WE NEED MORE STORIES ABOUT ENTREPRENEURIAL,
Thoughts on the Ecofeminist Movement
Many business and economic theories applaud the entrepreneur who is driven to consume any and all available resources in the pursuit of immediate, personal monetary gain and who, therefore, shows limited regard for long- term collective well-being. Women and nature have been indiscriminately exploited in this system of domination (Ortner, 1974). To overcome this misogynist and narrowly materialistic ideology, the scholarly/activist move- ment known as ecofeminism invites a radical reconstruction of entrepreneur- ship through a multi-disciplinary investigation of the context, motives, processes, agents, beneficiaries and victims of present and future economic activity. ‘An ecofeminist perspective propounds the need for a new cosmology and a new anthropology which recognizes that life in nature (which includes human beings) is maintained by means of co-operation, and mutual care and love’ (Mies and Shiva, 1993, p. 6). With an ‘emphasis on spirituality . . . [and]
the rediscovery of the sacredness of life (Mies and Shiva, 1993, p. 17), ecofeminism ‘locates production and consumption within the context of regeneration’ (Shiva, 1993, p. 33).
Ynestra King has characterized ecofeminism as ‘the third wave of the women’s movement . . . [following on] the first-wave nineteenth-century women’s movement and the second-wave women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s’ (quoted in Sturgeon, 1997, p. 260). That genealogy affirms women’s extended commitment to social change, with ecofeminism our most revolutionary initiative to date. ‘The term ecofeminisme was coined by the French writer Francoise d’Eaubonne in 1974 to represent women’s potential for bringing about an ecological revolution to ensure human survival on the planet.
Such an ecological revolution would entail new gender relations between women and men and between humans and nature’ (Merchant, 1990, p. 100).
Initially, the ecofeminist alliance brought together ‘feminism, indigenous knowledge and appropriate science, development and technology’ (Wells and Wirth, 1997, p. 304) in a direct challenge to the tenets of neoclassical econom- ics, a discipline that has persistently ignored the economic contributions of women (Boserup, [1960] 1989; Waring, 1990; Nelson, 1996) and has insisted on the legitimacy of economic models devoid of values, emotions and spiritu- ality. As work in the field has progressed the women and men who identify with ecofeminism have embraced an ever-larger roster of issues, including ‘femi- nism, environmentalism, antiracism, animal rights, anti-imperialism, antimili- tarism, and non-traditional spiritualities’ (Sturgeon, 1997, p. 263). The enlarged mandate recognizes that all forms of oppression are inextricably intertwined and, therefore, seeks inclusivity and redress for all oppressed groups.
With a multi-disciplinary perspective and an inclusive spectrum of partici- pants, ecofeminism promotes respect and harmony amongst peoples and with
Mother Earth. ‘If we look upon ecofeminist literature as medicine stories, we can understand that its function is to teach us lessons about healing. These stories illustrate ways in which we can reconnect with the sources of our powers of transformation’ (Orenstein, 1990, p. 286). For example, Catharine’s story illustrates how women can achieve power in unexpected and positive ways, in a manner consonant with the feminist ideal of ‘transforming power . . . [as] the truly significant and essential power . . . not power over others’
(Rich, 1986, p. 99). She did not consciously chose a life of social activism yet has exerted significant influence. Through her love for the land, Catharine was able to keep her family together and eventually to achieve a measure of personal acclaim. Her work was powerful enough to compel respect from the literary and publishing communities in Canada and Britain. By teaching the poor and inexperienced working class immigrants how to survive in the bush, she inadvertently helped to undermine the class system in which she had been raised. Ecofeminists strive ‘not just to change who wields power, but to trans- form the structure of power itself’ (Starhawk, 1990, p. 76) in order to affect a
‘social reordering’ (Ruether, 1994, p. 2). Born before the label was invented, Catharine was nonetheless an ecofeminist.
Bioregionalism
Bioregionalism dramatically reframes the entrepreneurial process, shifting the perspective away from humans as the pivotal agents of change towards Mother Earth, the non-human partner/agent, and towards an ecosystems57 orientation. ‘Bioregionalism calls for human society to be more closely related to nature (hence ‘bio’) and to be more conscious of its locale, or regions, or life-places (thus ‘bioregion’) . . . It is a proposal to ground human cultures within natural systems, to get to know one’s place intimately in order to fit human communities to the earth, not distort the earth to our demands’ (Plant, 1997, p. 132). Bioregionalism thus encourages a micro, embedded, local perspective.
Key to the success of a bioregional initiative is a change in attitude.
‘Becoming native to a place – learning to live in it on a sustainable basis over time – is not just a matter of appropriate technology, home-grown food, or even “reinhabiting” the city. It has very much to do with a shift in morality, in the attitudes and behaviors of human beings’ (Plant, 1990, pp. 158–159). To the new mind-set of bioregional development women bring proven expert knowledge that is ‘relational’, ‘inherently collaborative’, ‘transparently situ- ated’, and ‘temporal’ (Curtin, 1997, p. 90). With its goal of healthy communi- ties, bioregionalism is a powerful tool to turn space into place and to direct entrepreneurial energies in a life-affirming manner. Blissfully unaware of these concepts, Anne’s approach to her business, her employees and her
community of customers and neighbours is helping to build a number of healthy communities. As mentioned above, community building is occurring at the economic level and also among female gardeners. The bioregional construct brings into focus a third community which is benefiting from her business – the rural economy, which is being regenerated through the employ- ment of local workers and the inflow of revenues from city customers. Anne believes that her rural location gives her business a competitive advantage and, in return, her business is helping to strengthen the rural community.
Bioregionalism is successful when relationships create reciprocal benefits.
A Survival Subsistence Perspective
Ecofeminism and bioregionalism are initiatives that are principally drawn from and designed for Western societies. Building upon and radically adapting these philosophies, Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva (1993) look around the world and address the concerns of billions of people living in survival subsis- tence circumstances. Deeply critical of the capitalist commodity market, they work to help people ‘regain self-reliance and subsistence security, that is, to become ecologically, socially, and economically more independent from external market forces’ (Mies, 1993b, p. 312). They propose a people-oriented development that obliges entrepreneurial activity to focus on the ‘creation and re-creation of life’ (Mies, 1993b, p. 319, emphasis in original). They document projects from around the world and compile a dossier of principles to guide a subsistence economy that respects and sustains the individual and sets the health of the human community ahead of profit. Maria Mies (1993b) delin- eates the following key principles of the survival subsistence perspective:
• ‘self-reliance, self-provisioning, food self-sufficiency, regionality, the need for re-ruralization, participatory democracy, inter-regional co- operation’ (p. 302)
• ‘autonomous [community] control of the subsistence base . . . the land, water, forests, hills . . .’ (p. 303)
• ‘a paradigm of science, technology and knowledge that uses grass-roots, women and people-based knowledge to achieve greater social justice . . . using locally based ecologically sustainable alternatives’ (p. 320)
• ‘the reintegration of culture and work as both burden and pleasure, along with a reintegration of spirit and matter’ (p. 320)
Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva are advocating on behalf of Thuli, who is not a quaint anachronism but is a standard-bearer for billions. With a substantive proportion of the world’s population immersed in subsistence work, researchers have a responsibility to craft entrepreneurship theory and practice
to reflect/respect their needs and their many contributions to society. Enacted, the principles of ‘subsistence work as life-producing and life-preserving work’
(Mies, 1993b, p. 297) promise a radically new economic order. These are not new ideas. As Mies points out, the development community has been promot- ing these principles for a long time; entrepreneurship researchers (Schumacher, 1973; Peterson, 1977; Hawken, 1987) have proposed comple- mentary ideas but also to no avail. Why should we contemplate such radical change?