely fascinating that words have the power to make one free, as in scriptotherapy… thanks for introducing me that and I can’t agree with you more that “Your silence will not save you”.
I’m getting the Sontag second hand, mind you, but yes that seems to be part of it. However, she argues that patients themselves might reconsider the metaphor as well, since it takes energy to “fight” that might be better used to “heal.” Don’t worry, I’m going to be doing some reading.
Illness urvivors, of course, can/should use whatever works for them. It’s their story, right? There’s also an interesting creeping lately of “fighting” against the medical establshment as well.
The Lorde quote reminds me of the ACT-UP folks’ “Silence = Death.”
prosehack - well, there was that rumor about Jack kerouak digging a hole in the earth and fucking it to try to get closer to some sort of spiritual connection with the eart…
I don’t mind the idea that the earth is a living thing, because it clearly is, but assigning the earth a consciousness is sketchy in my opinion. Again, I’m not a fan of anthropomorphism.
And yes, like LL and you both said, I don’t think that the folks who like to throw this metaphor around are intentionally doing it to harm rape survivors or detract from their experiences, but I think that in effect, that’s what they are doing, and they are too often doing it in a thoughtless way. I guess what my main problem is is that rape survivors have a physical, psychological, and emotional trauma to deal with, while the earth as even a living thing does not have all these to recover from - there is only physical destruction for the earth to overcome. The psychological and emotional aspects of environmental destruction are felt not by the earth itself but by those people living on it.
LL - I liked your discussion about “the” holocaust - I generally don’t have a problem with people talking about the black holocaust or the native holocaust like I do with appropriating the experiences of rape survivors to talk about environmental destruction. Also, I don’t really have a problem with people referring to “the” holocaust, as an historical event… is this inconsistent, do you think?
Anji - thanks for your comment. I can see your point, but I’m not sure I’m willing to go there with you. I think you’re right, that turning the feminization of the earth on its head can make this a site for resistance, both for women in terms of different models of power (like power to create) and for the earth in terms of stopping resource exploitation. Wherever there is power, there is space for resistance, because power exists in the spaces between relations (which it why I talk of relations of power rather than power as something you can grab hold of and accumulate).
Yet there is still a worry of anthropomorphism for me. I just don’t think it’s particularly helpful to think of the earth in terms of something that is a uniquely human construct… because it seems like a hop-skip-jump away from giving the earth a consciousness, and for me the earth is a thing - a living thing mind you, but a thing nonetheless, a thing that has no consciousness….
Ahh, I dunno. What I do know is that appropriating the experiences of rape survivors to make a rhetorical point (which is what these kids have been doing, thoughtlessly) is morally problematic.
Kyassett - glad you came back, and I agree with Prosehack, it takes a big person to swallow that humble pie down and apologize. Don’t let it keep you away, right?
you said, “I know that I sure as hell don’t know everything and I definitely cannot speak for you and your experiences. ” dingdingding! This is exactly the point - what we’ve been talking about, you and I in regards to male privilege and we all in regards to white privilege, is the fact that we can’t possibly know what the experiences of other people are. We have to at some point accept that there is something that we cannot know, ever, through any amount of effort or learning device or dialectic or dialogue or whatever. And, at some point, we also have to accept that other people know shit that we cannot know. And, at some point, we have to take other people at their word about their experiences. And, at some point, that might lead us to realize that there might be something that they see in us that we cannot see in ourselves, that there is something that we cannot know about ourselves because of our limited perspective. It’s like when you have a friend that is doing something dumb, making a bad decision, big mistake, whatever, but they just can’t see it because they are too close to the situation. We’ve all seen this in our own lives, right? And we say to ourselves, “wow, if only they could see it from a different perspective…” Well, this is what I was pushing you about on that other thread. You know, it isnt that I wasn’t giving you any credit. It’s that I was giving you credit enough to think you could maybe get outside yourself, your own ego, to feel through what I was talking about.
I don’t use the word ‘holocaust’ in any other context than the Holocaust committed by the Nazis, just like I don’t use the word ‘rape’ as an analogy to explain other things than forced sexual acts. I think ‘the Holocaust’ analogy and ‘rape’ analogy are essentially the same thing. I don’t really think those who are using the Holocaust analogy have an intention to denigrate Holocaust survivors, but when I hear “the black holocaust” or “the native holocaust”, I feel it can sound offensive if a Holocaust survivor is listening to it… I don’t think your stance is inconsistent, because we don’t have an obligation to be offended when we hear the Holocaust analogy, but I would like to know why you don’t find the Holocaust analogy inappropriate while you find the rape analogy totally unacceptable even without a malicious intent.
LL - well, I think the reason why I don’t mind using ‘holocaust’ to talk about other forms of genocide is because we’re still talking about people, human experiences, and in a way, it annoys me to privilege one holocaust over another, and one of the reasons why I think the jewish holocaust has been privileged is because it involved largely caucasian people. it’s like the creation of a blonde blue-eyed aryan race and getting rid of anyone else who didn’t fit that ideal was Going Too Far, because lots of white folks have brown hair and dark eyes…. so when people refer to the native or black holocaust, i know what they’re trying to do is level out the playing field in regards to race.
but the metaphor “raping the earth” isn’t about human experience necessarily; it’s largely used in the context of deep ecology, which is less about humans than about preserving “nature” for its own sake. and I certainly don’t think that “nature” should be privileged over humans.
does that make sense? I just found this post by Red Jenny, I thought it was a pertinent example…
I get your point that the Earth is not human while victims of genocide are humans, and yes as you say it would make rape analogy more offensive.
But I don’t know if the reason that the ‘jewish holocaust has been privileged’ is because Jewish people are caucasian people… the very perpetrators of the Holocaust were the white supremacists. I think it is really meaningless to compare genocides and argue over which one is worse (implying another is not as bad as the other one), but the Nazis systematically attempted to exterminate the entire race of Jewish people, and other minorities, and it was an unprecedented crime in human history. Therefore Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in many European countries…
Hey TG:
I’m still thinking about this post.
First off, to make sure I understand where you are on anthropomorphizing the Earth: you think it is wrong because the Earth is not living consciously like human beings are. I also get that concepts of “nature”, which could be a whole other debate, are problematic for you because you believe no concept of nature should have privilege over humans. Is that right?
Depending on how nature is defined, there is a lot of debate about consciousness and if it is unique to just humans or other members of the animal kingdom.
Whatever the species we are all living on this planet and all life has a range of adaptation characteristics that allow it to persist. The interactions between us (all life) and non living things (water, soil, air, etc.) interconnects us to each other in ways we are just beginning to understand.
We (humans) are the only species interacting and using other species and materials to the point of causing extinction and/or permanent change to one or more aspects of the system as whole. System in this case could be a single ecosystem (a forest) or a web of systems (a landscape) or the Earth as a whole. At every level there are responses to these changes, not just to human activity but, to all activity. The only difference is the impact of butterfly activity, for example, does not significantly affect all those interconnected creatures in the same way human activity does, or in such a negative way.
Maybe the ability of the Earth to respond and interact with life, because it is alive is a different type of intelligence or consciousness our narrow anthropocentric attitudes have been unable to understand or recognize.
This is what is problematic for many deep ecologists, the refusal to consider intelligence or consciousness outside of our own species. have a problem with our own anthropocentric attitude of privilege over “nature” rather than part of it. How we (humans) view ourselves as part of something rather than having privilege over it determines, at least in part, how we use and treat it. Certainly, it is wrong to use and contaminate the basic elements necessary for the survival of all life just because of the “privileges” we possess as a species.
Lastly, I think there is a spiritual element here that must be recognized when some people refer to the Earth as living, conscious or link the Earth to goddess worship. Just like with concepts of god, how do you separate personal experience from social construct?
Thanks for taking on such a challenging discussion!
XXOO
TG, You gotta check out Andrea Smith’s Conquest. She has a chapter ‘Rape of the Land’ which is a must read. I’d be very curious to hear what you think after reading that book (its very short).
Lata
FS - will read, and let you know…
Angel - no, not quite on the “nature” bit - when I talk about “nature” (identified as problematic by the quotes), I’m talking about a specific kind of concept of either normalizing socially constructed roles by claiming they are biologically essential (as in, “it’s ‘natural’ for women to want to have babies”), or a concept of “nature” as “wilderness”, a place to preserve so white middle class suburbanites will have a place to go to see and experience “nature: untouched”. Which is, of course, ridiculous because these preserves are human-made, constructed to exist within limits, kept and maintained by people. These are the “natures” I actively scoff at.
It’s not animals that I have a problem with accepting have a consciousness, or at base, sentience (not a consciousness that is just like human consciousness, mind you). This is why I’m a vegetarian. I do have a problem with thinking that stuff like soil and rocks have a consciousness.
Yeah, I guess I don’t think that any concept of “nature” should have privilege over humans. And, I don’t really think that humans should have any privilege over anything else, either. It’s not an either/or for me. I think, for example, working to preserve wildnerness at the expense of humans who have built a community in that area is seriously wrong, because it ignores the fact that humans have to live somewhere; placing, say, a tiger reserve in an area where people live will only force them to relocate and set up their home in another area, either an already-populated area, which will create more strain on the land there, or in an unpopulated area, which will entail more destruction of the land.
We’ve got to recognize, in my mind, that humans have a place in the ecosystem that is the earth - not that humans have a right to dominate, ruin, exhaust the resources there, but that humans have some kind of right to live within that system in harmony with other aspects of that system. Which is clearly not the situation right now. But I don’t think that aiming to privilege nature over people is any better. Especially when we are dealing with human inequalities and power relations that privilege some groups over others, who will certainly escape the efforts to privilege nature over people.
So in short, I’m with you on the anthropocentrism, but not the anthropomorphism. I don’t think that anthropomorphism is the way to teach humans to live within our environments so that we don’t exhaust those environments’ resources. I think a more effective way is to promote alternative models of living within and respecting the environments that includes knowledge of the devastating effects that the privileged lifestyles of the west have on poor people both in the west and in developing areas. Because ultimately, I think anthropomorphism is a kind of anthropocentrism. It’s seeing non-human things as though they were human, giving those things human characteristics so that we may better understand them, which simply places humans, once again, at the centre of the fucking universe. which is a great place to be if you’re human, but not so much otherwise. And so, as I think anthropomorphism places humans in a position of privilege by assigning everything else qualities that we as humans have instead of trying to understand thigns as they are rather than as we are, it is as such a kind of anthropocentrism, and I reject anthropocentrism (the practice, not the theory that humans put ourselves at the centre of everything all the time including our tools for analyzing things that are not human), therefore I must reject anthropomorphism. And what’s more, while we talk about the earth having human characteristics, we simultaneously dehumanize whole groups of people.
As for any kind of spiritual or mystic connection people have to the earth, that is not my experience so I can’t comment on it. I still think there’s some degree of anthropomorphism there, because that’s all we humans know how to do in order to relate to non-humans.
thanks for forcing me to think about this some more!
Ok, I think I understand your prospective better now (I’m writing much later than you responded because I just realized my feed reader doesn’t include comments.)
I have a big problem with concepts of nature as well, this is partly why I am no longer working directly in conservation. In addition to the types of discrimination you mention regarding the term, it also implies “otherness”. Nature is something that isn’t where people live, it’s “out there”, outside of is, “wild” and where non-human animals and plants live. I agree, we are part of nature, part of the ecosystem which is why I have branched out toward human ecology. You can’t even begin to adequately address conservation issues without including people in the equation rather than separate from it. This is why historically displacing or removing people from “conservation areas” usually doesn’t work long term. This is particularly so when it’s white, privileged concepts of conservation imposed on non-white, poor people and ignores local knowledge and perceptions. So, I agree with you that people have a place in the ecosystem. Given our abilities as a species I would argue we play a key role in maintaining or destroying an ecosystem as well (our impact versus that of other creatures is usually much greater, and also usually negative).
I reject the “otherness” of nature and even the idea of living in “balance” with nature because nature is always in a state of flux. What I think is needed is a diversity of ways to live rather than everyone trying to live like white, privileged, westerners live. The Earth simply cannot support life if everyone lived this way. Certainly there is room for some of us to live this way but, imposing this way of life world wide, as is currently the case, will eventually lead to system collapse at a global level. This could cause a number of outcomes for living things like extinction, human suffering, adaptation, a better life - who knows. What is certain is that us living creatures will be effected in some way and that current science has a lot of evidence that the net impact will be a negative one for us because the long term changes will be drastic ones. The Earth itself will most likely continue to live through it’s systems and life on it’s surface will probably continue as past catastrophic Earth events have indicated.
For this reason I think that “nature” or the Earth must have priority over humans because our very survival is dependant on maintaining the Earth’s current systems. There is NO life without a planet who’s systems are intact. It’s true that rocks, water, soil themselves are not conscious but, as part of a system they are vital to the existence and consciousness of living things. The lichen and fungi that live on rocks that insects and animals live on and consume, all the life that lives in water, all the bacteria living in soil that allow for plants to absorb minerals in order to grow to make plant foods - the base of the food chain for land dwellers, etc.
Those of us working against environmental racism and sexism consider clean air, clean soil, and clean water not just a basic human right but, also a right of all living things. Yet, thanks to the sun, we literally ARE the Earth. We are physically converted solar energy in the plants and flesh we eat. We ARE both a product and a part of the systems that make up the “web of life”. Embodiment then is also the space we literally occupy on the planet for it is what we are made of. Embodying other types of spaces, like a house for example, is different in a way because it is made up of non-living elements of the planet and also dead living things like wood (although this too is a type of ecosystem). The relationship and physical boundaries of embodiment that we have with the Earth is different because both of us are alive in some way. I don’t consider this thinking traditional anthropomorphism but, perhaps it is.
Yes, spiritual connection to the Earth is a tough one, especially if it isn’t personally experienced. Plus, it’s too easy to say that an all powerful god/goddess made the sun and created all life. All I’m saying is that living things can connect beyond the physical whether it’s between two people or, a person and an animal, or a bee to apple blossoms. Throw in “consciousness” or “intelligence” into the mix and you open a whole new discussion on how to define spiritual connections. Maybe this too is anthropomorphism and maybe it’s just the connection between two living beings, one dependant upon the other, us and the Earth.
Thanks for making me think more about this too!
XXOO
Angel - thanks, very insightful! I see what you mean about the transferrance of energy, life-force, how everything on the planet is interconnected, and how we are connected with the resources we use. “We ARE the Earth” - I like that.
I don’t think what you’re talking about is anthropomorphism exactly. You’re not talking about the earth as though it is human. you’re talking about placing humans within the ecosystem.
I like it!