Beyond essentialism: Redefining the gender-environment nexus

In the past decade, a significant amount of attention has been drawn to the gender-environment nexus, and rightly so, as women make up approximately 80 percent of those displaced by climate change. The ecofeminist framework has been used to understand this nexus further, however, its essentialist views have often failed to take into account the nuanced and diverse experiences of women in the Global South. Essentialism, in this context, refers to the belief that all women share fixed, universal traits, such as an inherent connection to nature. Some versions of this mode of thought go even further, portraying women as spiritual representatives of nature, suggesting a mystical bond between them and the environment. This perspective, however, overlooks the diverse socio-economic realities of women's lived experiences in the Global South. 

The Global South remains the hardest hit by the climate crisis, and women are on the frontlines, due to their roles in caregiving and natural resource management.

The Global South remains the hardest hit by the climate crisis, and women are on the frontlines, due to their roles in caregiving and natural resource management. This piece aims to examine how ecofeminism’s essentialist perspectives overlook the critical material realities of the gender-environment nexus, where, rather than a spiritual bond, women’s relationships with nature are shaped by necessity and survival, fundamentally influencing their livelihoods.

Understanding ecofeminism

Ecofeminism draws parallels between the degradation of nature and the oppression of women, attributing both to patriarchal systems. Françoise d’Eaubonne first introduced the term “ecofeminism” in 1974, suggesting that patriarchy simultaneously exploits women and the environment. Subsequent scholars, such as Ynestra King and Carolyn Merchant, elaborated on these ideas by critiquing the masculinist mentality of control over both women and nature. Merchant, for example, examined how the Scientific Revolution’s mechanistic view of nature reinforced both patriarchy and ecological exploitation.

By the late 1980s, Karen Warren and Val Plumwood offered more nuanced critiques of the hierarchical dualisms, such as male/female and culture/nature, that underpinned both gendered and ecological oppression. These scholars emphasised pluralistic perspectives and highlighted marginalised voices, particularly those of indigenous women. These frameworks, while important in expanding the conversation, still risk overlooking the material and socio-economic factors that shape the relationship between women and the environment in the Global South.

However, critics such as Bina Agarwal (1992) and Meera Nanda (1991) point out ecofeminism's tendency to homogenise women’s experiences, and draw attention to its failure to account for the complex intersection of gender with other social categories like class, caste, and race.

Acknowledging the importance of intersectionality and the unique experiences of women in the Global South, it is imperative to recognise that, for many of these women, their primary concern is not patriarchy, but survival.

Acknowledging the importance of intersectionality and the unique experiences of women in the Global South, it is imperative to recognise that, for many of these women, their primary concern is not patriarchy, but survival. Their relationships with nature are shaped by urgent material needs, such as access to food, water, and fuel. This is the material reality of the gender-environment nexus.

The gender-environment nexus

In this context, women in the Global South play a crucial role in managing vital resources like water, energy and food. These responsibilities extend beyond the household, forming the backbone of local resource systems, ensuring that their communities can survive in the face of environmental challenges.

Women make up approximately 43 percent of the agricultural labour force in developing countries, and contribute significantly to food production in developing countries. They are also disproportionately burdened with tasks like fetching water and collecting firewood. Studies show that women in households without running water spend an average of 22.84 minutes per day collecting water, and over 800 hours annually gathering firewood.

Despite their critical contributions, women have faced systemic barriers that prevent them from accessing resources such as land, credit and technology. These gendered inequities are further exacerbated by climate change, which intensifies challenges like land degradation, water scarcity and food insecurity.

Ecofeminism’s essentialist strands, on the other hand, often romanticise women’s connection to nature, portraying them as nurturing caretakers. However, we must recognise that this connection is actually rooted in necessity and survival, as women in the Global South engage with the environment primarily to secure food, water and fuel for their families.

For example, movements like the Chipko Movement in India, often celebrated as feminist environmental activism, were not driven solely by a sheer love for nature. Women’s participation in the Chipko movement was driven by the need to protect local forests for fuel and water—resources critical to their daily survival. Therefore, it is crucial to move beyond essentialist views and recognise the real and material connection women have with nature—one that shapes their socio-economic realities.s.

Ecofeminism’s limitations and the need for an integrated approach

Ecofeminism, while valuable in drawing attention to the link between gender and the environment, often overlooks the complex socio-economic factors that influence women’s relationship with nature in the Global South. By framing women’s roles as inherently closer to nature, ecofeminism risks essentialising gender roles, portraying women as passive caregivers for the environment. This perspective neglects the struggles women face in securing access to land, water, and other vital resources—struggles grounded in survival and economic necessity.

The way forward

In addressing the climate crisis, it is essential to apply a gender-responsive lens—not only as a moral imperative, but also as a strategic one. Research shows that if women had the same access to resources as men, agricultural yields could increase by 20-30 percent, raising total output by 2.5-4 percent and also potentially reducing global hunger by 12-17 percent.

By addressing women’s material needs and recognising their socio-economic realities, we can create a more equitable and effective approach to tackling the climate crisis. 

By addressing women’s material needs and recognising their socio-economic realities, we can create a more equitable and effective approach to tackling the climate crisis. By incorporating women’s perspectives and ensuring that they have access to the resources they need, we can foster a more inclusive and effective approach to environmental stewardship, improving both gender equity and environmental outcomes in the Global South.

Sharon Sarah Thawaney is the Executive Assistant to Dr. Nilanjan Ghosh at the Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata.

• Climate, Food and Environment
• Gender
• India
• Americas
• The Pacific, East and Southeast Asia
• Climate Crisis
• environmental conservation
• Global South Countries
• natural resource management
• women empowerment
• women entrepreneurship

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

PREV NEXT