Abstract
Our research was based on the observation that reference is increasingly being made in current feminist debates (especially in the context of sustainability sciences) to ‘care‘ as a principle of thought and action. ‘Care‘ is (also) extended to the category ‘nature‘ We assume that such an extension neglects the complexity and effectiveness of societal relations to nature and gender relations. One possible consequence could be that aspects of power and domination are transferred from care relationships to interaction with nonhuman ‘nature(s)‘. We go in search of clues, starting with the analysis of ‘nature‘ as a category of (care) debates inherent to the New Feminist and Ecology Movement of the 1970s. We finish by examining select work on ‘nature‘ as an explicit category in care relationships between humans and nonhuman ‘nature(s)‘. The article explicitly opposes the tendency to essentialize ‘nature‘ and ‘gender‘ and advocates the sustainable use of ‘nature(s)‘ from a ‘Vorsorge’ perspective.
| Translated title of the contribution | Which ‘nature(s)‘ do we care for?: Critical feminist perspectives on current care debates in a social-ecological context |
|---|---|
| Original language | German |
| Journal | Gender |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Pages (from-to) | 125-139 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| ISSN | 1868-7245 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19.03.2019 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 5 Gender Equality
Research areas and keywords
- Gender and Diversity
- care
- feminism
- emacipation
- sustainability
- nature(s)
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Which ‘nature(s)‘ do we care for? Critical feminist perspectives on current care debates in a social-ecological context'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver