In “Staying Alive”, Vandana Shiva, as an eco-feminist, argues that environmental degradation comes from the same discourse which subjugates women, and in fact, it is the patriarchal western paradigm that links all kinds of inequalities to one another. From the eco-feminism perspective, the destruction and overexploitation of natural resources, which are taking place in the name of development, simultaneously lead to a new source of gender inequality, violence against women and non-western cultures. According to Shiva, the only path towards human being’s liberation and the recovery of nature lies in the revival of the feminine principle.



Shiva argues that the modern science, which is the base of development and modernization, is characterized as reductionist and gendered, since it relegates all traditional thoughts and practices to the realm of supernatural and consequently excludes women and non-western people from the legitimate stream of knowledge. Shiva explains that modern science “reduced the capacity of humans to know nature both by excluding other knowers and other ways of knowing, and it reduced the capacity of nature to regenerate and renew itself” (Shiva 22). In fact, as a result of the scientific revolution, it is the western-minded “experts” and “specialists” who have access to the only legitimate form of knowledge. Violence, destruction, and domination are inherent in the logic of modern science, since it is able to exclude “others” by creating dichotomies of natural/supernatural, scientific/ social, traditional/ modern. The consequent distinction of men and women caused women to be deprived of their own source of knowledge.


The feminine principle as an alternative source of knowledge to reductionist science is a non-violent way of conceiving the world. In contrast to modern science, the feminine principle creates a knowledge that is not gendered and disruptive; it works in harmony and respect for nature. The patriarchal western paradigm creates a hierarchical system in which women are associated with nature and both are seen as passive. In other words, without technological intervention, nature is considered unproductive. In contrast, the feminine principle celebrates diversity and cooperation: “the existence of the feminine principle is linked with diversity and sharing” (Shiva 45). Women’s relationship with nature is not established based upon dominance but “their interaction with nature was reciprocal process” (Shiva 43). Thanks to Indian cosmology, Shiva finds the feminine principle as a revaluation of women’s roles, a path towards the recovery of nature, and celebration of nature’s renewability. From this perspective, the way the world works is through the dialectical play of creation and destruction. Nature is the expression of Shakti, the first dynamic energy which is primarily feminine, and creates the world in dialectic with the masculine principle. This point of view offers duality and diversity in unity as the feminine principle’s alternative to the dichotomous nature of modern science. According to Shiva, “there is no divide between man and nature or between men and women because life in all forms arises from the feminine principle” (Shiva 40).


Shiva does not aim at creating an exclusive connection between women and the feminine principle; thus, she is not an essentialist. Unlike cultural feminists, she does not argue around the celebration of femininity and the unique identity of women. According to Shiva, considering women as those who have the only legitimate access to feminine principle reinforces the gender paradigm; therefore, gender-based ideology cannot provide adequate response to the ecological crisis and women’s subordination in societies. In other words, “Gender ideology has created the dualism and distinction between male and female” (Shiva 52) and in fact, it is the continuation of the dualist nature of modern science. Given that dichotomization is the way of domination and violence, any gender-based solution is disruptive. In contrast, the feminine principle is a cross gender strategy which works in harmony with nature to bring balance back to the world. Shiva claims that both men and women have access to the feminine principle and in fact, “The recovery of the feminine principle is based on inclusiveness” (Shiva 53).


The recovery of the feminine principle brings about economic changes which can alleviate real poverty. Reductionist science as a response to the needs of capitalism organizes the economic and agricultural systems, which aim at maximizing profit, since producing profit and cash are considered the only legitimate productivity. As a result of development projects, monoculture agriculture, which is a threat to farmers’ survival and subsistence economy, is flourishing and interdependent markets emerge. As Shiva explains, “economically it is invalid because not only do cash crops produce no food, they do not produce much cash either over time” (Shiva 137). In contrast, the feminine principle encourages economics based upon indigenous technologies and traditional, sustainable agriculture in which women’s and nature’s works are valued and considered productive. Within this economic system, people at least can independently provide their basic means of survival.


From an environmental perspective, the feminine principle recognizes the interconnection of agriculture, animal husbandry, and forestry. Peasants and women traditionally work in accordance with the natural cycle, use renewable inputs in agriculture, and avoid overuse of the natural resources. Thus, unlike the patriarchal western approach to the nature, agriculture based upon the feminine principle is not disruptive but able to maintain the renewable capacity of nature. Economic and environmental effects of the feminine principle bring about social changes since “recognition of nature’s harmony and action to maintain it are preconditions for distributive justice” (Shiva 6). For instance, while the patriarchal paradigm conceive masculine destructive development project as productive and associates passivity with femininity and nature, the feminine principle revalues women’s work and sees it as means of survival. Through the revaluation of women’s work and acknowledgment of other legitimate forms of knowledge, it provides source of women’s empowerment. While women’s work maintains the subsistence economic, development projects construct real poverty and deprive indigenous farmers of the control over their lands.


I agree with Shiva’s arguments insofar as she criticizes the exclusive character of modern science and development projects. As Shiva argues, the consequence of development projects is not the end of hunger and poverty for “third world” countries, but then rather leads to real poverty, overexploitation of natural resources and women’s oppression. I strongly believe that modern science and globalization are tied to the needs of capitalism. Since the feminine principle opens a door to including other knowledge and embracing sustainable agriculture and women’s works, it offers a significant pace towards human’s liberation and the recovery of nature. Yet, in spite of Shiva’s useful critique of modern science, she creates another dichotomy between western modern science and traditional non-western thoughts. It seems that Shiva’s ultimate goals will be fulfilled if one can establish a system which is able to be open to both western and non-western achievements.