请用中文对以下文献综述进行综合评价：Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Definition of Ecofeminism
Karen J. Warren, an Eco-feminist, defines Eco-feminism which is the most extensively
used and accepted definition. In Ecological Feminism, she believes that:
“Ecological feminism (Eco-feminism) is an umbrella term which captures a variety of multicultural perspectives on the nature of the connections within social systems of domination between those humans in subdominant or subordinate positions, particularlywomen, and the domination of nonhuman nature” (Warren, 1997:1).Françoise d’Eaubonne (1974: 213), who is the pioneer of ecofeminism, proposed the term “ecoféminisme ” in her book Leféminisme ou la mort in 1974. Moreover, her thought of ecofeminism is also well known. Before that, in September 1973, a new movement organization, the feminist Front, was born in France. Some of the members of the group began to discuss the idea of linking the feminist struggle and the ecological struggle, and put it into the movement manifesto. However, the idea was later abandoned by the manifesto, so some members of the front left the organization and founded the eco-feminist center (Ecologie-Feminisme Centre), which was the beginning of ecofeminism (ecoféminisme). What d’Eaubonne’s thought is that ecology is the study of the relationship between organisms and the nature in which they live (1974: 216). By definition, ecology contains the problem of sexual relations and fertility rate (1974: 220). At present, ecology is facing the problem of resource depletion and environmental destruction, so this is the second factor why people start to think about ecology. Françoise d’Eaubonne (1974：221) combined the ecological movement and feminism to solve the human crisis, called for a new system of moral values and social structure, opposed various forms of discrimination, and proposed to replace the patriarchal hierarchy by promoting the ethical values of justice. What’s more, she regards resources and population as a node connecting the ecological movement and the feminist movement. Of course, she explained that the two discoveries, despite the war, were unquestionable human progress, the world wealth and the population. However, the reasons, namely the land fertility and the conquest of female connection, have become two immediate ecological disasters: population expansion and resource depletion. First, as humans, women and men are under ecological threat; second, women are the only gender in both sexes who can accept or reject, slow down, or accelerate human reproduction in the future, so women are more concerned about the future of their offspring, but only the highly conscious people among men. Therefore, women must get back ownership of their body that has been stolen by patriarchal. And it’s urgent to link the struggle for women’s rights and the protection of the nature destroyed by the patriarchal system. The only variation that can save the world today is the subversion of male power, by overturning the social system of male supremacy (1974：235). In particular, d’Eaubonne pointed out that the subversion of male power is not to transfer power to women, not to build a feminist society, but that women destroy power to
transform into apowerless society and build a society of equality between men and women.
2.2 Jean Rhys and Wide Sargasso Sea
Jean Rhys was born in Dominica in 1890, the daughter of a Welsh doctor and a white Creole mother. When she was sixteen, she came to England, where, after her father died, she
drifted into a series of demi-monde jobs -chorus girl, mannequin, artists model.She began to write when the first of her three marriages broke up. She was in her thirties by then and living in Paris, where she was encouraged by Ford Madox Ford (who also discovered D. H. Lawrence). Ford wrote an enthusiastic introduction to her first book in1927, a collection of stories called The Left Bank.
Previously, many scholars have paid attention to the female consciousness revealed in Jean Rhys’s works, and analyzed the female character images, female growth themes and female psychological experiences in her works, and have achieved fruitful results on the whole. However, the writer’s later creation is no longer limited to the care of women, but has expanded to the scope of paying attention to the ecological environment and vulnerablegroups, and urgently needs to be interpreted from new perspectives and methods. Ecofeminism, a compound of ecology and feminism, originated in ecofeminology in Western Europe in the 1970s and developed into a new research method. Ecofeminist criticism places literary criticism in the global context of sexism and ecological crisis, draws on the methods of feminist criticism and ecocriticism, embodies the ultimate concern for the environmental crisis and the prospects of human survival from an ecological perspective and a female perspective, and takes the harmonious coexistence and sustainable development of man and woman, man and man, and man and nature as the ultimate demand. From this point of view, ecofeminist criticism and Jean Rhys’s literary works have a natural adaptability. This article will interpret Jean Rhys’s later literary works from the perspective of ecofeminist literary criticism, and analyze the ecological feminine consciousness and ideological value orientation conveyed in them.
2.3 Studies on Ecofeminism Abroad
If the Feminist or Death, the book is just a summary of ecological feminist viewpoint, for the theory of ecological feminist set up a platform, so in order to more detail and fully discuss ecological feminist, d’Eaubonne （1978） had completed in 1978 the Ecologie Féminisme: Révolution ou mutation? In the introduction, she wrote: “Since I began writing the book in 1974, the events in the ecological struggle and feminist struggle have proved beyond expectation the urgency of dual issues that the book has to discuss” (1978). Ecologie Féminisme: Révolution ou mutation? The book consists of two main parts: one is the destroyed nature; and capitalism is the final stage of the patriarchy. d’Eaubonne devoted great space to the historical reasons for the combination of the ecological movement and the feminist movement. From the initial history of development, the history of agricultural development and the confrontation between gender are closely linked. At first, agriculture was the business of women, and women enjoyed a certain prestige, which was related to their importance in society, but was not related to hierarchy. Women worked as mothers and farmers, working in small family groups and in a pre-communist economy when agriculture was not irrigation, which required frequent migration. Later, with the invention of ploughing and irrigation, agriculture became settled with land possession, and men discovered a parent- child relationship when observing their domesticated animals, so that they had two resources that originally belonged to women: agriculture and fertility. Since the emergence of these two possessions, the struggle between the sexes has been closely linked to the ecological
struggle.
Rosemary R.Ruether (1995) is an American feminist liberation theologian, and is recognized as an eco-feminist pioneer in English-speaking countries. In 1975, Ruether published her book, The New Women, The New Earth. This is a collection of papers on Ruether’s academic research over the past 20 years. For 20 years, Ruether’s research has focused on sexism in Christianity, liberation theology in Latin America, black theology, and the “other” crisis in the ecological crisis. In the final analysis, these concerns were all related to the ruling structure of society, and Ruether put the paper together under the title “New Women, New Earth”. The book concludes New Women and the New Earth: Women, Ecology and Social Revolution. This article can be called the banner article of ecofeminism. In her article, Ruether analyzed the rule of patriarchal religion and the discrimination against women, and analyzed the oppression of women and nature in industrial society. In the final part of the article, Ruether offers a revolutionary view of ecofeminism: “Women must recognize that in a society where basic relationships remain dominant, it is impossible to talk about solutions to the ecological crisis. We must combine the demands of the women’s movement with those of the ecological movement, and completely reshape the basic social and economic relations and values of this society” (1995). Ruether (1995) called for this: “Women must question their symbolic status in the ecological crisis caused by the patriarchal culture. Any act that intends to reconcile men with ‘nature’ without treating nature as ‘alien’ will only end up shaping women (a symbol of ‘nature’ under the patriarchal system) as romantic slaves defined by men as dissent. …… Caring about ecology may repeat the mistakes of 19th century romanticism, revisiting the opposing side of the ‘complementary nature’ of men and women. Women are again required to be ‘natural’ forest goddesses and Mother Earth, creating deconstruction patterns of escape from the ruling culture. Women have also been told that the ‘highest call’ is to serve the man’s sexual, casual, emotional, and escape needs in the blooming Garden of Eden. But the real power structure that creates the crisis will not be affected by this idle game.” As a pioneer of ecofeminism, Ruether’s contribution is more reflected in the ideology. Firstly, she presented the core view of ecofeminism. In western culture, women’s subordination and natural subordination have historical, symbolic and political relevance (Ruether, 1995). This is the central point of ecofeminism. This view was originally condensed and clearly expressed by Ruether. Secondly, she pointed out the hierarchy of the dualism (Ruether, 1995). Ruether’s exposition from the feminist standpoint has touched the power relationship implied in thedualism, and the patriarchal sexism is the embodiment of this dualism of the powerrelationship. The power relationship of dualism is not only reflected in the patriarchal gender discrimination, but also reflected in the material discrimination. Therefore, to reveal the hierarchy of dualism is to reveal the oppressive relationship in all power structures. In this structure, all marginalized groups, including people and things, are in the same situation. After Ruether, the hierarchy of dualism became an important topic of ecofeminism. Thirdly, Ruether (1995) proposed the great emancipation of feminism. “Liberation” is the most important theme of feminism. When the hierarchy of dualism is revealed, the structure of power relations will also become clear, and the marginalized groups, including women, are in the same oppressed situation. I n this case, the feminist concept of “liberation” is also bound to be expanded and understood at a larger scale. Ruether herself was both a feminist scholar and an advocate of liberation theology, while also an anti-racist, community-socialist, and ecofeminist. Ecofeminism is exoteric to the above various doctrines in its critical direction. Therefore, Ruether’s understanding of women’s liberation is also conducted in the sense of “The Great Liberation.” Among them, the liberation of nature and the liberation of women are linked together. Ruether (1995) called: “Women must realize that in a society where the basic relationship model is still dominant, women’s liberation and ecological crisis resolution are impossible. They must unify the demands of the women’s movement with those of the ecological movement in order to look forward to the complete reshaping of the basic social and economic relations and the basic social values.” Ecofeminism originated in France and developed rapidly in western countries such as the United States, Britain and Germany. Susan Griffin (1978: 104) is one of the representatives of cultural ecofeminism. Cultural ecology emphasizes the connection between women and nature. Only through women’s perception can the female spirit relieve the ecological crisis and liberate the oppression of women. Ynestra King (1983) is one of the pioneers of ecofeminism. She put forward some principles for the ecofeminist movement. Including women should fight for the oppression in nature; ecofeminism firmly opposes the patriarchal logic and the hierarchy; ecofeminism should oppose centrism and advocate a harmonious and reciprocal new social relationship. Carolyn Merchant (1981) is one of the representatives of ecofeminism in social-social construction. She pioneered a critique of binary thinking. Merchant believes that everything has its intrinsic value, and if individual rights are not protected and respected, it is far-fetched to talk about respect for nature and animals. Karen·J·Warren (Warren, 2008) is a leading figure in philosophical ecofeminism. She explores the philosophical of the oppression of nature and the oppression of women as “male chauvinism” based on “patriarchy” and “dualistic” thinking. Her analysis of the “logic of control” has important implications for ecofeminist thought. Val Plumwood (1991: 3) is one of the representatives of ecofeminism. She further studied the dualistic logical structure of oppression. She criticized the rationalist view of self and “instrumental rationality” in the feminist tradition. She stressed that there is unnecessary for us to accept the strategy of deep ecology in order to provide a different perspective from the human self-interest, namely the indistinguishable self, the extended self and the transcendent self, which can be better achieved by explaining the self-relationships.
Vandana Shiva (1992 ，704: 336) is a representative figure of socialist ecofeminism and a leading role of third world ecofeminism. She strongly opposed the third world countries to follow the economic development model of western capitalist countries. Because the early development of this model depended on the unrestrained aggression of nature and the colonies. Although the western capitalist countries have accumulated a lot of wealth, they make the colonial countries poorer and their natural environment is seriously damaged. This capitalist model of economic development not only greatly reduces the status of women, but also regards nature as the object of their own exploitation and plunder. Therefore, Shiva severely criticized the third world’s imitation of the model of western
capitalist economic development.