Sexualizing Nature, Naturalizing Sexuality
Gaard’s first main point that links ecofeminism and queer theory is the observation that ‘dominant Western culture’s devaluation of the erotic parallels its devaluation of women and of nature’ (115); normative dualism, value-hierarchical thinking, and logic of domination characterize the ideological framework of Western culture.
Value dualisms are ways of conceptually organizing the world in binary, disjunctive terms and each side of the dualism is seen as ‘exclusive’ and oppositional rather than complementary and where higher value/superiority is attributed to one side of the dualism than the other (116).
The ‘master model’ is the identity that is at the core of Western culture—it has initiated, perpetuated and benefited from Western culture’s alienation from and domination of nature. The ‘master identity’ creates and depends on ‘dualized structure of otherness and negation’, such as but not limited to; culture/nature, reason/nature, male/female, mind/body, master/slave, reason/matter, rationality/animality, reason/emotion, mind or spirit/nature, freedom/necessity, universal/particular, human/nature, civilized/primitive, production/reproduction, public/private, subject/object, self/other (Plumwood 1993, 43) (116) while Gaard adds other dualism such as white/nonwhite, empowered/impoverished, heterosexual/queer and reason/the erotic.
First, the claim for the superiority of the self is based on the difference between self and other, and manifests in full humanity and reason that the other supposedly lacks. The alleged superiority of is used to justify the subordination of the other (Warren 1990, 129;Plumwood 1993, 32-47; 116). The conceptual links between women and animals, women and the body, women and nature, serve to emphasize the inferiority these categories (Adams 1990;1993, 117).
All categories of the other share these qualities of being feminized, animalized, and naturalized—all forms of oppression are now so inextricably linked that liberation efforts must be aimed at dismantling the system itself (117). These dualisms exist in an unsettled, dynamic tactic relation—Term B is not symmetrical with/to term A but subordinated; term A depends on term B for its meaning, via the simultaneous subsumption and exclusion (117).
1.Backgrounding, in which the master relies on the services of the other and simultaneously denies his dependency 2. Radical exclusion, in which the master magnifies the differences between the self and other and minimizes shared qualities 3. Incorporation, in which the master’s qualities are taken as the standard, and the other is defined in terms of her possession or lack of those qualities 4. Instrumentalism, in which the other is constructed as having no ends of her own, and her sole purpose is to serve as resource for the master 5. Homogenization, in which the dominated class of other is perceived as uniformly homogeneous (Plumwood 1993, 42-56. 118)
In these dualisms, the oppressed identity groups are seen as ‘closer to nature’ and yet queer sexualities are often devalued for being ‘against nature’. It is this contradiction that is of great interest to feminists and queer theorists who argue that such contradictions characterize oppressive structures (Frye 1983; Mohr 1988; Sedgwick 1990) (119).
