Abstract
The shared materiality of all living entities on the planet and their connectivity becomes an invitation to rethink pacifism to explore new forms of being in the world. This paper asks how we can think about the environment, violence, and pacifism when the older conceptions of violence do not capture all of its complex and interrelational features in the Anthropocene. Feminist new materialism moves away from anthropocentrism and offers an alternative trajectory for thinking about the environment and practicing pacifism in light of environmental, slow, and epistemic violence. It emphasises that since we are always already part of the world and thereby ethically responsible for the intra-actions we share with all beings, we bear a ‘response-ability’ (Barad 2012, 206–207). As a radical theory and practice, feminist environmental pacifism makes visible the violent socio-political complexities of human – nature connections and suggests caring about earthly co-existence with all beings.
Introduction
In a world plagued by melting ice caps, polluted waterways, deforestation, and extensive species loss, environmental alterations carry great potential for war, violent conflicts, and new forms of violence. In the Anthropocene, marked by the significant impact of humans on geological, biotic, and planetary processes, natural processes are enmeshed with historical, political, economic, and social forces. In the spirit of feminist new materialism, I argue that the new epoch calls for new ways of thinking and visions of scientific and political practices of pacifism, as the entanglements between humans and nature require fresh modes of knowledge and action. The Anthropocene requires affirmative politics that create, cultivate, and celebrate the multiple possibilities of multispecies interdependencies and co-existence (on the Anthropocene and its critique, see Coole and Frost 2010; Di Chiro 2016; Haraway 2018). It requires pacifist politics to overcome the silencing of voices that belong to multiple ‘others’ created by human exceptionalism (Celermajer et al. 2021).
Feminist environmental thinking has always been ahead of its time in its discussions on ecological crises and the forms of violence that originate in anthropocentrism and human action. It has a long history of revealing the connections of militarism, environmental violence, and gendered inequalities. Recently, pacifist voices urging us to extend pacifist intentions and actions to cover all sentient beings have emerged. The notions of ‘ecological pacifism’ and ‘feminist eco-pacifism’ have been brought forward to describe the branches of pacifism that also seek to address environmental degradation. According to ecological pacifism, human beings are potentially harmful to not only their own kind but also the environment. Starting from such an assumption, ecological pacifism is committed to a search for peace in terms of protecting the environment and avoiding the extinction of entire forms of life. In this system of thought, the critique of and moral opposition to war and military activities are complemented by a critique of the human relationship with nature (Woods 2018; Fiala 2015). Feminist eco-pacifism, on the other hand, envisages the Earth as a global system ‘where women and men value human and non-human life and seek to establish non-violent relationships based on interconnection, interdependence, and the diversity of all life’ (Pois 2010).
Despite these new approaches, pacifists’ concerns about militarism, violence, and war have not been extensively conceptualised or theorised in light of environmental violence. To highlight the existing connections and establish new connections among pacifism, violence, and feminist environmental thinking, I show how the Anthropocene has made feminist environmental thinking highly relevant for rethinking pacifism as a form of radical and critical social theory. Against the backdrop of the long history of feminist environmental thinking and new theorising on pacifism from environmental perspectives, I identify instances where feminist environmental thinking becomes relevant for rethinking pacifism. I draw inspiration from several sources of literature and thinking in the fields of feminist ecology, ecofeminism, and feminist new materialism.
In the first part of this paper, I discuss ecofeminism and highlight the ways in which feminist thinking explores the interconnections among war, militarism, and the environment; I then expand traditional notions of violence. I show how ecofeminism seeks to make visible the forms of systemic dominance that coincide with war and militarism. My aim is not to present a comprehensive history of, for example, ecofeminism (e.g., King 1989, 1995; King 1991; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1987, 1997), women’s environmental movements (e.g., Tran 2021), or feminist pacifism (e.g., Frazer and Hutchings 2014), their context, or debates but to indicate how feminist environmental thinking can contribute to pacifism. In the second section, I discuss slow environmental and epistemic violence, which are, in my view, relevant to pacifism in the Anthropocene. The last part of the paper focuses on feminist new materialism, which notes the symbiotic nature of all life and urges us to pay attention to the material – ecological – political nexus. This heightened sensibility towards human – nature interdependencies and relations calls for a new paradigm in which pacifism can become radical social theory and practice (for pacifism as a critical theory, see also Hutchings 2018; Estévez-Saá and Lorenzo-Modia 2018; Ryan 2015).
Ecofeminist Pacifism
Feminist environmental theorising is often associated with the ecofeminism of the 1970s, which emerged from the intersections of feminist research and various movements for social justice and environmental health. Ecofeminism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of approaches and debates concerning, for example, oppressions of gender, ecological systems, and race. It defines ways of understanding, eliminating, and creating alternatives to violence and the oppression of both humans and non-humans. Moving in this direction would call for both a social and political movement and a theory that is engaged in exploring the variety of connections that have been established between women and nature, including the cultural, historical, and political dimensions of these linkages. Ecofeminism is also a political movement that denounces the degradation and exploitation of women, nature, animals, Indigenous populations, and other marginalised social groups. In its critical stance towards all forms of oppression, exploitation, and environmental violence and its commitment to change, feminist ecological thinking seeks to end the violence inherent in all exploitative relations (for the history of and debates on ecofeminism, see Gaard 2011).
The concern for war, militarism, and violence that pacifism and ecofeminism share arises in ecofeminism from the observation that practices and discourses of gender, militarism, and war are mutually reinforcing. Ecofeminism argues that militarism – as an ideological, political, and economic system – and its concomitant war are based on an unequal distribution of vulnerabilities, exploitation of natural resources, domination of nature, and marginalisation of non-instrumental knowledge systems. Ecofeminists emphasise that environmental destruction, war, and militarism go hand in hand and render unprivileged groups of people, including women and children, even more vulnerable. Karen Warren and Duane Cady (1994) exemplify the unequal division of environmental vulnerabilities by showing how military operations and military bases release toxins, pollutants, and radioactive materials into the air, water, and food. Toxic water is used in farming and households, rendering women, children, Indigenous populations, and the poor disproportionately affected by polluted water. Particularly in the Global South, women are responsible for the production of food (through agriculture, livestock, and fisheries), collection of water, management of natural resources, and the task of caring for children and the elderly. Water contamination increases the likelihood of their exposure to harmful chemicals, biological toxins, and diseases. In short, those who pay the price for war and military pollution are already society’s weakest and most vulnerable.
Although ecofeminism as well as pacifism denounce war, militarism, and violence and consider a peaceful world to be an optimal state, their approaches to achieving this state differ. On one hand, for many branches of pacifist thinking and practice, human actors are a necessity; these actors are intentional and morally conscious human beings whose thinking and action are geared towards non-violence, peaceful conflict resolution, and peace-making (Ryan 2015). Ecofeminism, on the other hand, starts by problematising the relationship between humans and nature by questioning the violent structures – including capitalism, militarism, and patriarchy – that prevent mutually nourishing relations. Despite these differences, there is a close connection between ecofeminism and pacifism. The latter, in the context of the former, is understood to refer to a commitment to peaceful and non-violent relations where injury or harm towards nature is replaced with caring relations. For ecofeminists, the ethical stance committed to peaceful change arises from the understanding that humans and non-human nature are unavoidably interrelated.
Environmental Violence
Explorations of different forms of violence are at the core of feminist ecological thinking and activism, as indicated above. By asking what counts as violence and by expanding the category of violence, the feminist understanding goes beyond the simplified categorisation of overt and structural violence. Ecofeminism pays attention to less visible systemic forms of violence, such as capitalism as a system of exploitation (Mies and Shiva 1993), Western scientific thinking and its dismissal of other knowledge systems (Plumwood 1993), and colonialism and patriarchal structures of gendered dominance (Merchand 1980). Recently, ecofeminist studies on extractivism have demonstrated how women and nature are jointly exploited by capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy. In addition, its case studies on extractivism show how the irreversible transformations of ecosystems are symptoms of a political economy that commodifies and exploits environments and people, creates gendered injustices, and increases ‘militarisation and multiple forms of violence to guarantee control of the territory and of the people who live there’ (Fernandes 2018, 18).
Although ecofeminists have developed sophisticated views on systemic and structural violence, the Anthropocene compels us to ask this question: how can we think about violence when the older conceptions of violence do not capture all of its complex and interrelational features? The Anthropocene and the forms of violence embedded in it invite us to rethink pacifism as a way of exploring new, less violent forms of being in the world. If the complexity of Anthropocenic violence is dismissed, new avenues for pacifism as a radical political theory and practice remain unexplored.
… biological world is inherently relationally constituted through contingent, historically produced, infinitely variable forms in which each part, human or non-human, organic or nonorganic, is intrinsically bound up with the wider relations that make up the whole (2011, 71).
Seen from the perspective of feminist environmental pacifism, the recognition that all interactions between humans and nature are political and socio-ecological offers a way to develop transformative practices that make the interactions visible and reimagine the relationships among humans, other animals, and matter.
The notion of slow violence further elaborates on some of the characteristics of environmental violence. It is a form of violence that gradually induces deadly consequences for both humans and non-humans. It is, according to Rob Nixon (2011), an unfolding and processual moment and not a singular event caused, for example, by a resource conflict or a territorially limited environmental disaster. Rather, it is shapeless violence and an intersecting crisis whose fatal repercussions are dispersed across space and time. For example, gradually polluted waterways contribute to the incrementality of climate change and other invisible environmental catastrophes that unfold slowly without actors who can be identified as perpetrators of the violence. In a similar fashion, slow violence is characterised by the incrementality of harm, as well as the invisibility of the casualties, as they are not easily recognised, counted, or remembered. In addition, slow violence has a peculiar logic and temporality that decouples it from its original causes through the workings of time and the dislocation of place. Non-linear temporality and non-territoriality detach the responsible actors, witnesses, and survivors from the origins of violence and each other (Nixon 2011).
Western culture has treated the human/nature relation as a dualism and that this explains many of the problematic features of the West’s treatment of nature which underlie the environmental crisis, especially the Western construction of human identity as ‘outside’ nature (1993, 2).
When the world is framed in terms of opposing binaries, such as rational – irrational, mind – body, culture – nature, other forms of knowing the world – i.e., other knowledge systems – are disregarded. In this violent dismissal, ways of inhabiting the world, regarding, for example, animals, plants, and places as earthly co-inhabitants and integral parts of everyday life, are considered inferior. In the limited and violent frame of Western environmental knowledge, non-Western epistemologies are doomed to be inadequate and naïve (cf. Spivak 1994). What also characterises the dismissal is that other knowledge systems are not seen to produce subjects that can express environmental concerns or propose solutions to environmental violence. Knowledge systems that have intimate and deep understandings of sustainable environmental practices, make slow violence visible, or produce alternative human – non-human entanglements become marginalised (for a discussion of Indigenous environmental knowledge systems, see Blaser 2012; Todd 2016).
Feminist New Materialism and Planetary Co-Existence
While ecofeminism emphasises the continuity between humans and non-humans, feminist new materialist thinking takes a step further by reflecting on the complex entanglements among humans, non-humans, things, and materials. Feminist new materialism moves away from anthropocentrism and offers an alternative trajectory for thinking about the environment and pacifism in light of environmental, slow, and epistemic violence. It emphasises that since we are always and already part of the world and thereby ethically responsible for the intra-actions we share with all beings, we bear ‘response-ability’ (Barad 2012, 206–207). The response-ability is not voluntary but rather a relation that makes us accountable for the ‘role we play in the differential constitution and differential positioning of the human among other creatures’ (Barad 2007, 136).
Feminist new materialism encompasses views on human – nature relations that can form foundations for pacifism as a radical political theory and practice. The feminist trajectory that moves away from anthropocentrism is founded on the unavoidable possibility of transformation, on ‘possibilities for worldly re-configurings,’ as Barad (2012, 55) calls the constantly changing human – matter entanglements. Since the social and material always interact to bring about the world we know, these interactions include the possibility of transformation. To bring forth this transformation, feminist new materialist authors call for attentiveness to environmental violence, ecological responsiveness, and caring relations to nature.
In revisiting the division between the material and the discursive, feminist new materialism works through the other Cartesian dualisms – including human – nature, mind – body, and passive – active – that are the predicaments of Western thinking. In feminist new materialism, as Marlene Fagan (2017, 304) summarises, the dualistic ‘understandings of the active, progressive and morally countable human (subject) and the passive and static externality of nature (object) are replaced by much more contingent, fragile and unpredictable networks of relations.’ The feminist new materialist way of linking epistemology, ontology, ethics, and politics challenges the traditional conceptions of who we are as humans, what kinds of entities can have agency, and how we can think of, for example, pacifism as a new way to relate to the world around us.
In seeking to destabilise the core Cartesian divisions indicated above, feminist new materialism is attentive to ‘materiality’ – to things material – since matter is not just brute, immobile, and passive but vibrant (Bennett 2010), intra-active, and relational (Barad 2007) and has agency (Coole and Frost 2010). In this vein, agency is not located in humans and other sentient beings but in everything that influences and interacts, as well as in the processes by which interaction occurs. Natural entities are recognised as actors within a political ecology and as participants in a complex series of relations and interactions that influence human life and politics. In other words, matter is seen as part of social, political, and economic environments playing roles that are profounder than implied by binary thinking. By refuting the Western ontological conception of matter as inert and passive, feminist new materialism challenges violent epistemological assumptions about what can be known and by whom and about how knowledge is obtained. It argues that in a relational world, there are multiple ways of being and knowing (Alaimo and Hekman 2008; Barad 2007; Bennett 2010).
In a similar fashion, feminist peace researcher Elise Boulding (1996, 2000; see also Väyrynen 2019) insists on acknowledging the relational nature of the world and the multiple ways of being in it and knowing it. Her views concur with feminist new materialism when she argues that our existence in the world and in our everyday lives is embodied and relational (i.e., human existence is based on our dependency on others and is, hence, always multiple). Consequently, in the relational world, peace is not an abstract state of affairs but emerges from an embodied and relational mundane engagement with the world. Boulding envisions peace cultures in which sharing and caring are part of relationally being in the world. Peaceful relations require daily ‘doing’, where sharing and caring are continuously enacted.
Acknowledging that the human is embedded within a large network of other social, biological, political, semiotic, and other forces opens up a trans-species network where non-human others are recognised as co-participants and bearers of agency and accountability (2019, 11).
When non-human others are recognised as bearers of agency, the morally and ethically accountable human subject is radically de-centred.
Radically de-centring the human subject can occur, for example, in human – animal interrelationships. De-centring emerges from interactions between multiple beings that live and act together. My own study of Finnish women’s narratives of the Second World War shows that several women describe their intimate, affective, and caring relation to animals, particularly to horses and cows in the midst of war. An example is a woman who links the fates of humans and animals. She writes, ‘A workman and a horse were drafted from my family, but our sorrow was collective when we thought of the fates of all those who had to give away their loved ones.’ Indeed, animals show care too. Several women write about them being consoled by farm animals, particularly by cows, whose milking and feeding provided daily embodied connections with and care from bodies of different kinds (Väyrynen 2023). Examples such as this invite us to expand the notion of care in a manner that Stacey Alaimo (2008, 238) calls thinking ‘across bodies’. According to her, the human body is mediated by continual relations with bodies of different kinds. In human – animal interactions, bodies are intermingled with other ‘fleshy beings, with their own needs, claims, and actions’ (Alaimo 2008, 238). Agency is not restricted to human individuals but rather emerges from trans-species encounters in which the actors and partners are not all human (see Birke et al. 2004; Braidotti 2019; Haraway 2018; for discussion of interspecies ethics, see Celermajer et al. 2021).
This type of extended care in the de-centred network of beings has the potential to bring forth worldly re-configurings of less violent earthly co-existence. Maria Puig de la Bellacasa notes in the spirit of Boulding’s thinking that care is a practical labour that actualises in ‘ethico-affective everyday practical doings’ (2012, 199) rather than in an abstract ethical principle. Caring practices and doings are tangible, mundane, and repetitive, where interdependencies and connectedness actualise (Puig de la Bellacasa 2010). Practical acts of care require active involvement in maintaining and improving relational practices where the environment/nature is no longer an object target of, for example, pacifist action outside humans but a partner in planetary co-existence. Care responds to a situated relationship in which its actualisations are always specific. In this earthly frame, it ‘requires thinking from the perspective of the maintenance of a web of relations involved in the very possibility of ecosystems rather than only from their possible benefits to humans,’ as Puig de la Bellacasa (2015, 701) writes. It is important not to reduce caring to an idealised human – nature relation and interaction, especially in the context of ecological engagement. As Puig de la Bellacasa (2010) notes, the doings of care are often messy and ambiguous.
Practices of earthly care include doings that take care of a number of vital processes and a web of relations. An example of the maintenance and cultivation of vital processes is the care for soil. Puig de la Bellacasa writes about the importance of soil for growing food and the crisis of soil exhaustion due to the industrialisation of agriculture and the lack of response-able ‘soil care’. Soil is a living entity and a multispecies world that interacts with humans. In the frame of care practices, both humans and soil are ‘carers’ and ‘providers’. Humans are ‘providing for the soil community in order to maintain, continue and repair this living web’ (Puig de la Bellacasa 2010, 703). Soil, on the other hand, is capable of taking care of a number of vital life processes. According to Puig de la Bellacasa, the ways in which humans can maintain, repair, and foster soil’s liveliness include circulating food, energy, and waste as well as returning organic matter to the circle of life (Puig de la Bellacasa 2010).
From the perspective of environmental pacifism, feminist new materialism entices us to think that pacifist agency is not limited to human individuals but rather grows from daily doings and interconnections within complex networks of beings. In this frame, pacifism works in everyday practices with both the human and the non-human. Instead of being an abstract ethical principle, feminist environmental pacifism is an affective and material way of being in and knowing the world characterised by contingent, repetitive, and attentive doings of care.
Concluding Remarks
The shared materiality of all living entities on the planet and their connectivity becomes an invitation to rethink pacifism to explore new forms of being in the world. Putting pacifism in the context of agentic and vibrant matter makes pacifist practices relational practices – relational, mundane doings – that seek to maintain and improve the complex networks of intra-action with care. A recognition of our entanglement with a multitude of non-human others brings forward entanglements that include possibilities for re-configuring the world. When pacifism emerges from the acknowledgement of relational, situated, and embodied intercorporeality where being, doing, and knowing can no longer be separated, it bears the potential to become a radical political theory and practice of multiple possible caring co-existences of humans and non-humans.
The understandings of violence outlined here complement ecofeminist and pacifist views by placing violence in the context of relational networks and human – non-human entanglements. As a radical theory and practice, feminist environmental pacifism makes visible the socio-political complexities of human – nature connections and the forms of violence embedded in them. This view resonates with Andrew Fiala’s (2019) claim that pacifism should always include a critique of violence. The invisible form of environmental violence discussed here needs to be made visible and critiqued in the Anthropocene. However, the critique, as Fiala (2019) notes, should always be complemented with a transformative epistemology committed to transforming the world in a less violent direction. Feminist new materialism offers such an epistemology, since it suggests non-violent, caring, and attentive entanglements within all that is material, social, and political.
References
Alaimo, S. (2008). “Trans-Corporeal Feminism and the Ethical Space of Nature,” In: S. Alaimo and S. Hekman, eds., Material Feminisms, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 237–64.
Alaimo, S., and Hekman, S. (2008). “Introduction: Emerging Models of Materiality in Feminist Theory,” In: S. Alaimo and S. Hekman, eds., Material Feminisms, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–19.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Barad, K. (2012). “On Touching – The Inhuman That Therefore I Am,” Differences 23 (3), pp. 206–223.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter, Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Birke, L., Bryl, M., and Lykke, N. (2004). “Animal Performances: An Exploration of Intersections between Feminist Science Studies and Studies of Human/Animal Relationships,” Feminist Theory 5 (2), pp. 167–183.
Blaser, M. (2012). “Ontology and Indigeneity: On the Political Ontology of Heterogeneous Assemblages,” Cultural Geographies 21 (1), pp. 49–58.
Boulding, E. (1996). “Peace Behaviours in Various Societies,” In From a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Peace, Paris: unesco, pp. 31–53.
Boulding, E. (2000) Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Braidotti, R. (2019). “A Theoretical Framework for the Critical Posthumanities,” Theory, Culture & Society 36 (6), pp. 31–61.
Celermajer, D., Schlosberg D., Rickards, L, Stewart-Harawira, M., Thaler, M, Tschakert, P., Verlie, B., and Winter, C. (2021). “Multispecies Justice: Theories, Challenges, and a Research Agenda for Environmental Politics,” Environmental Politics 30 (1–2), pp. 119–140.
Coole, D., and Frost, S. (2010). New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and the Politics, Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Di Chiro, G. (2016). “Environmental Justice and the Anthropocene Meme,” In: T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J.M. Meyer, and D. Schlosberg, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 362–383.
Estévez-Saá, M., and Lorenzo-Modia, M.J. (2018). “The Ethics and Aesthetics of Eco-Caring: Contemporary Debates on Ecofeminism(s),” Women’s Studies 47 (2), pp. 123–146
Fagan, M. (2017). “Security in the Anthropocene: Environment, Ecology, Escape,” European Journal of International Relations 23 (2), pp. 292–314.
Fernandes, M. (2018). “Feminist Alternatives to Predatory Extractivism: Contributions and Experiences from Latin America,” In: Feminist Dialogue Series. Mozambique: Friedrich-EbertStifung. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d096/75d41c61361dedfd130a3751eab032b953e1.pdf.
Fiala, A., ed. (2015). The Peace of Nature and the Nature of Peace, Leiden: Brill.
Fiala, A. (2019). “The Pacifist Tradition and Pacifism as Transformative and Critical Theory,” The Acorn: Philosophical Studies in Pacifism and Nonviolence 18 (1–2), pp. 5–28.
Frazer, E., and Hutchings, K. (2014). “Feminism and the Critique of Violence: Negotiating Feminist Political Agency,” Journal of Political Ideologies 19 (2), pp. 143–163.
Gaard, G. (2011). “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism,” Feminist Formations 23 (2), pp. 26–53.
Haraway, D. (2018). “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin,” Environmental Humanities 6, pp. 159–165.
Hutchings, K. (2018). “Pacifism is Dirty: Towards an Ethico-Political Defence,” Critical Studies on Security 6 (2), pp. 176–192.
Imperial, M. (2019). “New Materialist Feminist Ecological Practices: La Via Campesina and Activist Environmental Work,” Social Science, 8 (8), pp. 1–15.
King, R.J.H. (1991). “Caring about Nature: Feminist Ethics and the Environment,” Hypatia 6 (1), pp. 75–89.
King, Y. (1989). “Healing the Wounds: Feminism, Ecology, and the Nature/Culture Dualism,” In: A.M. Jaggar, and S. Bordo, eds., Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 115–141.
King, Y. (1995). “Engendering a Peaceful Planet: Ecology, Economy, and Ecofeminism in Contemporary Context.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 23 (3/4), pp. 15–21.
Lee, B.X. (2016). “Causes and Cures viii: Environmental Violence,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 30, pp. 105–109.
Merchand, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Mies, M., and Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism, London: Zed Books.
Nixon, R. (2011). Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, New York: Routledge.
Pois, A.M. (2010). “Eco-Feminism,” In: N. Young, ed., The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gale Academic OneFile.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2010). “Ethical Doings in Natureculture,” Ethics, Place and Environment 13 (2), pp. 151–169.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2012). “‘Nothing comes without its world’: Thinking With Care,” Sociological Review 60 (2), pp. 197–216.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2015). “Making Time for Soil: Technoscientific Futurity and the Pace of Care,” Social Studies of Science 45 (5), pp. 691–716.
Ryan, C. (2015). “Pacifism(s),” The Philosophical Forum 46 (1), pp. 17–39.
Spivak, G.C. (1994). “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In: L. Chrisman, and P. Williams, eds., Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader, New York: Routledge, pp. 66–111.
Swyngedouw, E. (2011). “Whose Environment? The End of Nature, Climate Change and the Process of Post-Politicization,” Ambiente & Sociedade 14 (2), pp. 69–87.
Todd, Z. (2016). “An Indigenous Feminist’s Take on the Ontological Turn: ‘Ontology’ Is Just Another Word for Colonialism,” Journal of Historical Sociology 29 (1), pp. 4–22.
Tran, D. (2021). “A Comparative Study of Women Environmental Defenders’ Antiviolent Success Strategies,” Geoforum 126, pp. 126–138.
Väyrynen, T. (2019). “Mundane Peace and the Politics of Vulnerability: A Nonsolid Feminist Research Agenda,” Peacebuilding 7 (2), pp. 146–157.
Väyrynen, T. (2023, forthcoming). “War Agency in Women’s Auxiliary Military Organizations: The Case of Lotta Svärd in Finland,” International Feminist Journal of Politics. doi10.1080/14616742.2022.2135559.
Warren, K. (1987). “Feminism and Ecology: Making Connections,” Environmental Ethics 9, pp. 3–20.
Warren, K. (1997). Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, Bloomington and Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Warren, K., and Cady, D.L. (1994). “Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections,” Hypatia 9 (2), pp. 4–20.
Woods, M. (2018). “Ecology and Pacifism,” In: A. Fiala, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Pacifism and Nonviolence, New York: Routledge, pp. 331–342.
