Spring 2010

Discussion Questions

Karen Warren

 

1. Do you think Warren’s application of standard form is helpful in her explanation of the logic of domination?   Do you agree with her that without the logic of domination (LOD) the oppression of ‘Others’ could not be justified?

 

2. Do you think that the justification for dominating nature is parallel in nature of the justification for the domination of women? If not, how is it different?

 

3. Do you agree with her differentiation between domination and oppression?  What do you think this does for her argument?  How do you think these two concepts are similar?  How are they different?  (discussed on the bottom of 261 through 262)

 

4. She advocates that because the LOD is the root of all unjustified domination of all Others, all feminists should include this domination within their conceptual frameworks.  Do you think this is helpful, or is she expecting too much of the philosophy of feminism? 

 

5. Do you think her reply to the objection stated on the bottom of 263 is effective?  Is there another response you can think of, or does this objection seem too powerful for the ecofeminist to adequately address? 

 

6a. On the bottom of p. 265 Warren talks about language use and how language reinforces our conceptual frameworks for the justification of various ‘isms’.  Do you agree with her that “the exploitation of nature and animals is justified by feminizing (not masculinizing) them; the exploitation of women is justified by naturalizing or animalizing (not masculinizing) them”?

 

6b. Warren talks about historical instances of language use and how it affects the way we treat various Others (Native Americans, African Americans, land, plants, etc).  Do you agree with her that “linguistic differences in the historical construction of the concepts of women, people of color, nonhuman animals, and nature have literally reinforced and reinscribed the moral inferiority of these groups in ways that are philosophically important” (268)?  That is, do you think language use/word choice in conceptually significant?  If so, does this recognition aid in the conceptual transformation ecofeminists call for?

 

7. The fourth feature of ecofeminism (top of 271) states ecofeminism to be biased in a ‘better’ way than other perspectives “because it is based on and reflects better generalizations.”   Do you agree with this assertion, or is any bias problematic for an environmental ethic?    

 

8. The seventh feature of ecofeminism (top of 272) advocates we rethink our concepts of reason and rationality.  This implies we value what she calls “emotional intelligence.”  Do you think using ‘intelligence’ as the umbrella category for the thought process of ethical decision making rather than ‘rationality’ or ‘reason’ is necessary for ecofeminism?

 

9. Do you think her use of the rock-climbing narrative, or, for that matter, her argument for the use of narratives in general, is helpful in her argument?