Ecofeminism 2: On Agriculture

Who nourishes and who is nourished? I take a seed, lay it calmly in its bed, cover it with a blanket of earth. In its silence, it promises me I will see it again, when its flesh is soft and its skin ripe. I have nourished, will be nourished.

— Indigo Leveson-Gower (2023)

The apple trees were coming into bloom, but no bees droned among the blossoms, so there was no pollination and there would be no fruit. The roadsides were lined with brown and withered vegetation, and were silent, too, deserted by all living things.

— Silent Spring, Rachel Carson (1962).

I yawn in my chair and decide I need some sustenance to continue writing. In my kitchen I open my cupboard, reaching inside and rooting around for something to eat. Plastic wrapped crisps, tinned beans, little sweets in coloured paper; all seem so pristine and unknowing. It is hard to imagine they were ever plants in a field. Here on this shelf is a landing point, a final stop on their long journey. I imagine all the packets of food speaking of their travels, swapping stories of cargo containers and sorting machines. As I rip open the crisp packet a puff of air is released, I bite down and apologise for not having listened.

Perception of Agriculture

The countryside, it conjures up such beauty and honesty, the likes of William Blake and Wordsworth colouring our perception. The rolling fields of Britain; of ‘green and pleasant lands,’ nourished and propped up by honest work and honest hands. Without much critique, we visit, we frolic, and we romanticise this place, for it has been like this as long as we remember. My question is: what if this view was distorted? What lies beneath our perception of this ‘nature?’ The landscape of Britain has been profoundly shaped by agricultural practices: there is so little that we have not touched, not changed and bent to our will. Despite our romanticisation, we have a skewed relationship with nature, one that sees ourselves as separate and above. We wish to love but we merely control, and this, I argue, has led to environmental destruction. What influences our relationship, and how can rethink or reframe this? If the goal of environmentalism is to facilitate a significant connection with the natural world and promote behaviours that are more attuned to ecological concerns, then what role does language play? Just as we shape language, can language shape us? John Austin examines this is How To

Do Things

With Words, coining ‘locutionary force’: the core meaning of a word and the ‘illocutionary force’ which is what is achieved by saying a word (Austin, 1962). The ‘illocutionary force’ of ‘wilderness’ led to destruction. Could we transfer this to how we speak on matters of the environment: the perceived meaning of these terms, and what is actually achieved?

Ecofeminist Theory

Ecofeminist theory argues that sciences and technology are inherently linked with gender and our perception of nature has been heavily altered by ‘capitalist patriarchy or ‘modern’ civilization.’ An example of this can be seen with the Darwinian scientific theory of the competitive nature of evolution, with the ultimate goal of reproduction(Richards, 2005). This fits within and influences the capitalist patriarchal world system by excluding queer narratives and subjecting women to being defined by their natural reproductivity. The ‘sex-gender system’ and the naturalisation of women creates a dynamic where ‘women are mere breeding stock subordinated to protective male figures.’ (Carroll, 2019).This hinges on the concept of Nature versus culture, with culture associated as a purely human trait and therefore having hierarchy over nature. Historically, men are seen as ‘fully human and enfranchised’ whereas women are closer to the earth; natural, and therefore below. Ecofeminist theory essentially proposes that by rethinking the subordination of women to men, you must therefore rethink the subordination of culture to nature, thus disavowing human exceptionalism (Shiva and Mies, 2014). When applied fully and without bias, this feminist theory redefines the hierarchy of non-humans and humans and creates a horizontal world view. This theory of horizontality, and equality with the non-human could lead to a more loving and mutually beneficial relationship with ‘nature’ (Morgan, 1972).

Farming represents man’s first battle over ‘nature’: the bending and stilling of the environment led to the settling of humanity on land, away from its hunter gatherer origins. This led to two main benefits: a buffering against the environment due to stable food resources and less time foraging. (Schultz et al, 2022). However, It has also led to environmental degradation. Agriculture is not inherently an unnatural or bad thing. In fact, the practice of ‘farming’ can be seen in humans and non-humans alike: nature includes mushroom farming termites (Mueller and Gerardo, 2002). Nevertheless, the rise in large scale industrial agriculture has seen humanity push through the perceived ‘limitations’ of nature in the name of ‘progress.’ (Tsing, 2025). Heidegger writes of how modern technology sees the world as ‘Standing Reserve’ with everything potential for our exploitation (Heidegger, 1954). Today, overwhelmingly agriculture is rooted in practices of toxic chemicals, monoculture, and genetic modification to maximize yields at the expense of biodiversity, soil health, and human health. (Shiva and Mies 2014). This is not only unsustainable but deeply rooted in the ‘capitalist patriarchy’s’ need to conquer and

130 Composting is so hot extract from land. It is essential to rethink this methodology in order to maintain human and nonhuman life.

We must look to the future, and reshape this narrative of control and extraction in our agriculture practices. But before we look to the future, we should examine the past. The new women’s movement, of the late 19th and early 20th century was a radical rethinking of women’s role in agriculture and can be taken as an interesting and influential example of ‘woman ecologies’ in farming practices. We must bear in mind that this was a movement of middleclass women only, and was not applied equally and fairly to society. However, the lessons in the empowerment of women’s freedom through farming practices, alongside new perspectives in how we interact with nature still ring true in contemporary society and when applied without bias could meaningfully benefit our ecological relationships.

Olive J. Cockerell and Helen Nussey were two members of the new women’s movement who in 1909 published ‘A French garden in England: a record of the successes and failures of a first year of intensive culture’ that documents their foray into alternative and gendered agriculture (Nussey and Cockerell, 1909). Cockerell and Nussey created a smallholding that played with and ‘erode(d) distances between culture and nature, fantasy and reality, the present and the future, the city and the country’ creating a new ecology that questions the hierarchy between species and values ‘new ways of dwelling with non-humans,’ or their ‘creature Comrades.’ The practical ways that this philosophy played out was through ‘intensive culture,’ a way of growing that juxtaposed the accepted rule of monoculture by planting companion species, growing in small spaces, seasonal planting and growing plants of shapes and sizes ‘not what we are usually accustomed to.’ (Carroll, 2019). This focused on ‘mutual aid’ within ecology and farming, opposing the accepted Darwinian theory of competition of species, as well as working with the rhythms of nature without pushing its limits. This narrative within feminist theory of a new relationship between ‘nature and culture’ persist today; Donna Haraway a feminist and ecological philosopher, some 100 years later, wrote the story of Camille, hypothesising on a new movement of humanity in which we become integrated into nature unlike ever before. (Haraway, 2016). Creating new ‘kinships’ with species and ‘cyborgs’ of human and non-human. Cockerell and Nussey developed a new ‘kinship’ within growing practices and used this to create a new way of living in a male dominant society.

Our perception of nature has been heavily influenced by capitalist patriarchy, resulting in a skewed relationship with the environment that sees humans as separate and above nature. Ultimately, a more balanced and sustainable relationship with nature can be achieved by challenging the dominant paradigm of human exceptionalism and embracing a philosophy of mutual aid and cooperation.