Challenging the logic of domination: An ecofeminist reading of Louise Gluck’s selected animal poems

Read (PDF) version

Sandhra Sunny
Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bangalore India
e-mail: sunnysandhra@gmail.com (corresponding author)

Sharmila Narayana
School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bangalore, India
e-mail: sharmilanarayana@christuniversity.in

AGATHOS, Volume 15, Issue 2 (29): 221-230, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.13949113
© www.agathos-international-review.com CC BY NC 2024

Abstract: This paper investigates the ecofeminist themes in the poetry of contemporary American poet Louise Glück, with a particular focus on how her selected animal poems subvert anthropocentric paradigms and challenge patriarchal narratives that marginalize both nature and women. Through a close textual analysis of these poems, the research elucidates Glück’s strategies for blurring the rigid boundaries that delineate humans from nature, thereby illuminating value dualisms and unjust hierarchies.Furthermore, the study highlights how Glück's poetry critiques the logic of domination and advocates for a more interconnected and reciprocal relationship between humans and the environment. It posits that poetry serves as a powerful medium for ecofeminist discourse, offering valuable insights into the revaluation of women's relationships with nature and animals. Ultimately, this research contributes to a nuanced understanding of ecofeminist thought and animal studies, while also exploring their implications for environmental ethics and activism.

Keywords: anthropocentrism, cultural ecofeminism, contemporary poetry domination, patriarchy, value dualisms

Introduction

The emergence of ecofeminism has brought to light a profound understanding of the interconnectedness between environmental degradation and the oppression of women. Ecofeminist thinking asserts that ecological concerns like deforestation, global hunger and climate change arise from the mutually reinforcing oppression of women and the natural world (Gard and Gruen 1993, 236). Women’s oppression and environmental degradation are inextricably linked, requiring simultaneous consideration to fight systemic injustices effectively. Animal rights is an ecofeminism issue, “We oppress animals by associating them with women’s lesser status” (Adams 2002, 5). The connection between the oppression of animals and the status of women in society lies in their shared relegation to instrumental roles (Plumwood 2002, 120). Both are valued primarily for their usefulness to others rather than for their intrinsic worth. This instrumental view perpetuates their subjugation in patriarchal, anthropocentric systems. Ecofeminism highlights this connection, recognising the symbolic function of animals and women as the “other” in societal discourse, and aims to build a new political consciousness that challenges this oppressive paradigm.

 The selected poems in this article, through the lens of ecofeminism, throw light on how the contemporary American poet Louise Gluck subverts patriarchal narratives that contribute to the ecological degradation and marginalisation of women. The analysis centres on how the poet challenges the logic of domination (Warren 2000, 46) that permeates anthropocentric paradigms and disrupts the value dualisms that sanction it. By scrutinising Gluck’s poetic techniques and thematic choices, the study aims to unravel how she reshapes the narrative landscape to amplify animal voices, particularly of those in marginalised positions, to understand their unique experiences. The poems selected for the study are Earthworm (2009) and Bats (2009).

 Many of Gluck’s works explore themes related to nature, rural life, and the interconnectedness between humans and the natural world. Nature serves as a source of solace and resolution for the conflicts faced by the speakers in her poems, which often mirror the struggles present in the environment. Gluck’s poetry portrays a symbiotic relationship between the self and nature, forming an “eco-self” emphasising mutual dependence, balance, and coexistence with the natural world. In collections like The Wild Iris (1992) and The Village Life (2009) flowers and animals take on emotive and authoritative roles, offering guidance and survival strategies to human listeners. Through her poetry, Gluck challenges traditional narratives that marginalize women and their relationship with nature, presenting nature as a space where female narrators can resist patriarchal conventions.

Challenging the logic of domination

In her seminal work, Ecofeminist Philosophy, Karren J. Warren (2000, 46) argues that specific conceptual frameworks can maintain, validate and justify unjust hierarchies of dominance and subordination. They constitute a set of values, belief systems, attitudes and assumptions and are shaped by multiple factors such as gender, class, age, religion and nationality. These frameworks are “socially constructed lenses through which one perceives reality” (Warren 2000, 46). Specific conceptual frameworks can be oppressive and, if not challenged, can continue to perpetuate the exploitation of the marginalised. For Warren (Ibid, 47), an oppressive conceptual framework explains, maintains, and justifies relationships of unjustified domination and subordination. According to Warren, multiple features constitute an oppressive conceptual framework, and together they contribute to the logic of domination. The logic of domination serves as a moral justification for keeping those who are subordinate in their place, as its acceptance provides approval for perpetuating their oppression (Ibid, 46). The article scrutinises Gluck’s poems to discern how the poet challenges and undermines different aspects of this conceptual framework. The framework encompasses distinctive features such as 1) Value Hierarchical, Up-Down thinking that assigns a higher value to that which is at the apex of the hierarchical order; 2) an oppositional value dualism, which is mutually exclusive and bestows a higher value on one adjunct and 3) the notion of power and privilege, which systematically advantage the disjunct at the top of the hierarchy. Cumulatively, these attributes contribute to formulating the logic of domination that subjugates individuals occupying peripheral positions.

 This logic permeates various aspects of society and is often reflected in the attitudes, beliefs systems and practices that sanction domination and control over mutual respect and sustainability. This logic not only harms marginalised groups but also contributes to environmental degradation and the exploitation of the natural world. Challenging and transforming this logic is essential for creating more just, equitable, and sustainable societies. By recognising and critiquing the logic of domination, Warren and other ecofeminist thinkers aim to promote alternative ways of thinking and being that prioritise interconnectedness, empathy, and ecological integrity. They advocate for social and environmental justice movements that address the root causes of oppression and exploitation while fostering relationships of care, reciprocity, and respect among all beings. Gluck’s selected animal poems challenge this conceptual framework by reconfiguring hierarchies, value dualisms and questioning the logic that supports human domination over animals and nature.

 The first poem by Gluck titled Earthworm, employs the persona of an earthworm to interrogate man and challenge his sovereign gaze. In doing so, the poet also questions women’s position in this hierarchical order because no attempt to liberate women (or any other oppressed group) will be possible without an equal effort to liberate nature (Gard 1993, 1).The lines challenge the prevailing narrative that positions the human speaker in a dominant role over a silent, passive nature. In this framework, nature often serves merely as a backdrop for human assertion of power and control. Assigning speech to animals and nature can blur the boundaries that separate us and bring to light the commonalities between the two species. However, language and speech are human constructs and, therefore, anthropocentric and phallocentric. It favours the masculine, and women have found it difficult to express themselves authentically within the paradigm. The male-centred language reinforces a phallocentric culture structured by binary oppositions and value dualisms. However, in Gluck’s poem, the earthworm is assigned the subject position and is given control of the narrative. It contemplates, communicates, and questions its human audience. Readers may find it striking that a non-human voice is probing into human psychology and confronting our perceptions of complex, socially constructed identities (Greulich 2013, 254). Gluck writes

It is not sad not to be human
Nor is living entirely within the earth
Demeaning or empty. (Gluck, lines 1-3)

The above lines disrupt the hierarchy propagated by anthropocentric ideals and attempts to blur the dichotomies that strengthen man’s dominion over nature. The first line of the first poem, It is not sad not to be human (Gluck, line 1) questions the God-like image humans have positioned themselves in. By placing the human race as the ultimate and the most important of all creations, anthropocentrism has resulted in the formation of an ego that engulfs pity and disregard for other beings. The speaker begins the narration by affirming its value. It claims that the life of an earthworm is worthy and that living entirely inside the earth is not demeaning. Deep Ecology asserts that every aspect of the ecosystem possesses value, as highlighted by one of its six fundamental principles (Naess 123). All living organisms are deemed intrinsically valuable, irrespective of their usefulness to human purposes. The last line, “Nor is living entirely within the earth demeaning or empty” (Gluck), challenges the notion that living in harmony with nature or being deeply connected to the earth is somehow lesser or lacking.

 It implies that a life lived close to nature and its ways are not barbaric or uncivilised. In the wake of industrialisation and modernisation, a life lived far from its benefits is considered to lack a certain level of progress and sophistication. This is the earthworm’s reassurance to humankind that a life interconnected with nature and its forces is far from being considered lowly. These lines further challenge the dichotomy that separates humans from nature thereby creating value hierarchies. Ecofeminism challenges value hierarchical thinking by exposing the dominance and superiority men enjoy in a patriarchal society that subordinates both women and nature. Since both women and nature are inferior in the male-centred hierarchy, they have passive and dependent roles. In a male-dominated hierarchy, both women and nature are often viewed as inferior, leading to roles that are seen as passive and dependent. This attitude reinforces conventional gender roles, where women are expected to be submissive and nurturing, akin to how nature is often treated as a resource to be exploited rather than as an entity that has intrinsic value. This reflects a societal, cultural and philosophocal perspective, suggesting that both women and the natural world lack agency. Gluck writes

And yet
to walk on top of a thing is not to prevail over it -
it is more the opposite, a disguised dependency,
by which the slave completes the master. (Gluck, lines 6-9)

The above lines disrupt the hierarchy propagated by anthropocentric ideals and attempt to blur the dichotomies that strengthen man’s dominion over nature. The earthworm that resides inside the earth declares that to walk on top of it does not indicate control or dominion. It represents a disguised form of interdependence wherein humans and nature rely on each other. The above lines disrupt man’s mastery of nature and his sovereign status. This passage appears to critique the notion of ‘oppositional value dualism’ as delineated by Warren (2000, 47), identifying it as one of the facets within an oppressive conceptual framework. Forms of oppression from both the present and the past have left their traces in Western culture as a network of dualisms, and the logical structure of dualism forms a significant basis for the connection between forms of oppression (Plumwood 2002, 5). Oppositional dualism establishes that there are two moral opposites at work, and they create disjunctive pairs that are exclusive, independent and oppositional to each other. Examples include “ value dualisms that give higher status to which has historically been identified as “male”, “white”, “rational.” and “culture” than to which has historically been identified as “female,” “black,” “emotional,” and “nature” (Warren 2000, 46).

 Similarly, Gluck mentions the dual pair of the enslaved being and the master. The master is the one who walks on top of the earth with the assumption that he has mastery over everything that is below him. This dualistic approach constructs human identity outside nature. This structure is inherent with otherness and negating what is culturally and historically deemed inferior. Gluck’s earthworm corrects this by stating that to walk on top of the earth is not to triumph over it. There is a disguised dependency at play, where one completes the other. This indicates that the human race, regardless of gender, is interconnected with nature in one way, and humans are not separate from nature. Realising this interconnectedness is the first step to restructuring man’s relationship with his natural environment.

 The poem ends with the note that being whole is to be one with nature. Estella Lauter (1984, 177) traces a similar pattern among women writing about nature. She notes a “degree of identification with nature, without fear and without the loss of consciousness.” and this pattern “occurs in the works of a surprising number of women”. Gluck’s poems reflect this identification and a deep connection to nature. The above verses also foreground Susan Griffin’s (1978, 226) vision that “we are nature seeing nature, we are nature with a concept of nature”. This level of interconnection calls for an extension of the poetic self to accommodate her natural environment. It erases the rigid distinctions between humans and nature, fostering a sense of communion and interconnectedness where the once-clear boundaries separating the animal and human realms gradually fade. This results in an emotional and psychological communion with the natural world thereby erasing value dualisms and hierarchies. Breaking this value dualism is also evident in Gluck’s next poem titled Bats.

 The speaking agent of the poem is a bat—an individual bat speaking on behalf of its species. The animal engages in acts of interrogation, mockery, and dispensing advice pertaining to specific facets of the human condition. The poet assigns a certain level of wisdom and insight to the animal, enabling it to assume a position that is not inferior to the human race. If an animal is thought to be a sort of organic wind-up toy, people are unlikely to go far out of their way for it. But if an animal is believed to be self-aware or rational or to have a rich emotional life, different responses are likely. The bat species is also deprived of sight, and this lack becomes a sight from which a sense of pity originates towards the animal. The poet's primary agenda is to reverse this pity with a sense of admiration for the animal. The bat claims that there is a kind of vision that is not dependent on the science of optics. A way of seeing that transcends the materialistic objective world within our immediate perception. Gluck identifies the bat’s ability to see beyond things with that of a philosopher. Gluck writes

There are two kinds of vision:
The seeing of things which belongs
To the science of optics versus
the seeing beyond things, which
results from deprivation. (Gluck, lines 1-5)

The poet attains several objectives through this poem, foremost among them being a concise introduction to the physical attributes of the species. The poet retains elements of the bat’s animality to draw the readers closer to the species. The readers learn that the bat is a nocturnal animal. The bat’s inability to see contributes to its subordinate status among other animals, evoking pity and sympathy. Gluck successfully reverses this pity, and the bat pities the man’s inability to see beyond his immediate sight. In addition, the poet attempts to blur the non-permeable boundaries between the bat and the human world. She initiates a direct conversion, unlike in reality, where agency and voice are assigned to the animal. This direct conversation helps the readers shift the focus from the species to the individual animal. Focusing on an individual animal induces one to wonder about the sentience of that animal and its singular perception of its world. This will help the readers understand the reality of the individual being rather than the entire species (Oerlemans 1994, 138), Gluck writes

Man mocking the dark, rejecting
Worlds you do not know: though the dark
is full of obstacles, it is possible to have
Intense awareness when the field is narrow
And the signals few. Night has bred in us
Thought more focused than yours,
if rudimentary;
Man the ego, man imprisoned in the eye,
There is a path you cannot see, beyond the eye’s reach.
(Gluck, lines 6-14)

The above lines resist the anthropocentric notion of human sovereignty as the supreme being. The repetition of the word ‘dark’ denotes man’s ignorance of a world outside his immediate perception. The bat addresses man as ‘ego’. Man is egocentric, and the current ecological crisis calls for a shift from egocentrism to ecocentrism. Michael J. Stark (1988, 178) states that egocentric needs and wants arise from a deficiency in one’s existence and the desperate need for continuous affirmation, “egocentricity seeks to establish and guard a sense of unique identity and importance in a way that requires continual judgment and evaluation of the self in opposition to others and the world. This calls for excessive importance to one’s self and a dire need to establish a sense of superiority to prove one’s worth.

 Both the earthworm and the bat are subjects in the making. They interrogate and challenge the established notions concerning the human-nature relationship. In these poems, the sovereign gaze rests with the animals and the poet herself. Nature poets often challenge the sovereign human gaze by questioning and subverting the traditional anthropocentric (human-centred) perspective that dominates much of Western thought. They aim to break away from the idea that nature exists solely for human use and exploitation, emphasising a more interconnected and reciprocal relationship between humans and the natural world. In Gluck’s poetry, she delves into the interplay between various species and recognises the autonomy of non-human entities. By doing so, the poet challenges the anthropocentric perspective that often relegates nature and women to mere backdrops for male activities and narratives.

Conclusion

This text demonstrated that Gluck’s select poems are daring subversions of man’s superiority and dominion over Earth and its inhabitants. The verses echo the voices of women and animals, conspicuously absent from the dominant discourse of mainstream culture. This deliberate orchestration by the poet makes the readers critically examine their roles and responsibilities amidst the contemporary ecological crisis. The poems brilliantly challenge unjustified hierarchies, question value dualisms, and revise dominant patriarchal mythic patterns. Hierarchies are structurally essential to maintaining order in a functioning society; however, they are damaging when they are not made visible. If not critiqued, it will eventually justify and naturalise the dominion of one group over the other. When read through the lens of ecofeminism, the above poems open ways to critique and reassess the above concerns. This reassessment opens ways to blur the boundaries and dissolve a hierarchy that sanctions oppression. At the same time, attempts to revalue women’s relationship with animals and nature. The verses display a deep level of identification and interconnectedness with nature, making nature a safe and empowered space. As a medium for expressing personal experiences and perspectives, poetry may naturally incorporate ecological considerations.

 The above poems were chosen because they refuse to give in to anthropocentric representations of the animal world where animals are not treated as individuals with inherent values and rights. The verses deliberately expose the complexities that arise when one grapples with the boundaries that separate the human and the animal kingdom. For instance, the logic of domination that has ruled androgenic activities is challenged and brought to the foreground, along with the issues pertaining to value dualisms and unjustified hierarchies. Challenging this oppressive conceptual framework is essential to model knowledge and responsibilities attendant to life in the twenty-first century. In conclusion, these poems articulate the poet’s ecofeminist ideologies and offer diverse avenues for shaping more informed policy decisions at both local and global levels concerning the welfare of women and the animal kingdom.

References:

1. Adams, Carol J. 2002. “A Feminist-Vegetarian Ethic: An Interview with Carol J. Adams” by Marianne Arbogast. Witness Magazine, 95, no. 9: 10-13.

2. Aristotle, Balme, D. M., & A. Gotthelf. 1965. Historia animalium: in three volumes. Heinemann.

3. Gaard, G. 1993. “Living Interconnections with Animals and Nature”. In G. Gaard (Ed.), Ecofeminism, pp. 1–12. Temple University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bt5pf [accessed: 10.02.2024].

4. Gaard, G., & Gruen, L. 1993. Ecofeminism: Toward Global Justice and Planetary Health. Society and Nature, 2 (1): 1-35.

5. Glück, Louise. 2009. A Village Life: Poems. First edition. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

6. Greulich, K. P. 2013. Revising the Pastoral, Revising the I/Eye: The Pastoral Speaker in Louise Glück’s A Village Life. CEA Critic, 75 (3): 250–257.

7. Lauter, E. 1984. Women as Mythmakers: Poetry and Visual Art by Twentieth-Century Women. Indiana University Press.

8. Næss, Arne 1989. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Translated by D. Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Oerlemans, O. D. 1994. The Meanest Thing that Feels: Anthropomorphizing Animals in Romanticism. Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, 27 (1): 1–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24780713 [accessed: 10.02.2024].

10. Plumwood, V. 2002. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge.

11. Stark, M. J. 1988. Egocentricity, Coenocentrism, and the Nature of Human Fulfillment. Journal of Religion and Health, 27 (3): 177–194. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27505974 [accessed: 10.02.2024].

12. Warren, K. 2000. Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on what It Is and why It matters. Rowman & Littlefield.