Describing a feminist‐systems theory

Abstract

This paper provides the first detailed discussion of a set of principles developed when two epistemologies (Critical Systems Thinking and Cultural Ecofeminism) where systematically compared. There are five principles themed around gender sensitivity; valuing voices from the margins; no longer regarding the environment as ‘outside’ the realm of theoretical research; selecting appropriate methodologies; and promoting the achievement of plurally desirable and sustainable social changes. The analysis subjects the principles to scrutiny from broader literature on direct and indirectly related concepts. The analysis also provides sets of theoretical recommendations for practitioners to embed single or multiple principles in their own repertoires of practice. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

On the predictors of pro-environmental behaviors: integrating personal values and the 2-MEV among secondary school students in Tanzania

“…Given the above, gender variation in environmentalism has been explained from different perspectives. For example, one possible explanation originates from ‘nature ecofeminists maintaining that there is a useful biological and psychological association between women and the environment ( Stephens et al., 2010 ). They argue that women can be closer to the environment than men due to their domestic roles as mothers and taking care of the family and the environment at large while men are more associated with the mastering of nature.…”

Resolving the tension between feminism and evolutionary psychology: An epistemological critique.

“…This encourages an epistemology of separation whereby humans are believed to have genders compared with nonhuman animals who have sexes, implying evolutionary discontinuity and a belief that other species are themselves “fixed” and fundamentally unrelated to people (Birke, 2010; Fausto-Sterling, 2005). This anthropocentrism (i.e., human-centered philosophy) is particularly evident in standpoint epistemologies, in which nature and nonhuman animals are rarely considered important when theorizing about how human beings come to know things and why they know them (Hernandez-Wolfe, 2018; Stephens, Jacobson, & King, 2010). Moreover, the feminist charges of essentialism and genetic determinism are misguided.…”

A Conceptual Framework for Complex Systems at the Crossroads of Food, Environment, Health, and Innovation

“…Such developments were central to the critical second wave of system thinking, benefiting from the narrative of dialogued participation and deliberative democracy in the discourse ethics of Jurgen Habermas [28,29]. The debate has been further developed by feminist systems theory that pushed the discourse towards the importance of giving voice to the "unvoiced" and the marginalized [30], and towards overcoming positivistic frameworks, challenging the ontological divide between humans and nature, and in general rejecting and overcoming dichotomy (gender dualism, subject-object dualisms, human-nature dualisms) [31]. One of the strongest points in feminist-system theory argumentation is that acknowledging difference and including continuity between humans and non-humans should be among the main objectives of a research methodology that aims to analyze, understand, and describe the constructs of complex systems.…”