Ecofeminism and Development: Linking Gender and Environmental Sustainability

The way a society treats its natural environment often mirrors how it treats its most marginalised people. This insight sits at the heart of one of the most influential debates in comparative politics and development studies: the relationship between gender, ecology, and economic progress. The Women, Environment, and Development (WED) perspective, rooted in ecofeminism, argues that the exploitation of nature and the subordination of women spring from the same source. But this is not a settled idea. It has sparked a rich and ongoing argument among scholars about whether women have a “special” bond with nature, or whether their connection is shaped entirely by social and economic circumstances. Understanding this debate is essential for anyone studying how development models shape both gender relations and environmental outcomes.

What is ecofeminism?
The link to development
Vandana Shiva and the feminine principle
Two systems of forestry
The Chipko movement as a living example
Bina Agarwal’s critique: the problem of essentialism
Why essentialism is a political problem
Feminist environmentalism as an alternative
What would real change require?
A debate, not a winner

What is ecofeminism?

Ecofeminism is a school of thought that combines ecological concerns with feminist analysis. Its central claim is that the domination of women and the domination of nature are deeply interconnected, and that both stem from the same patriarchal worldview. The term was coined by the French writer Françoise d’Eaubonne in 1974 and developed further by thinkers such as Ynestra King and Carolyn Merchant.

The argument runs like this. A patriarchal, capitalist system treats nature as a resource to be controlled, owned, and extracted for profit. It treats women in a strikingly similar way, valuing them mainly for their reproductive and caregiving labour while denying them control over resources and decisions. Ecofeminists draw a parallel between violence against nature and violence against women, suggesting that the two cannot be addressed separately. To heal one, you must confront the other.

The link to development

This is where the “development” part of the WED perspective becomes important. After independence, much of the post-colonial world adopted a model of development centred on industrial growth, large dams, commercial agriculture, and the extraction of natural resources. Ecofeminists argue that this model is fundamentally masculinist. It measures progress in terms of production and profit, while ignoring the unpaid, life-sustaining work that women do and the regenerative cycles of nature that this work depends on. The result, they contend, is both ecological degradation and the deepening of gender inequality.

Vandana Shiva and the feminine principle

No discussion of ecofeminism in the context of development is complete without Vandana Shiva. A physicist by training who turned to environmental activism, Shiva is one of the most internationally recognised voices in this field. Her 1988 book Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development stripped away what she called the neutral language of science to reveal third-world development policy as a continuation of colonial extraction.

Shiva builds her argument around the idea of the feminine principle, which she draws from Indian philosophy. In this view, nature, or prakriti, is a living, creative, and self-regenerating force. Traditional societies, and especially rural women, lived in partnership with this principle, conserving biodiversity and sustaining life. Modern development, she argues, severed this relationship by reducing nature to a mere resource and devaluing women’s knowledge and work.

Two systems of forestry

One of Shiva’s most powerful illustrations is the contrast between two ways of relating to forests. On one side is commercial forestry, a system designed to maximise the yield of a single profitable species such as eucalyptus or pine for timber and pulp. This is a life-destroying logic, in her words, because it strips the forest of diversity, depletes soil and water, and ignores the needs of the people who actually live there.

On the other side is the communal, life-conserving approach of village women, who see the forest as a source of food, fodder, fuel, medicine, and water. For them, a diverse forest is not inefficient; it is essential to survival. This is closely tied to her critique of monoculture, which she extends from agriculture to knowledge itself, arguing that the dominant development model erases local ways of knowing the land.

The Chipko movement as a living example

The clearest real-world expression of these ideas is the Chipko movement. In the early 1970s in the Himalayan region of Uttarakhand, rural villagers, particularly women, resisted government-backed commercial logging by embracing the trees marked for felling. The word chipko means “to hug” or “to cling to,” and this simple, non-violent tactic gave the movement its name.

A defining moment came on 26 March 1974, when Gaura Devi led 27 women from Reni village to confront loggers and protect their forest. The women’s motivation was practical as much as it was symbolic. Their daily lives depended on the forest for firewood, fodder, and water, so deforestation hit them first and hardest. The movement eventually contributed to a ban on commercial green felling in the region and helped shape national forest policy. For ecofeminists, Chipko is proof that women are not just victims of ecological destruction but also its most committed opponents.

Bina Agarwal’s critique: the problem of essentialism

Shiva’s work has been enormously influential, but it has also drawn sharp and thoughtful criticism. The most important challenge comes from the economist Bina Agarwal, whose 1992 essay “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India” reshaped the field. Agarwal does not dismiss the link between women and the environment. Instead, she questions why that link exists.

Her central objection is that ecofeminism, as Shiva presents it, falls into essentialism. By rooting the women-nature connection in a “feminine principle,” Shiva risks implying that women are naturally or biologically closer to nature than men. Agarwal argues that this flies in the face of evidence that ideas about nature, gender, and culture are socially and historically constructed, varying across class, caste, and region.

Why essentialism is a political problem

This is not merely an academic quibble. Essentialism carries real risks. If you claim that caring for nature is an inherently feminine quality, you implicitly suggest that men cannot or will not develop the same ethic of care. You also flatten the enormous diversity among women into a single category. Agarwal points out that Shiva tends to present a unitary view of “third world women,” drawing heavily on a Hindu conception of nature as a nurturing feminine force. This framing may not resonate with women of other religions, regions, or social positions, whose relationships with the environment are quite different.

Feminist environmentalism as an alternative

In place of ecofeminism, Agarwal proposes what she calls feminist environmentalism. The key difference lies in the foundation of the women-nature relationship. For Agarwal, this relationship is rooted in material reality, structured by the gendered division of labour and the organisation of production and distribution, not in any spiritual or biological essence.

In her analysis, poor rural women have a particular stake in the environment because their assigned responsibilities, such as collecting water, fuel, and fodder, make them directly dependent on natural resources. When forests vanish or water sources dry up, these women bear the heaviest burden. Their environmental activism, therefore, grows out of their lived material conditions and gendered responsibilities, not from an innate feminine bond with the earth. This reframing matters because it points to a different kind of solution.

What would real change require?

Because Agarwal locates the problem in social and economic structures rather than in worldviews alone, her prescriptions are concrete and material. She argues that genuinely addressing the gender and environment problem requires transformation across several fronts.

Distribution of resources: Women, especially in rural households, often lack secure rights over land and forests. Agarwal’s broader scholarship, including her landmark study A Field of One’s Own, makes the case that independent land rights for women are central to both their empowerment and effective environmental management. Without ownership and control, participation remains hollow.

Decision-making processes: Effective conservation requires that women have a real voice in how resources are governed. The Chipko legacy itself shows that decentralised decision-making and women’s autonomy in conservation dialogues produce better outcomes than top-down management. Token representation is not enough.

Production and technology: The development model itself, with its emphasis on commercial monocultures and resource extraction, has to change. Agarwal calls for an environmentally sensitive approach to economics, technology, and society that does not depend on exploiting either nature or the people who depend on it most.

A debate, not a winner

It would be a mistake to treat this as a contest with a clear victor. Both perspectives illuminate something important. Shiva forces us to take seriously the destructive logic of a development model built on extraction, and she gives voice to women’s grassroots resistance in a way that has inspired movements worldwide. Agarwal grounds that insight in material analysis, guarding against romanticised assumptions and pointing toward practical, structural reforms.

Together, they capture a tension at the centre of comparative politics: the relationship between identity and structure, between the symbolic meanings we attach to nature and gender and the hard economic realities that shape people’s lives. The most useful position for a student is probably to hold both in view, recognising the moral force of the ecofeminist critique while insisting, as Agarwal does, on solutions that change who owns, decides, and benefits.

What do you think? Do you find Shiva’s idea of a “feminine principle” a powerful tool for environmental activism, or do you agree with Agarwal that it risks trapping women in a fixed and essentialist role? And in the context of current development debates, which approach offers a more practical roadmap for linking gender justice with environmental sustainability?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

What is ecofeminism? 🔗

The link to development 🔗

Vandana Shiva and the feminine principle 🔗

Two systems of forestry 🔗

The Chipko movement as a living example 🔗

Bina Agarwal’s critique: the problem of essentialism 🔗

Why essentialism is a political problem 🔗

Feminist environmentalism as an alternative 🔗

What would real change require? 🔗

A debate, not a winner 🔗