Gender, Place and Culture
Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 333–355, September 2005
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada:
Linking culture, gender and nature
KATHI WILSON
University of Toronto at Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Abstract Many ecofeminists see women’s subordination as a result of linking women
with nature. Thus one of their tasks has been to unravel the underlying dualistic structure
of the categories ‘women’ and ‘nature’ and to argue for a reconceptualization of these
categories. However, there exist amongst ecofeminists epistemological differences
pertaining to the ways in which the women – nature connection should be addressed.
Spiritual ecofeminists argue that the connection between women and nature is worth
reclaiming and celebrating. In contrast, social ecofeminists contend that the connection
represents a patriarchal artifice that reinforces oppression. In support of both perspectives,
‘Western’ ecofeminists have invoked the cultural beliefs and histories of Aboriginal
peoples. Such use of Aboriginal beliefs and experiences within much of Western
ecofeminist discourses is partial and uninformed. In this article an alternative approach is
offered—one that emphasizes the importance of listening to Aboriginal voices describing
contemporary connections to nature. Aboriginal voices are presented in the context of indepth interviews conducted with Anishinabek (Ojibway and Odawa peoples) living in one
First Nations community and three cities in Ontario, Canada. The interviews highlight
the importance of listening to Anishinabek describe their connections to Mother Earth
(nature) as they reveal counter-narratives that offer the potential to reconcile spiritual and
social ecofeminism and to reconceptualize nature (Mother Earth) as an active and dynamic
agent. Such counter-narratives may improve current understandings of gender –nature
connections within Western ecofeminisms.
Introduction
The relationship between gender and nature has been the focus of much
discussion in feminist literatures (see, for example, Jacobs, 1994; Nash, 1996;
Nesmith & Radcliffe, 1993; Rose, 1993). Numerous theories developed under the
label of ‘ecofeminism’ reflect critically upon the women – nature connection,
which is grounded in the ties of body, spirituality, fertility, and female
reproduction (see Biehl, 1991; Ortner, 1974; Shiva, 1988). As Plumwood (1989)
and Warren (1993) note, there is not one ecofeminism but rather different positions
Correspondence: Kathi Wilson, Department of Geography, University of Toronto at
Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0966-369X print/ISSN 1360-0524 online/05/030333-23 q 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09663690500202574
334
K. Wilson
and theories that link the domination of women and nature. Despite differences, a
common goal of ecofeminists is to disrupt those women – nature connections that
are oppressive (Warren, 1993). In doing so, some ‘Western’ ecofeminists have
utilized the beliefs and historical experiences of indigenous peoples to support
feminist theories of women–nature connections. By drawing upon Aboriginal
cultures to support these claims, indigenous beliefs, knowledge and experiences
are at times appropriated. Spiritual ecofeminists use the belief systems of some
Aboriginal cultures that support the concept of Mother Earth to celebrate
women – nature connections. In contrast, social ecofeminists use Aboriginal
experiences with colonialism to strategically dismantle the inherently gendered
and hierarchical nature– culture dualism. In this article a different approach is
presented; I emphasize the importance of listening to Aboriginal voices as one
way of reconciling the concerns of both spiritual and social ecofeminists.
The article presents the results of 35 in-depth interviews conducted with First
Nations peoples, specifically Anishinabek peoples in Ontario, Canada.1 The
interviews focused on First Nations peoples’ connections to the land (i.e., nature)
and the results make two important contributions to the existing body of
literature. First, they point towards a possible reconciliation between spiritual and
social ecofeminism. Such a reconciliation might enable spiritual ecofeminists to
maintain their central tenet of the importance of a connection between women and
nature and, at the same time, addresses social ecofeminists’ concerns about the
maintenance of hierarchical dualisms. Second, the results offer the potential to
reconceptualize nature (i.e., Mother Earth) from a passive object, waiting to be
acted upon, to an active, reactive, and dynamic agent.
The article presents the debates within spiritual and social ecofeminism
concerning the conflation of women with nature, paying particular attention to the
ways in which they have engaged Aboriginal knowledge and experiences. This is
followed by a discussion of the methods used in the research, as well as issues
related to methodology and positionality. In the following section, the results of
the research are presented by focusing on how listening to Anishinabek voices
may enable the reconciliation of spiritual and social ecofeminism and the
reconceptualization of nature. The final section summarizes the main findings of
the research and concludes with a discussion of the importance of learning from
‘other ’ perspectives to achieve fuller understandings of gender-nature
connections.
Engaging Aboriginal Cultures and Histories within Spiritual and Social
Ecofeminism
In general, ecofeminist research and writing focus on the dualistic structure of the
categories woman/man and culture/nature. Gaard (1993a, p. 5) argues that one of
the main tasks of ecofeminism has been to expose ‘these dualisms and the ways in
which feminizing nature and naturalizing women have served as justification for
the domination of women, animals, and the earth’.
While a common goal of ecofeminists is to end the oppression and domination
of both women and nature (see, for example, Carlassare, 2000; Longenecker, 1997;
Nash, 1996), there are divergences in the approaches offered to reconceptualize
the link between them. Two of the main ways that ecofeminists have attempted
to reconceptualize the links between women and nature sit at either end of a
continuum. On the one hand, spiritual ecofeminists (see Starhawk, 1989) argue
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
335
that the connection between women and nature should be embraced.2 In contrast,
social ecofeminists support a separation of women and nature on the basis that the
categories ‘woman’/‘man’/‘nature’/‘culture’ have been socially constructed in
ways that devalue both women and nature (Carlassare, 2000; Plumwood, 1993).3
Despite such divergent perspectives, both spiritual and social ecofeminists have
drawn upon indigenous cultures, albeit in very different ways, to support their
positions. Each will be discussed through a critique of the ways in which they
have engaged with Aboriginal perspectives and experiences.4
Within some Aboriginal cultures, nature is perceived in the image of Mother
Earth, a nurturing, life-giving entity. Women therefore are perceived to have a
stronger, more natural connection to earth than men because of their shared
reproductive abilities. Spiritual ecofeminists such as Christ (1989), LeGuin (1989),
Spretnak (1989) and Starhawk (1989) have used this image of Mother Earth to
support and celebrate an essential connection between women and nature:
‘Women’s monthly fertility cycle, the tiring symbiosis of pregnancy, the wrench of
childbirth and the pleasure of suckling and infant, these things already ground
women’s consciousness in the knowledge of being coterminous with Nature’
(Salleh, 1984, cited in Nesmith & Radcliffe, 1993, p. 383).
Ecofeminist spirituality, according to Plant (1989, p. 113), ‘like the traditions of
Native Americans and other tribal peoples, sees the spiritual as alive in us,
where spirit and matter, mind and body, are all part of the same living
organism’. Spretnak (1989) asserts that such an embracement of indigenous
spirituality can result in a ‘post patriarchal’ model in which there is a movement
from devaluing the feminine to honouring both the body and earth. In doing so
there is an attempt to recast the connection between women and nature as virtue
(Plumwood, 1989).
Critics from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities have denounced
the appropriation of Aboriginal culture and spirituality within spiritual ecofeminism
(Gaard, 1993b; Sturgeon, 1997; Smith, 1993, 1997; Jacobs, 1994). In a review of Plant’s
Healing the Wounds and Diamond and Orenstein’s Reweaving the World: The Emergence
of Ecofeminism, Sturgeon (1999) notes that despite numerous references to Native
American spirituality and writers, only three of the 47 chapters contained in both
collections are actually written by Native Americans. In a similar vein, Smith (1997, p.
31) argues that the appropriation of indigenous culture within spiritual ecofeminism
results in inaccurate representations and the further exploitation of indigenous
peoples (see also, Wilson, 1989):
Spirituality is not something one reads about or something one gets at a
certain place at a certain day of the week. It is living one’s life with the
understanding that one is intimately connected to all of creation, all
forces seen and unseen. Ecofeminists look to Native spirituality to help
connect them with the earth. Unfortunately, when they appropriate
Native spirituality out of its context, when they seek Indian spirituality
in a book or a $300 sweat lodge, they are treating Native spirituality as a
commodity.
Smith (1993) concludes that Native American culture and spirituality are used to
further ‘white’ ecofeminism while ecofeminists themselves remain detached from
Native American communities, their realities, and their struggles.
In contrast to spiritual ecofeminism, social ecofeminists denounce the
essentialist connection of women to nature as a form of biological determinism
336
K. Wilson
that prevents women’s liberation (see King, 1989; Merchant, 1980; Sandilands,
1997). As Rose (1993) summarizes, spiritual ecofeminists maintain that
reinforcing the separation of men and women by inverting the male/female,
culture/nature dualisms and valorizing the feminine side, allows for the creation
of the category ‘woman’, the celebration of all that is associated with being a
woman, and the creation of a strong alliance in opposition to patriarchy. However,
critics such as Rose (1993) argue that the valorization of the subordinate ‘woman’
only serves to reverse a problematic essentialized dichotomy. Further, according
to Dodd (1997), perpetuating such gendered stereotypes of women as life givers
reinforces patriarchal hierarchies (see also Carlassare, 1994; MacCormack &
Strathern, 1980).
In some instances, although to a much lesser extent than spiritual ecofeminists,
social ecofeminists have also drawn upon Aboriginal cultures to support the
separation of women from nature. In particular, Aboriginal experiences with
colonialism that placed their communities on the nature/women side of the
nature/culture dualism are used by some social ecofeminists as one way of
liberating women and indigenous people. Indeed, as noted by Jacobs (1994),
writers such as Eckersley (1992), Mellor (1992), Merchant (1989), and Rogers
(1983) continually remind us of how colonizers used the image of the ‘savage’ to
control nature and to reinforce colonial policies aimed at ‘civilizing’ indigenous
peoples with culture through assimilation or cultural genocide (see Boyko, 1998;
Chrisjohn & Young, 1997). Discussing ecological changes in colonial New
England, Merchant (1989, p. 2) links the colonization of indigenous peoples with
the colonization of nature:
. . . a colonial ecological revolution occurred during the seventeenth
century and was externally generated. It resulted in the collapse of
indigenous Indian ecologies and the incorporation of a European
ecological complex of animals, plants, pathogens, and people. [. . .] It was
legitimated by a set of symbols that placed cultured European humans
above wild nature, other animals, and ‘beastlike savages.’ It substituted a
visual for an oral consciousness and an image of nature as female and
subservient to a transcendent male God for the Indians’ animistic fabric
of symbolic exchanges between people and nature.
As Merchant (1989, p. 62) and others rightfully argue, by maintaining a
hierarchical dualistic structure that reinforces difference between ‘good and evil,
wild and cultivated, red and white, and animals and humans’ the colonizers could
simultaneously possess and oppress indigenous peoples and nature. A valid
concern of social ecofeminists is a culture –nature dualism that portrays nature
and all that is associated with it as passive objects that can be controlled,
oppressed and possessed. The historical oppression and imagery of Aboriginal
peoples as savages have thus served as support for dismantling essentialisms that
associate women with the nature side of the culture –nature dualism. Yet relying
on colonial images and experiences of Aboriginal peoples leaves little room for
embracing ‘other’ images of nature that are not associated with dominance or
oppression.
Haraway (1991a, 1991b) has argued that we need a position from which to think
about feminism and the environment that does not build alliances based on
mutual oppression. She critiques spiritual ecofeminists for their portrayal of earth
as Mother Nature/Mother Earth, a passive actor waiting to be controlled and
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
337
oppressed (see also Sandilands, 1997). Haraway argues that nature is not passive
and suggests the use of the metaphor of Coyote, a Native American Trickster, to
demonstrate the ways in which nature is an active agent:
Richly evocative figs exist for feminist visualizations of the world as
witty agent. We need not lapse into an appeal to a primal mother
resisting becoming resource. The Coyote or Trickster, embodied in
American Southwest Indian accounts, suggests our situation when we
give up mastery but keep searching for fidelity, knowing all the while we
might be hoodwinked . . . Perhaps the world resists being reduced to
mere resource because it is—not mother/matter/mutter—but coyote, a
fig for the always problematic, always potent tie of meaning and bodies.
(Haraway, 1991a, pp. 199, 201)
Haraway is appropriately unsettled by the image of a passive nature so often
presented within spiritual ecofeminist discourses. While her attempt to
destabilize the connection between women and nature has been heralded by
many (Instone, 1998; Penley & Ross, 1991), her use of the image of Coyote appears
to have escaped much criticism. Gaard (1993b, p. 301) has termed this form of
appropriation ‘cultural cannibalism’ and argues that images ‘cannot be stolen
from Native American cultures and used in Western culture while retaining the
same meaning’. The Trickster lies at the centre of some Aboriginal cultures and
plays an important role in creation stories. It represents a spiritual fig with both
natural and supernatural powers that was sent to earth to teach people about
kindness, honesty, generosity and respect for the earth (Canada, 1996a).
Coyote/Trickster does not represent the earth (nature) within Aboriginal cultures
and to use it as such misrepresents the belief systems of many Aboriginal cultures.
The metaphor is further problematic because it denies the image of Mother Earth
as an active agent, which is a fundamental belief within some Aboriginal cultures.
I will return to this issue later in the article.
A related concern with the adoption of Aboriginal histories and experiences
within ecofeminism is that they tend to be discussed out of context. Often,
Aboriginal peoples, their beliefs, traditions, and experiences are presented within
the historical romanticism of the ‘noble savage’ (see Starhawk, 1989; Abbot, 1989
cited in Smith, 1997; Christ, 1989 cited in Smith, 1997). This is problematic because
it overlooks current struggles and contemporary, everyday relationships to
nature. As Smith (1997, p. 31) argues, ‘mainstream society portrays Indians as
people who had a romantic past, but people who have no place in modern
society’. Jacobs (1994) identifies a proliferation of depictions of Aboriginals as the
‘original conservationists’ within settler discourses of the Australian Aboriginal
landscape. She argues that such texts are ‘colonial and patriarchal’ in their desire
to ‘possess indigenous knowledges held within a primitivist stereotype of the
environmentally “valid” and “useful” indigene’ (Jacobs, 1994, p. 190). These texts
leave little room for acknowledging and examining the ways in which Aboriginal
peoples connect with nature in the contemporary context.
Smith (1993) argues that the reliance on historical images and the detachment of
‘white’ ecofeminists from Aboriginal peoples have resulted in the uninformed
and inappropriate use of Aboriginal beliefs, traditions and experiences. One way
of avoiding such historicism is to look beyond examples from the past and engage
in a process of listening to Aboriginal peoples speak about their own connections
to nature. This might allow a more informed ecofeminism to emerge and
338
K. Wilson
overcome what Sturgeon (1997, p. 269) identifies as the main contradiction within
current ecofeminist theory and writing: ‘much of ecofeminist discourse about
Native American women silences their voices even while idealizing them’.
Thus, the purpose of this article is to provide some insight into women – nature
connections by listening to and learning from the voices of Anishinabek (Ojibway
and Odawa peoples) as they discuss their relationships to the land. The interviews
reveal that Anishinabek believe that Mother Earth is an integral part of their
identities and that women –nature connections are celebrated and respected.
However, the interviews also demonstrate the existence of men-nature
connections and the belief that Mother Earth is an active, living entity. Such
findings are important counter-narratives and have the potential to reconcile both
social and spiritual ecofeminist paradigms. Listening to Aboriginal voices, as
opposed to using their cultures and histories, forces us to rethink feminist
conceptualizations of the categories ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘nature’, and ‘culture’,
thereby creating the possibility for a richer understanding of gender-nature
connections.
Methods
The transcripts used in this article are from interviews that examined the complex
links between culture, health and place among First Nations peoples in the
province of Ontario (see Wilson, 2003). The purpose of the interviews was to
explore how First Nations peoples’ beliefs surrounding the land and the
environment shape health and health-related behaviours. It became apparent
while listening to First Nations peoples speak about the land and during the
subsequent analysis of the interview texts that gender is perceived to play an
important role in shaping connections to the land.
The research presented in this article was conducted in two separate stages.
First, in-depth interviews were conducted with First Nations peoples of Odawa
and Ojibway ancestry living in a relatively isolated community in Northern
Ontario, Canada. Ojibway and Odawa people belong to the Algonquin cultural
family and, like many Algonquin peoples, use the term Anishinabek, meaning
‘First Peoples’, to refer to themselves. There are over 1 million Aboriginal peoples
living in Canada, representing approximately 4% of the total Canadian population
(Canada, 2001). This fig represents all Aboriginal peoples, including Registered
Indians, non-status Indians, Inuit and Métis.5 The province of Ontario is home to
the highest number of Aboriginal peoples in Canada (approximately 200,000),
representing 2% of the total Ontario population (Canada, 2001). In addition, over
100 of Canada’s 2,720 First Nations communities are located in the province of
Ontario (DIAND, 2003).
At the time of the research, in the late 1990s, the community had over 300
registered band members and approximately 60% resided in the community.
Many First Nations communities across Canada contain fewer than 500 residents
and only 11% have more than 2,000 residents (DIAND, 2003). The community is
characterized by a relatively young population with slightly more than 50% of the
population falling between the ages of 16 and 45. There is an even distribution of
men and women. In terms of social status, unemployment is high with only 25% of
the population of working age being employed on either a part-time or full-time
basis. The First Nations’ band is the main employer with approximately 80% of
the employed working for the band office or the health centre. The community
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
339
belongs to a tribal council that contains five other First Nations communities
located nearby. The tribal council provides numerous services such as police,
alternative education, health services, and justice projects, to each of the six
communities.
Much has been written about the issues researchers should consider when
engaging in projects with Aboriginal peoples. An important doctrine of any
research project should be cultural sensitivity (Brant, 1990; Keeshig-Tobias, 1990;
Ross, 1992; Spielmann, 1998; Warry, 1990). While an important issue, it mainly
becomes a concern once a researcher has gained entry into a community and is
about to embark on field research. The literature tends to overlook the processes
by which a researcher, in particular a non-Aboriginal researcher, can gain entry
into an Aboriginal community. I had the benefit of being put in touch with the
non-Aboriginal Health Director for the tribal council, who was well respected by
all six communities represented by the tribal council. She played an important role
in negotiating my entry into the community to conduct the research. The entire
process, from my first meeting with the Health Director to my final arrival in the
community took approximately five months.
Upon my arrival in the fall of 1998, I immediately began working in the
community health centre. As a form of reciprocity, I conducted a health needs
assessment survey for the adult population, as well as a survey focused on the
youth. During my time working at the health centre, I developed a rapport with
the community health workers as well as the professional health and social
services workers who worked in the community. I resided in the community for a
total of six months split between the fall of 1998 and the spring of 1999. Living in
the community not only aided my understanding of Ojibway/Odawa culture but
it also paved the way for the development of friendships.
For the first two months I lived in the community, I heard many individuals use
the Ojibway term zhaagnash-kwe to refer to non-Aboriginal women. At first,
I thought it was an insider term, used to distinguish me and other non-Aboriginal
women from the community members. One day I was engaged in a conversation
with Susan, a woman from the community.6 She was describing a disagreement
she had with a non-Aboriginal woman earlier that day. I knew the woman to
whom she was referring and responded by saying ‘I know her. She is zhaagnash,
like me’. However, Susan replied with ‘No. She is zhaagnash. You are not’. It was at
that point that I truly realized the value-laden meanings of the term zhaagnash. The
way in which Susan used it was akin to an insult. Shortly thereafter the Chief
named me Mskwaadabej, which translates roughly into ‘the one with the red head’,
a reflection of the colour of my hair. Rarely did a day go by when I did not hear
someone calling that name as I passed by. To me this symbolized a transformation
in the relationships that I had forged within the community. I was no longer
regarded as just a researcher—an outsider—but also a friend, a symbol of
acceptance. That was the greatest honour. It was at this point, when I had
established trust, that I began seeking people to interview for my own research.
While researchers identify numerous factors to consider when selecting
participants for research, such as accessibility and willingness to participate
(see Johnson, 1990; Kirby & McKenna, 1989), there are other factors that should be
taken into consideration when conducting research with First Nations peoples.
The relationship between First Nations peoples and the Canadian government has
been one of displacement. Colonial policies have resulted in the dispossession of
First Nations peoples from their lands. This has disrupted the social, economic
340
K. Wilson
and spiritual fabric of communities and has changed the ways in which women
and men relate to the land. As such, the relationship that First Nations people
have with the land is continually being reshaped. There were some individuals in
the community who themselves had attended or whose parents had attended
residential school. Therefore many individuals grew up in an environment where
a spiritual way of life was suppressed or hidden. Some are now undergoing a
process of regaining those teachings. Since individuals begin the learning process
at different stages in their lives, it did not make sense to choose interviewees based
on age. The spirituality of the people I interviewed and their connections to the
land varied, ranging from what some termed as ‘just learning’ to others who were
very knowledgeable and held important spiritual roles within the community,
such as elders.
The term elder refers to an individual with knowledge of traditional ways,
teachings and ceremonies and who uses this knowledge to teach others (Medicine,
1983; Stiegelbauer, 1996; Waldram, 1993). Since the knowledge that elders have is
gained through life experience it tends to be associated with more senior
individuals. However as McLeod-Shabogesic (1998) notes, the term also refers to
an individual ‘gifted with the ability to learn more things and be able to pass them
on regardless of age’. Since elders hold important status within First Nations
I wished to include them in my research and was able to interview three elders.
During this stage of the research, 17 in-depth interviews were conducted, 14 of
which were with community members. Nine of the interviews were with women
and five were with men. Three interviews were conducted with individuals who
did not live in the community but served important roles for community members
(e.g., traditional healer, medicinal harvester). Initially, I had asked 21 community
members to participate but only 14 agreed. The reasons I was given for refusal
varied from a ‘lack of time’ to individuals stating that they did not know enough
about their culture and their spirituality to participate in my research. In fact, one
woman stated that because of the residential school system and the influence of
the church she was neither taught nor was she allowed to practise her traditions.
In the second stage of the research, 18 interviews were carried out with
Anishinabek who had relocated from reserves in the tribal council territory to
three different urban areas within Ontario, Canada: Hamilton, Sudbury, and
Toronto. Each city was selected for different reasons. Sudbury was chosen because
it is the closest city to the tribal council area. Many Anishinabek from the district
relocate to Sudbury for school and/or employment opportunities. Toronto was
chosen as it contains a relatively large percentage of Canada’s total urban
Aboriginal population. It is also one of the most diverse cities in Canada, with
members from various First Nations groups residing there (Canada, 1996b).
Hamilton and Toronto are located approximately 640 km and 570 km respectively
from the tribal council territory.
A very flexible strategy was employed for use in the urban areas. First, a
snowballing technique was used in which I asked individuals from the
community to identify band members that were living in urban areas who
might be willing to participate in the research. Second, I contacted various
Aboriginal organizations in Hamilton, Sudbury, and Toronto and asked them to
put me in contact with people living in their area. Third, after informants were
contacted and interviewed, the snowballing technique was once again employed
to identify other prospective informants. Using the personal networks of my
informants to expand my search was a useful way of identifying and establishing
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
341
contact with Anishinabek as well as ‘information-rich key informants’
(Patton, 1990, p. 176). In addition, it enabled me to establish and build trust
with each participant as the research progressed. Of the 18 urban interviews, 15
were conducted with women and three with men.
While many of the community and urban-based participants were fluent in
Ojibway/Odawa, all the interviews were conducted in English. The interviews
were semi-structured in design and detailed theme areas were identified prior to
the interviews. Each interview started with a general statement that asked
individuals ‘to describe their relationship to the land’ and developed from that
point forward. Open-ended questions were asked, followed by probes that tried to
cover each of the theme areas.
The interviews were more reflective of a conversation with the questions
changing depending on the individual being interviewed. In essence, I tried to
create a dialogue between each participant and myself. This style of interviewing
was chosen because the literature suggests that direct questioning (e.g., questions
requiring ‘Yes/No’ for answers) is an inappropriate method to use with most First
Nations peoples. This is supported by both linguistic and medical literatures that
identify a need for ethno-specific communication methods, such as indirect
questioning, when conducting research with Aboriginal peoples (see Briggs, 1986;
Macaulay et al., 1989; Spielmann, 1998; Valentine, 1995).
The issue of conducting research with the ‘other’ is a prominent focus of
discussion in feminist and post-colonial literatures (see Alcoff, 1991; Bhabha, 1994;
Kobayashi & Peake, 1994; McDowell, 1991, 1992; Spivak, 1988). Debates
concerning research with ‘others’ have raised important issues regarding
representation and have stressed the importance of recognizing that all
knowledge is partial, situated and socially produced (see Haraway, 1991a).
It could be argued that in conducting and presenting the results from this
research, I risk ‘continuing the imperialist project’ (Spivak, 1988, p. 288) of
speaking for others.
Throughout this article, interpretations and analyses of Anishinabek voices
speaking about their connections to Mother Earth are presented and this does
constitute a form of speaking for others. The purpose of incorporating these voices
and perspectives is to create what Spivak (1988) terms ‘counter-narratives’ that
demonstrate the impartiality of ‘Western’ ecofeminist understandings of the
categories ‘women’ and ‘nature’ and the connections between them. As such, this
article does not represent an attempt to ‘give a voice’ to Aboriginal peoples.
Rather, I have tried to write the text in a way that allows us to learn from listening
to Anishinabek describe their relationships to Mother Earth.
In choosing quotes to present careful attention was paid to selecting those that
reflected what many respondents said about their connections with the land.
At the same time there is an attempt to ensure that as many voices as possible can
be heard. However, given the overwhelming number of female participants
(23 women vs. 12 men), the majority of voices heard belong to women. Further,
although interviews were conducted with both urban and reserve Anishinabek, it
is beyond the scope of the article to discuss how connections to the land are
shaped within different locations. Similarly, it is impossible to describe the
multitude of inter-related factors that shape each individual’s connection to the
land (e.g., place of residence, age, cultural, individual and family history, mobility
patterns, social status, discrimination, etc.) (see Wilson, 2000). It is important to
recognize that there cannot be one essentialized Anishinabek identity or culture.
342
K. Wilson
While acknowledging that relationships to the land are contingent upon a
complex inter-relationship of many aspects, this article only focuses on shared
Anishinabek beliefs pertaining to gendered connections to the land. Although
each person’s discussion of their relationship to the land paints a different and
unique story, there were at least three common themes that emerged from the
interviews. First, Anishinabek believe that their identity is intricately tied to the
land. Second, Anishinabek-kwe (women) have a strong connection to the land while
Anishinabek men strive to maintain their connection. Third, Mother Earth is not
perceived to be a passive being but rather an active and reactive entity. These are
important findings for creating more informed social and spiritual ecofeminisms.
Culture, Identity and Place: Shkagamik-Kwe, the land as mother
The interviews revealed a common theme among all of the individuals that I
interviewed; Anishinabek consider the land to be a female entity and a provider of all
things necessary to sustain life and refer to her as Shkagamik-Kwe (Mother Earth).
Mother Earth is . . . Mother Earth is basically the land that we live on but
they call it also Turtle Island. Mother Earth is really respected in
Aboriginal communities because it is part of creation . . . and Native
people regard her as their Mother so we have to respect her in everything
that we do. We associate Mother Earth as being our Mother and that we
have to take care of her and give her thanks.
(Sandra)
Like to me I would say first of all ‘Shkagamik-Kwe’, that’s how you say
Mother Earth in Anishinabe and uh to me she is the giver of all creation
and there are stories about creation stories and if you understood those
and listened to them and got the teaching you would understand what
Mother Earth was. You’d feel more connected and have more respect for
her because uh she’s the . . . she provides us with all the plants and all the
animals and the water like everything and everything that keeps us
going alive and uh like the water we drink from comes from Mother
Earth and all the food and all the medicines come from her . . . When I
think about Mother Earth and that’s the way I feel connected to her and I
really feel we should really protect her and um to visit with Mother
Earth. Just going off into the bush by yourself and you put your tobacco
down and you give thanks for everything she provided.
(Lindsay, Sudbury)7
The meaning of the land for Anishinabek is the foundation of their identity. While
geographic research has demonstrated the links between identity and place, the
relationship between identity and place for Anishinabek presents itself at a deep
level; the land does not just shape identity, it is the core of Anishinabek identity:
Mother Earth is everything that you see. You look everywhere on earth
and you see Mother Earth. Everything we are came from Mother Earth.
The way you raise your kids . . . doing things together. That is where we
live among other people. If there was no Mother Earth there would be no
place to go or do things.
(Helen, elder)
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
343
We truly believe that we are part of it [Mother Earth]. We come from her
and someday we will return to the earth . . . When we connect with the
earth through meditation, we ground ourselves to the earth.
(Jean, elder)
The above quotes exemplify that the relationship Anishinabek have with the land
cannot be captured by the simplified notion of being ‘close to nature’. Rather, the
land is viewed as a fundamental and integral part of each person’s being. In
exploring these connections to nature from a gendered perspective, an important
counter-narrative to spiritual ecofeminism begins to emerge. As noted earlier,
spiritual ecofeminists have strategically used indigenous cultures to support their
claims that women have unique biological connections to nature that should be
celebrated. Yet, in doing so, spiritual ecofeminists reinforce a gender-nature
connection that leaves little or no room for men to occupy any part of the nature
side of the dualism. However, the interviews revealed that even though women
are perceived to have a more natural connection to Mother Earth, it is also
important for men to have a strong connection to nature.
The strong connection that Anishinabek women have with the earth comes from
their abilities to give birth—to be mothers:
Mother Earth was the first mother, the first giver of life, the rocks, the
trees, and the animals. The Creator passed on the ability of giving life
from Mother Earth to women. That is why women are the only ones who
can have children and men are the helpers.
(Theresa, elder, Sudbury)
Some women even commented that it was not until they gave birth that they fully
realized their inextricable link to the land:
Mother Earth is a female fig and once you experience giving birth, it’s a
whole new appreciation of what Mother Earth—the concept of Mother
Earth is all about . . . It’s so wonderful that out of a woman’s body comes
creation. Like the seed grows and you nurture and Mother Earth, she
nurtures us everywhere, in the air we breathe, the plants that we eat and the
food that we take to eat . . . that’s how the little children grow in our wombs.
So there’s a very important relationship there between the earth and women.
(Linda, Sudbury)
Anishinabek women celebrate what could be characterized as a biological
relationship to Mother Earth but this system of beliefs does not exclude
Anishinabek men from nature. In fact, since men are not born with the same
biological relationship to Mother Earth (i.e., life-giving powers), as are women,
they strive to fulfil their connections in different ways. Anishinabek men
discussed the importance of fasting and sweating throughout their life for
building a strong relationship with Mother Earth. In addition, by embracing their
perceived role as providers Anishinabek men connect with Mother Earth through
daily activities such as hunting, trapping, and fishing:
I like to hunt and fish a lot . . . The animals that I hunt and fish are what
we eat in the house. All the stuff I have caught. We rarely buy meat from
the grocery store . . . In my own way I have a close relationship with
344
K. Wilson
Mother Earth. I go out and hunt and fish but not necessarily to get
anything but just to be there. I feel so good I feel refreshed. I love to be out
there. Some people can’t understand why I like to be out there so much
. . . Every Native, even if they are born in the city, has it in them—to be
Anishinabe. It is in our genes to be out there in nature. We are to be out
there with nature. If I lost my legs I would want to die. If I couldn’t get
out there and hunt to be out in nature, I would not want to live . . . You
can’t imagine the satisfaction I get when I bring home a deer to feed my
family. My wife provides. She has a job but when I see the look on their
faces when I bring home food for them I am filled with such satisfaction
. . . I know who I am. It is in me. It is part of me.
(Victor, Sudbury)
The different ways in which men and women connect with Mother Earth are very
evident when examining the symbolism of the sweat lodge. The sweat lodge
provides one of the most direct spiritual and symbolic links between an
individual, Mother Earth and the Creator. As Waldram et al. (1995, p. 110) note, the
function of the sweat lodge is multifaceted: it is used for prayer, to maintain health
and for particular health or social problems. While its therapeutic benefits have
been noted widely, it is the symbolic importance of the sweat lodge that is of
interest here.
In a sweat lodge, saplings are tied together to make a circle shaped like a dome.
The shape of a sweat lodge is very symbolic of the relationship individuals have
with Mother Earth:
We have a sweat lodge and in the lodge they dig a hole in the middle for
the grandfathers, which are the rocks. The sweat lodge represents
Mother Earth’s womb. When you crawl out of the sweat lodge, it is like
you are reborn.
(Cheryl)
That sweat lodge . . . the womb of Mother Earth. [. . .] That’s the womb of
Mother Earth and Mother Earth protects everybody—not just
Anishinabek people . . . You want to heal, that’s what it’s there for.
That’s why we built it . . . we built it on the mentality of creation. That’s
why it’s shaped like that. That’s why we crawl in. It’s just the same way
as you crawled out of your womb of Mother Earth and that’s why it’s
shaped like that.
(Jim, Toronto)
For Anishinabek men the sweat lodge provides a very important connection to
Mother Earth. As some explained, since women have the biological ability to
purify themselves during their moon time (i.e., menstruation) it is believed that
men need to sweat more than women do for healing to take place:
Women cleanse themselves monthly. Our moon time keeps us cleansed
but men can’t do that. That is why so many men sweat. Men weren’t
given that ability and so they must sweat to cleanse themselves.
(Theresa, elder, Sudbury)
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
345
Women have the gift of moon time. It’s a natural cleansing process.
That’s why some people believe that women don’t need to do sweat
lodges because they have a natural way of cleansing. So while you are in
your childbearing years you have this special time and this time is meant
for you as a rejuvenation time uh a time so that you can . . . contemplate
your meaning, your purpose and all that stuff . . . So for my husband it’s
his access to sweat, to his rejuvenation time his . . . purpose for a sweat.
(Linda, Sudbury)
Individuals also discussed how biological differences between men and women
are the basis for many different traditions and ceremonies that men, women, boys
and girls participate in to maintain connections to Mother Earth. For example
during puberty, girls take part in a Berry Fast and boys undergo Vision Quests:
The Berry Fast what it talks about is a young girl when she turns 13 or as
soon as she starts her moon basically she’ll go fasting, a light fast . . . You can
actually see that transition. The way she was in the beginning and how she
has matured in her face and the way she acts. You can actually see the young
woman that has come out of that. It is actually quite amazing to be part of
that. To support them, it is important to give them support . . . Girls who go
through this learn that it isn’t something dirty. It is something powerful. You
are bearing those children. You are the one that can have those children and
you bring them up and no one else can do that. That’s why those women are
responsible for the water and for the land because we are the ones that are
able to have those children because we give life.
(Nicole, reserve)
There is the full moon ceremony that women do . . . There is the water
purification with water is always done by women because without water
we would be nowhere. I mean you start off in your mother’s womb in
water and it continues for the rest of your life when you cry when you are
happy it is water, when you cry when you are sad it is water. When we
sweat to get rid of toxins it is water. Water plays such a very strong and
enduring role in our lives all the time . . . You know so women do the
water ceremonies all the time.
(Marianne, Toronto)
There are different kinds of pipes. There is a men’s pipe and a women’s
pipe . . . Like for us if we are sitting at a pipe ceremony and it is a men’s
pipe they pass it around the circle for each person to smoke but the
women can’t smoke it they touch their shoulders with the pipe instead.
That is because women are powerful in their communities especially
when they are on their moon time because it is said that women are
really, really strong and it is said that during their moon time that is when
they are cleansing things so when they are on their moon time they
shouldn’t prepare feasts or prepare medicines for other people.
(Sandra, reserve)
Within spiritual ecofeminism indigenous beliefs in a biological women –nature
connection have been used to align women with nature. However, due to the
346
K. Wilson
partial and uninformed adoption of indigenous cultures that overlooks
(or ignores) men-nature connections, this has resulted in a concomitant separation
of men but, as the interviews demonstrate, such a distinct separation of men from
nature does not necessarily exist within Anishinabek and some other indigenous
cultures (Canada, 1996a).
Social ecofeminists seek to dismantle the essentialized men/women culture/
nature dualisms in part due to their hierarchical structure. Yet an essentialized
biological separation of men and women is a component of Anishinabek culture and
traditions. Anishinabek women and men are perceived to have innate biological
differences and therefore occupy different positions within communities. Such
differences, however, do not always result in devaluation, a central and important
concern within social ecofeminism. While Anishinabek men and women are
believed to have different roles they are not set up within an oppositional,
hierarchical structure. That is, the distinct roles of women and men in communities
and the ways in which they relate to Mother Earth are generally valued equally
(see Malloch, 1989; Wakegijig et al., 1988). For example, in Anishinabek cultures, both
women and men have important roles in constructing sweat lodges. As Williams
(1992) argues, this signifies the importance of balance between men and women that
is stressed in Ojibway cultures. Some of the women interviewed expressed
frustration with Western feminism for what they perceived to be its lack of
recognition that within their culture differences between men and women do not
necessarily translate into inequality:
There are different ceremonies for men and women. Men and women’s
ceremonies shouldn’t be together. I won’t go to talks given by men on
women’s ceremonies. There are men’s and women’s roles and they are
different. That is the way it has always been. I am not a feminist and I
don’t agree with feminist arguments for women being part of everything.
I believe there are different roles. That’s the way it was in my family.
(Yvette, Toronto)
Social ecofeminists are justifiably concerned with women –nature connections that
have tended to result in the devaluation of both women and nature. Western
dualistic thought, which has traditionally separated ‘man’/men from nature, has
reinforced oppositional unequal categories of dominance, thereby resulting in a
devaluing of nature and all that is associated with it (e.g., women) (McDowell,
1991). However, Anishinabek beliefs challenge Western discourses by offering
counter-narratives that do not allow for dominance over the land:
The European based point of view is that you can rape the land, mine all
of the ore, catch all of the fish, and cut down all of the trees. That is not
very traditional. Anishinabek live in balance with the land.
(Ryan)
We just believe that everybody has a spirit like including us but we’re I
guess if there was to be a hierarchy we would be at the bottom of that
hierarchy because if it wasn’t for all of those other things we wouldn’t be
able to survive on Mother Earth.
(Sandra)
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
347
The land is who we are, where we come from. It is a part of us. It is vital
to us. White people have the perception that they can own the land. The
Native perception is different. We do not own the land. We are from the
land and it is part of us. We are not above it.
(Patrick)
Western thought (i.e., the colonizing mind) traditionally devalues the nature side
of the dualism and by default tends to view any group that is close to nature as
having no culture and therefore in need of being civilized (Akiwenzie-Damm,
1996). Aboriginal peoples, since the time of contact, have been perceived by the
colonizing culture as lacking culture—as being savage—because of their close link
to nature (the land) (Goldie, 1989; Pearce, 1965). Some social ecofeminists have
used these experiences with colonialism to support a separation of women from
nature but in doing so have relied on historical images of indigenous peoples that
fail to take into account present-day connections to nature:
I’m contemporary and I would like you to see me as I am now. I’m not the
noble savage. I’m from the concrete nation, the urban concrete nation.
(Jim, Toronto)
In addition to relegating indigenous peoples to the image of the noble savage, the
reliance on colonial experiences has also resulted in a persistent depiction of the
earth as merely a nurturing, passive Mother Nature/Earth. Such depictions of
nature are not common across all cultures and perhaps, as Haraway (1991a, 1991b)
suggests, contribute to the continued exploitation of the earth. As discussed
earlier, Haraway (1991a, 1991b) has criticized the portrayal of nature as ‘Mother
Earth’ (see also Instone, 1998) as it invokes what she perceives to be a passive
nature that can be exploited and offers Coyote as an alternative. While it may not
be Haraway’s intent to use Coyote to represent nature, she does not explicitly
recognize that to some indigenous peoples Mother Earth is an active, living being
that acts and reacts to human activities:
I think she is living . . . I think of her as not a person but she’s like a spirit.
She’s alive.
(Lindsay, Sudbury)
Mother Earth definitely talks back to me. We are the protectors. That was
handed down to use. We (Aboriginal peoples) all have that creation story.
It is told in different ways but in the end we are the protectors of Mother
Earth . . . Mother Earth tends to revolt. She gets angry and she is strong
and she will cause destruction . . . Mother Earth just knows how to do
good. She doesn’t want to be destructive except when things happen . . .
She’s very mysterious because you don’t know when. Scientists are
always trying to read into the earth and trying to find out how to prevent
things which is good to prevent things like when a hurricane is going to
happen . . . I think that people have to be more careful of, not so much
how they treat Mother Earth but the way they see her. In the context of
the way they view her.
(Jim, Toronto)
348
K. Wilson
There is a sacred place . . . and . . . I was always told to respect it because it
is where the Vision Quests take place. A bunch of us went up there and
we were horsing around carrying around up on that spot . . . Shortly after
that I became really sick and I ended up spending over a year in the
hospital and nobody could fig out what was wrong with me. My mom
told me that I got sick because I wasn’t being respectful. I didn’t respect
Mother Earth and I wasn’t behaving the way I should have because it is a
sacred place.
(Sandra, reserve)
I respect the earth. They [polluters] think that just one little thing won’t
hurt but what if everyone started to do that. It [the earth] would be a
mess. When you listen about storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, Mother
Earth is angry, she’s letting us know she doesn’t like what is going on
with the earth. She is scolding you by saying ‘don’t do this to me, you are
hurting me’. Floods, all these things are indications of Mother Earth’s
displeasure with what they do.
(Allan, reserve)
The Anishinabek belief systems expressed in these quotes destabilize ecofeminist
ideas of a nurturing, passive earth and offer the potential to move away from an
image of nature that is vulnerable to exploitation and oppression.
Discussion
While there are multiple dimensions and perspectives within ecofeminism, a
common goal is to destabilize the patriarchal and oppressive connections between
women and nature (Zabinski, 1997). One way some ecofeminists have sought to
achieve this goal is by combining Aboriginal culture and knowledge ‘with other
forms of knowledge in a significant effort to counter the hegemony of Western
influence’ (Wells & Wirth, 1997, p. 301). However, as discussed in the article, there
are a number of problems with the ways in which Aboriginal perspectives have
been blended within Western ecofeminist discourses. In particular, Aboriginal
cultures and histories have been appropriated in a manner that not only
misrepresents Aboriginal cultures but also silences Aboriginal peoples.
The interviews presented in the article reveal a complex set of gender-nature
connections that have yet to be explored fully within current ecofeminist
discourses. Anishinabek perceptions of gender-nature connections provide
counter-narratives to current paradigms within both spiritual and social
ecofeminisms. The interviews show that Anishinabek women celebrate
connections to Mother Earth that are based on fertility and reproduction. These
strong biological connections to nature do not however result in a concomitant
separation of men from nature—an issue that has yet to be acknowledged within
spiritual ecofeminism. Further, social ecofeminists are concerned about the
implications such essentialized and hierarchical connections have for women and
other oppressed populations. Yet by separating women from nature, the view
supported within social ecofeminism, important biological, spiritual and symbolic
ties between Anishinabek women and Mother Earth are overlooked. Anishinabek
beliefs do not appear to support the separation of either women or men from
nature. In addition, a reliance on indigenous experiences with colonialism to
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
349
support the separation of women from nature denies a place for contemporary ties
to nature and overlooks the possibility that nature can be an active entity. Bringing
Anishinabek voices into ecofeminist discussions not only reveals some cultural
misappropriations but also offers the potential to reconcile social and spiritual
ecofeminism.
Similar to a spiritual ecofeminist approach the interviews present a cultural
belief system that emphasizes the maintenance of an essentialist connection
between women and nature. However, in support of social ecofeminism, this
same cultural belief system does not reinforce a culture–nature dualism (that is
often associated with the separation of men from nature) or a hierarchical
relationship between culture and nature. In presenting these results, I am not
arguing for a reformulation of ecofeminist theories and discourses but rather am
emphasizing the need for more critical engagement with indigenous cultures and
histories.
In discussing the potential to reconcile spiritual and social ecofeminism, I
recognize the problems associated with the support of women – nature
connections. In celebrating women’s biological connection to nature, one risks
essentializing and reducing women’s characteristics. As Nightingale (2005) notes,
the danger in upholding such supposedly unified categories is the assumption
‘that all women would have the same kind of sympathies and understandings of
environmental change as a consequence of their close connection to nature’. There
cannot exist the category ‘Anishinabek woman’ but rather some common cultural
beliefs held by both Anishinabek women and men regarding connections to the
land. Further, in some places throughout the world, women’s connections to
nature have resulted in social constructions of gender that place the burden of
environmental work and protection within women’s sphere of domestic and
community responsibilities, thereby increasing their work loads (for a discussion
of the connections between gender, environment, and work see: Agarwal, 1997;
Freidberg, 2001; Nightingale, 2005; Schroeder & Suryanata, 1996; Verma, 2001).
This raises an important question: How can we support and discuss cultural
beliefs that reinforce women – nature connections without contributing to the
further oppression and exploitation of women? Related to this, it is important to
recognize that not all Anishinabek or other Aboriginal cultures could be described
as ecological and therefore it is imperative to avoid reinforcing the image of a
contemporary ‘ecologically noble’ indigenous culture. To do so reinforces
stereotypes and also may result in the transfer of responsibility for the
environment from Western cultures to indigenous cultures worldwide.
There are other issues that contribute to the conceptualization of gender-nature
connections but were beyond the scope of the article. First, in discussing
connections between Anishinabek women and nature based on the ties of fertility
and reproduction, the article has not addressed the metaphor of the body as an
important component of this relationship. Feminist scholarship has emphasized
the need for more critical engagement surrounding the interconnected
representations of the body and landscape (see Nash, 1994, 1996). During the
interviews, Anishinabek men and women provided descriptions of Mother Earth
that included images of the land as personified within the female body, such as a
sweetgrass representing Mother Earth’s hair, the sweat lodge symbolizing a
womb (as already discussed) and water representing the blood of life. These and
other images are common to many First Nations and Native American cultures
350
K. Wilson
(see Osennontion & Skonaganleh:rá, 1989; Quintero, 1995; Trudelle Schwarz,
1997).
Second, as discussed in the introduction, the purpose of the article was to
demonstrate the importance of listening to Anishinabek discuss their connections
to more fully inform current ecofeminist discourses. It is important to note that
while there are common beliefs, the ways in which Anishinabek women and men
relate to the land is the result of a complex intersection of knowledge, social status,
individual, family, and community histories, and geography. As such, it is
necessary to recognize that differences do exist between and among Anishinabek
women and men and that their multiple identities are situated within distinct
relationships to the land. For example, the interviews did reveal differences in the
ways that urban and reserve Anishinabek connect with Mother Earth. In
particular, the interviews showed that migration to cities shapes relationships to
the land especially with respect to the challenges cities pose for maintaining those
relationships (see Wilson, 2000). Some of the challenges urban Anishinabek
contend with include reduced access to land and culturally appropriate
ceremonies, physical separation from reserves, as well as discrimination and
marginalization. Despite these challenges, urban Anishinabek do negotiate the
boundaries of urban environments in a number of ways (e.g., embracing panIndian identities, creating real and symbolic spaces) to maintain connections to
Mother Earth (see Wilson & Peters, 2005).
Conclusions: Linking culture, gender and nature
As feminists we are often forced to choose between avoiding the use of categories
such as ‘woman’ and ‘nature’ because they deny the diversity that we seek to
address within our writing or embracing them because they are, as Penrose (1992,
p. 219) notes, ‘essential to our communication of ideas, to our transfer of
knowledge, and, in some instances, to our processes of (self)-definition’. Making a
choice is not an easy decision (see Jacobs, 1994). However, by acknowledging the
relevance of other epistemologies ecofeminists and feminists alike can enhance
and broaden our understanding of these categories of sameness and difference. In
doing so, there exists the potential to make more culturally informed choices. Yet it
is not enough to draw from Aboriginal or other cultures. To do so reinforces the
patriarchal and colonial agendas that we strive so hard to avoid (Jacobs, 1994).
Instead we must make room for the voices of ‘others’ to be heard so that they may
inform choices.
The voices of Anishinabek women and men were interspersed throughout this
article. These voices demonstrate the existence of contemporary counternarratives to spiritual and social ecofeminist discourses that enhance our
understanding of women – nature connections. Anishinabek belief systems reveal
that women are perceived to have a relationship to nature that is rooted in a
shared ability to provide life. Social ecofeminists are appropriately critical of
women – nature connections that result in the oppression and domination of both.
This criticism, however, rests on the assumption that both women and nature are
devalued and that nature is passive but Anishinabek perceive Mother Earth to be
an important active and reactive aspect of their lives. In addition, concerns with
the oppression of women and nature are generally based on a worldview in which
men occupy a position that is separate from, and above, nature. The existence of
strong and intrinsic women – nature connections within Anishinabek worldviews
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
351
does not result in a separation of men from nature. In fact, Anishinabek men strive
to maintain their own strong connections to Mother Earth. The relationships that
Anishinabek men and women have with the land do differ but both are equally
respected. Further, neither Anishinabek men nor women believe that they are
above nature and emphasis is placed on living a life in balance with Mother Earth.
This cultural belief system values and celebrates what patriarchy and colonialism
has traditionally devalued. While there is an inherent danger in equating women,
Aboriginal and other indigenous peoples with nature, if the connection can be
conceptualized and theorized as something other than a hierarchical dichotomy,
we might be able to avoid devaluing ‘other’ (i.e., non-Western, Aboriginal)
cultures and perspectives of nature. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
listening to and learning from the contemporary voices of Aboriginal peoples
provides us with the opportunity to create richer understandings of gendernature connections.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). I would like to thank three anonymous
reviewers for their critical insight and very helpful suggestions. I must also thank
Dr. Linda Peake for her patience, guidance, assistance, and support in the writing
and revising of this article. Finally, I am very thankful to all who participated in
this research, shared their stories with me, and agreed to let their voices be heard.
Chi-Miigwetch.
Notes
1. The 1982 Canadian Constitution Act (as amended) defined Aboriginal people as the Indian, Metis
and Inuit peoples of Canada. However, the term ‘First Nations peoples’ is used by many ‘Indians’
when referring to themselves as a collective group. Therefore this term is used when referring to
this segment of Aboriginal population. Where describing the work of other authors, the terms
‘Native’, ‘American Indian’ and ‘Native Americans’ are used instead of Aboriginal.
2. Spiritual Feminism is also termed cultural ecofeminism.
3. Sometimes referred to as ‘socialist’, ‘materialist’, or ‘constructivist’ ecofeminisms (see Littig, 2001).
4. There are differences in standpoints and approaches within both social and spiritual ecofeminism.
The purpose of the discussion is not to deny the existence of such differences but rather to
demonstrate the distinct perspective of women–nature connections within each.
5. ‘Registered’ or ‘Status’ Indians are those individuals who are registered under the Indian Act of
Canada. ‘Non-status’ refers to those who are not registered under the Indian Act because their
ancestors were not registered or because they lost status under former rules and regulations of the
Act (DIAND, 2000).
6. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of all participants.
7. To distinguish between individuals living in the community and those living in urban areas, the
name of the city appears after the pseudonym for urban participants.
References
Abbott, Salley (1989) The origins of God in the blood of the lamb, in: Irene Diamond & Gloria Orenstein
(Eds) Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, pp. 35–40 (San Francisco, Sierra Club
Books).
Agarwal, Bina (1997) Environmental action: gender equity and women’s participation, Development and
Change, 28, pp. 1–43.
Akiwenzie-Damm, Kateri (1996) We belong to this land: a view of cultural difference, Journal of
Canadian Studies, 31, pp. 21– 28.
Alcoff, Linda (1991) The problem of speaking for others, in: Cultural Critique, Winter, pp. 5–32.
352
K. Wilson
Bhabha, Homi (1994) The Location of Culture (New York, Routledge).
Biehl, Janet (1991) Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics (Boston, South End Press).
Boyko, John (1998) Last Steps to Freedom: The evolution of Canadian racism (Winnipeg, J. Gordon
Shillingford Publishing Inc).
Brant, Clare (1990) Native ethics and rules of behaviour, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35, pp. 534 –539.
Briggs, Clare (1986) Learning How to Ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social
science research (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Canada (1996a) Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1: Looking forward, looking back (Ottawa,
Ministry of Supply and Services).
Canada (1996b) Census of Canada 1996 Unpublished Data (Ottawa, Statistics Canada).
Canada (2001) Census of Canada 2001—Aboriginal population (Ottawa, Statistics Canada).
Carlassare, Elizabeth (1994) Destabilizing the criticism of essentialism in ecofeminist discourse,
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 5, pp. 50 –66.
Carlassare, Elizabeth (2000) Socialist and cultural ecofeminism: allies in resistance, Ethics and the
Environment, 5, pp. 89–106.
Chrisjohn, Roland, Young, Sherri & Maraun, Michael (1997) The Circle Game: Shadows and substance in the
Indian residential school experience in Canada (Penticton, British Columbia, Theyton Books Ltd).
Christ, Carol (1989) Rethinking technology and nature, in: Judith Plant (Ed.) Healing the Wounds: The
promise of ecofeminism (Toronto, Between the Lines Press).
DIAND (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2000) Basic Departmental Data 1999
(Ottawa, Ministry of Public Works and Government Services).
DIAND (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2003) Registered Indian Population
by Sex and Residence, 2002 (Ottawa, Ministry of Public Works and Government Services).
Diamond, Irene & Orenstein, Gloria (Eds) (1990) Reweaving the World: The emergence of ecofeminism
(San Francisco, Sierra Club Books).
Dodd, Elizabeth (1997) The mamas and the papas: goddess worship, the Kogi Indians, and
ecofeminism, NWSA, 9, pp. 77–88.
Eckersely, Robyn (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory: Towards an ecocentric approach (London,
UCL Press).
Freidberg, Sarah (2001) To garden, to market: gendered meanings of work on an African urban
periphery, Gender, Place and Culture, 8, pp. 5–24.
Gaard, Greta (1993a) Living interconnections with animals and nature, in: Greta Gaard (Ed.)
Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature, pp. 1–12 (Philadelphia, Temple University Press).
Gaard, Greta (1993b) Ecofeminism and Native American cultures: pushing the limits of cultural
imperialism?, in: Greta Gaard (Ed.) Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature, pp. 295–322 (Philadelphia,
Temple University Press).
Goldie, Terry (1989) Fear and Temptation: The image of the indigene in Canadian, Australian and New Zealand
literatures (Montreal, McGill-Queen’s Press).
Haraway, Donna (1991a) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The reinvention of nature (New York, Routledge).
Haraway, Donna (1991b) The actors are cyborg, nature is coyote, and the geography is elsewhere:
postscript to ‘Cyborgs at large’, in: Constance Penley & Andrew Ross (Eds) Technoculture: Cultural
politics, pp. 21–26 (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press).
Instone, Lesley (1998) The coyote’s at the door: revisioning human– environment relations in the
Australian context, Ecumene, 5, pp. 452–467.
Jacobs, Jane (1994) Earth honouring: western desires and indigenous knowledge, in: Alsion Blunt &
Gillian Rose (Eds) Writing Women and Space, pp. 169 –196 (New York, Guilford).
Johnson, Jeffrey (1990) Selecting Ethnographic Informants (California, Sage Publications).
Keeshig-Tobias, Lenore (1990) White lies, Saturday Night, October, pp. 67 –68.
Kirby, Sandra & McKenna, Kate (1989) Experience Research Social Change: Methods from the margins
(Toronto, Garamond Press).
Kobayashi, Audrey & Peak, Linda (1994) Unnatural discourse: ‘race’ and gender in geography, Gender,
Place and Culture, 1, pp. 225 –243.
King, Ynestra (1989) The ecology of feminism and the feminism of ecology, in: Judith Plant (Ed.) Healing
the Wounds: The promise of ecofeminism, pp. 18 –28 (Toronto, Between the Lines Press).
LeGuin, Ursula (1989) Women/Wildness, in: Judith Plant (Ed.) Healing the Wounds: The promise of
ecofeminism, pp. 45–47 (Toronto, Between the Lines Press).
Littig, Beate (2001) Feminist Perspectives on Environment and Society (Harlow, Prentice Hall).
Longenecker, Marelene (1997) Women, ecology and the environment: an introduction, NWSA, 9, pp. 1–17.
Macaulay, Ann, Hanusaik, Nancy & Beauvais, Janet (1989) Breastfeeding in the Mohawk community of
Kahnawake: revisited and redefined, Canadian Journal of Public Health, 80, pp. 177–181.
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
353
MacCormack, Carol & Strathern, Marilyn (1980) Nature, Culture and Gender (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
Malloch, Lesley (1989) Indian medicine, Indian health: study between red and white medicine,
Canadian Women Studies, 10, pp. 105–112.
McDowell, Linda (1991) The baby and the bath water: diversity, deconstruction and feminist theory in
geography, Antipode, 22, pp. 123– 133.
McDowell, Linda (1992) Diversity and difference—unity in plurality, Antipode, 24, pp. 223–227.
McLeod-Shabogesic, Perry (1998) What is an elder?, Anishinabek News, 10, p. 31.
Medicine, Beatrice (1983) My elders tell me, in: Don MacCaskill & Yvonne Hebert (Eds) Native
Education, Volume 2, pp. 142–151 (Toronto, University of Toronto Press).
Mellor, Mary (1992) Breaking the Boundaries: Towards a feminist green socialism (London, Virago Press).
Merchant, Carolyn (1980) The Death of Nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution (New York,
Harper and Row).
Merchant, Carolyn (1989) Ecological Revolutions: Nature, gender and science in New England (Chapel Hill,
University of North Carolina Press).
Nash, Catherine (1994) Re-mapping the body/land: new cartographies of identity by Irish women
artists, in: Alison Blunt & Gillian Rose (Eds) Writing Women and Space, pp. 227–250 (New York,
Guilford).
Nash, Catherine (1996) Reclaiming vision: looking at landscape and the body, Gender, Place and Culture,
3, pp. 149–169.
Nesmith, Catherine & Radcliffe, Sarah (1993) (Re)mapping Mother Earth: a geographical perspective of
environmental feminisms, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11, pp. 379 –394.
Nightingale, Andrea (2005) The nature of gender: work, gender and environment, Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, In press.
Ortner, Sherry (1974) Is female to male as nature is to culture?, in: Michelle Rosaldo & Louise Lampher
(Eds) Woman, Culture and Society, pp. 67–87 (Stanford, Stanford University Press).
Osennontion & Skonaganleh:Rá (1989) Our world, Canadian Woman Studies, 10, pp. 12–14.
Patton, Michael (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (California, Sage Publications).
Pearce, RoyHarve (1965) The Savages of America: A study of the Indian and the idea of civilization (Baltimore,
The Johns Hopkins Press).
Penley, Constance & Ross, Andrew (1991) Cyborgs at large: interview with Donna Haraway, in:
Constance Penley & Andrew Ross (Eds) Technoculture: Cultural Politics, pp. 1–21 (Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press).
Penrose, Jan (1992) Feminists and feminism in the academy: introduction, Antipode, 24, pp. 218 –220.
Plant, Judith (Ed.) (1989) Healing the Wounds-The Promise of Ecofeminism (London, Green Print).
Plumwood, Val (1989) Do we need a sex/gender distinction?, Radical Philosophy, 51, pp. 2 –11.
Plumwood, Val (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (New York, Routledge).
Quintero, Gilbert (1995) Gender, discord and illness: Navajo philosophy and healing in the Native
American church, Journal of Anthropological Research, 51, pp. 69– 89.
Rogers, Barbara (1983) The power to feed ourselves: women and land rights, in: Leonie Caldecott &
Stephanie Leland (Eds) Women Speak Our for Life on Earth, pp. 101 –106 (London, Women’s Press).
Rose, Gillian (1993) Feminism and Geography: The limits of geographical knowledge (Minnesota, University
of Minnesota Press).
Ross, Rupert (1992) Dancing With a Ghost: Exploring Indian reality (Markham, Octopus Publishing Group).
Salleh, Ariel (1984) Deeper than deep ecology: the ecofeminists connection, Environmental Ethics, 6,
pp. 339 –345.
Sandilands, Catriona (1997) Mother Earth, the cyborg, and the queer: ecofeminism and (more)
questions of identity, NWSA, 9, pp. 18–40.
Schroeder, Richard & Suryanata, Krisnawati (1996) Case studies from Indonesia and West Africa, in:
Richard Peet & Michael Watts (Eds) Liberation Ecologies: Environment, development, social movements,
pp. 188 –204 (London, Routledge).
Shiva, Vandana (1988) Staying Alive: Women, ecology and survival in India (London, Zed Books).
Smith, Andy (1993) For all those who were Indian in a former life, in: Carol Adams (Ed.) Ecofeminism
and the Sacred, pp. 168–171 (New York, Continuum Publishing Company).
Smith, Andy (1997) Ecofeminism through an anticolonial framework, in: Karen Warren (Ed.)
Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature, pp. 21 –37 (Bloomington, Indiana University Press).
Spielmann, Roger (1998) ‘You’re So Fat’: Exploring Ojibwe discourse (Toronto, University of Toronto Press).
Spivak, Gayatri (1988) Can the subaltern speak?, in: Cary Nelson & Lawrence Grossberg (Eds) Marxism
and the Interpretation of Culture, pp. 271–313 (Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois Press).
354
K. Wilson
Spretnak, Charlene (1989) Toward an ecofeminist spirituality, in: Judith Plant (Ed.) Healing the Wounds:
The promise of ecofeminism, pp. 127– 132 (Toronto, Between the Lines Press).
Starhawk (1989) Feminist earth-based spirituality and ecofeminism, in: Judith Plant (Ed.) Healing the
Wounds: The promise of ecofeminism, pp. 174 –185 (Toronto, Between the Lines Press).
Stiegelbauer, Suzanne (1996) What is an elder? What do elders do? First Nations elders as teachers in
culture-based urban organizations, The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 16, pp. 37–66.
Sturgeon, Noël (1999) The nature of race: discourses of racial difference in ecofeminism, in: Karen
Warren (Ed.) Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature, pp. 260 –278 (Indianapolis, Indiana University
Press).
Trudelle Schwarz, Maureen (1997) Unraveling the anchoring cord: Navajo relocation, 1974 to 1996,
American Anthropologist, 99, pp. 43– 55.
Valentine, Lisa (1995) Making it their Own: Severn Ojibwe communicative practices (Toronto, University of
Toronto Press).
Verma, Ritu (2001) Gender, Land and Livelihoods in East Africa Through Farmers’ Eyes (Ottawa,
International Development Research Centre).
Wakegijig, Chief Ron, Roy, Alan & Hayward, Carrie (1988) Traditional medicine: an Anishinabek
Nation perspective, Environments, 19, pp. 122 –124.
Waldram, James (1993) Aboriginal spirituality in corrections: a Canadian case study in religion and
therapy, American Indian Quarterly, 18, pp. 197 –215.
Waldram, James, Herring, D. Ann & Young, T. Kue (1995) Aboriginal Health in Canada: Historical,
cultural, and epidemiological perspectives (Toronto, University of Toronto Press).
Warren, Karen (1993) A feminist philosophical perspective on ecofeminist spiritualities, in: Carol
Adams (Ed.) Ecofeminism and the Sacred, pp. 119–132 (New York, Continuum).
Warry, Wayne (1990) Doing unto others: applied anthropology, collaborative research and native selfdetermination, Culture, 10, pp. 61–73.
Wells, Betty & Wirth, Danielle (1997) Remediating development through an ecofeminist lens, in: Karen
Warren (Ed.) Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature, pp. 21–37 (Bloomington, Indiana University Press).
Williams, Shirley (1992) Woman’s role in Ojibway spirituality, Journal of Canadian Studies, 27,
pp. 100–104.
Wilson, Kathi (2000) The role of Mother Earth in shaping the health of Anishinabek: a geographical
examination of culture, health and place, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Kingston, Ontario, Queen’s
University.
Wilson, Kathi (2003) Therapeutic landscapes and First Nations peoples: an exploration of culture,
health and place, Health and Place, 9, pp. 83–93.
Wilson, Kathi & Peters, Evelyn (in press) ‘You can make a place for it.’ Remapping urban First Nations’
spaces of identity, in: Environment and Planning D: Society and Space.
Wilson, Marie (1989) Wings of the eagle: a conversation with Marie Wilson, in: Judith Plant (Ed.)
Healing the Wounds: The promise of ecofeminism, p. 212 (Toronto, Between the Lines Press).
Zabinski, Catherine (1997) Scientific ecology and ecological feminism: the potential for dialogue, in:
Karen Warren (Ed.) Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature, pp. 314–324 (Bloomington, Indiana
University Press).
ABSTRACT TRANSLATION
Eco-feminismo y la gente de las primeras naciones en
Canadá: Conectando la cultura, el género, y la naturaleza
Muchas eco-feministas entienden que la subordinación de mujeres es
una consecuencia de la conexión de las mujeres con la naturaleza. Ası́ que una de sus
tareas han sido desenmarañar la estructura dualista subyacente de las categorı́as
‘mujeres’ y ‘naturaleza’, y para abogar por una nueva conceptualización de estas
categorı́as. Sin embargo, entre eco-feministas existen diferencias epistemológicas de
cómo abordarı́a la conexión entre la naturaleza y las mujeres. Eco-feministas
espirituales argumentan que la conexión entre las mujeres y la naturaleza merece de
reclamación y celebración. En contraste, eco-feministas sociales sostienen que la
RESUMEN
Ecofeminism and First Nations Peoples in Canada
355
conexión representa un artificio patriarcal que refuerza la opresión. En apoyo de una
de las perspectivas, eco-feministas ‘occidentales’ han invocado las creencias
culturales e historias de la gente indı́gena. El uso de las creencias y experiencias
indı́genas dentro de la mayor parte de discursos eco-feministas occidentales es
parcial y mal informado. En este artı́culo una manera alternativa esta ofrecido—una
que enfatiza la importancia de escuchar a las voces indı́genas que describen las
conexiones contemporáneas a la naturaleza. Las voces indı́genas están presentadas
en el contexto de entrevistas que estaban conducidas con el Anishinabek (Ojibway y
pueblos Odawa) viviendo en una comunidad de primera nación y tres ciudades en
Ontario, Canadá. Las entrevistas subrayan la importancia de escuchar al
Anishinabek describen sus conexiones a la Tierra de Madre (naturaleza) cuando
ellos revelan contra-narrativas los que ofrecen el potencial para reconciliar ecofeminismo espiritual y social y para conceptuar de nuevo la naturaleza (Tierra de
Madre) como un agente activo y dinámico. Estas contra-narrativas pueden mejorar la
comprensión actual de las conexiones de la naturaleza y el género dentro de los ecofeminismos occidentales.