The three concepts are normally located on different levels: the first is seen as a global problem which affects the whole Earth. The second is the mantra of those countries that say they are sensitive to the issue and finally agroecology is the local practice.
All three are seen as part of the same struggle, the "care of our common home" in the words of Pope Francis, and attract a lot of press and a lot of youth, looking for fundamental battles like all generations before the current one.
In my opinion, however, there is another aspect that unites these three themes, at least in the presentation and in the debates that I follow in some media and countries. The point is that all three avoid talking about the central problem relating to the place of the human being in these scenarios, in particular the asymmetry of power that exists, at higher or lower levels as the case may be, in all the countries of the world, between men and women.
Starting from the last one, agroecology, for some years now various specialists in the topic have been repeating that thinking about agroecology without a parallel struggle against patriarchy is limited to changing (agricultural) technique without touching the essence of the problem. Passing from conventional agriculture to agro-ecological agriculture is a simple return to farming practices that are more respectful of the environment but which do not in the least affect the imbalance of power between males and females. A world with more agroecology and less conventional agriculture would certainly have benefits for the environment but will in no way affect the exclusion and submission of women. In other words, we will continue to think of the dominant half of the world, leaving the other half at the door. When we move on to the higher, national scale, with the endless discussions on the ecological transition, whether governments or religious leaders are talking about it, the problem is the same: how to reduce energy consumption, how to slightly modify the current model, less waste of material goods, but keeping firmly the principle that commands man. Don't touch the patriarchy! Try to read any newspaper article or listen to any talk and you will see that I am not wrong. If we then go to the last, global level, it's not even worth wasting time there. Not a single word is dedicated to the question of a necessary, fundamental rebalancing of male and female power.
In a nutshell: all those (mainly males) who talk about these issues, be they politicians, experts, religious leaders or leaders of movements, are, at the bottom of their souls, conservatives. At best they don't understand the importance of starting from the human being, and therefore from the rebalancing of powers, or, at worst, they are afraid that a serious and complete discussion will not lead to the loss of part of their power. It can be understood that the Churches and religious sects very carefully avoid talking about these issues. They are all based on a patriarchal culture where males dominate. The basic concept for them remains the family, exactly the privileged place for male domination. Opening a serious discussion would imply a reflection on the family, that is, touching on the foundations of the patriarchal religions that dominate us. Right-wing parties obviously have no interest in touching on any of these issues, least of all the question of the patriarchy that underlies their political beliefs and philosophies. For years we had hoped that something along these lines would emerge from the left. The only hope, a small light that tries to make room, is what peasant women in the struggle against patriarchy try to bring from the grassroots and, often, against the opinion of their leaders, within the peasant movements, to give an eco-feminist turn to the agro-ecological issue. We talk about it more fully in the book to be released in a few weeks: Quando Eva bussa alla porta (When Eva knocks on the door- so far only in italian), by the publisher Ombre Corte of Verona.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento