Revealing alternatives of life hitherto kept in the shadows, Constance Rimlinger shows that eco -feminist utopias are a reality and that they respond to a quest for emancipation of capitalism and patriarchy.
“” What does feminism do to rurality, and rurality to feminism ? (P. 26). In the effervescent context of a renewal of feminist and environmental issues, which is manifested in particular by a rebirth of eco -feminism in France and a renewed interest in associated spiritualities, Constance Rimlinger invites us to follow it in an investigation with particularly precious results for who is interested in the ways of anchoring its eco -womanist convictions in reality. Between 2015 and 2021, the sociologist carried out an original research work, based on the comparison of concrete experiments back to land by women and non-heterosexual people developed in New Zealand, the United States and France. Uncovering “ Different ways of articulating an emancipatory feminist project and a draft reconnection to nature and subsistence activities “(P. 12), The work of Constance Rimlinger thus makes it possible to appreciate all the richness and diversity of the” Neorural eco -feminist nebula (P. 22) without obscuring the difficulties implied by the implementation of such a ambition.
Make the margins visible
The freshness of Constance Rimlinger’s work first comes from a will to “ Thinking about society from the margins (P. 16). By choosing to focus on the experiences of non -heterosexual women and feminists to study the phenomenon of returning to earth, the sociologist clears a first dead angle of research on the subject. The author also offers her own definition of return to earth, which according to her designates “ Any project which is part of an individual or collective desire to reappropriation of rural space in order to enhance a living environment and to operate a (re) connection to the earth, both sensitive and/or spiritual and material, with a search for subsistence, especially on the food level (P. 14). Rather than sticking to work analyzing the socio-economic conditions of “ neo-rural Before their rural exodus and the success or failure of their trajectories, Constance Rimlinger proposes to put in the foreground the challenges of gender identity and sexual orientation. His work then reveals the concrete experiences of a “ minority within the minority (P. 257), in that it does not focus on heterosexual women, but on those whose return to land is concomitant to a questioning of gender and sexuality standards.
In the context of a campaign that combines in the plural as “ polymorphic spaces “(P. 13), it is therefore a question of analyzing different political projects and the variations of their conceptions of the gender, sexuality, chosen non-mixed, nature, society and work (p. 16). Through this localized and comparatist approach, Constance Rimlinger makes visible a plurality of alternatives to patriarchal capitalism whose liveliness is not circumscribed in the 1970s or even in the Anglo-Saxon world.
Ecofemismisms that do not say their names
The author’s originality of the author is also due to her company to (re) definition of eco -feminism. Constance Rimlinger indeed chooses to qualify as ecofeminists the initiatives of returning to the land on which it investigates, even when people and communities do not expressly mobilize this label. Ecofeminism having remained discreet in France until 2015, and sometimes remaining difficult to identify, the sociologist highlights the need to go beyond the question of the self-define of individuals and groups. Inspired by thevernacular of Geneviève Pruvost and by theEcologism of the poor From Joan Martínez Alier, she justifies this decision by a desire to get out of the shadows “ A whole range of past and present experiences “By analyzing” the complex space of crosses between ecology and feminism by bringing together its actorsplural tricesThe under a common term (P. 21). As such, the book by Constance Rimlinger highlights a “ popular eco -feminism “(P. 34) worn by people” ordinary (P. 20), especially rural women and women farmers.
To be interested in these initiatives which intertwine feminism and ecology, and to inscribe them in the eco -feminist nebula, is to question a certain number of prestructions which populate the common imagination according to which ecofeminism did not take in France and that a day after capitalism would be impossible. The sociologist’s investigation shows as well as making a step aside, by detaching himself from the analysis of eco -feminism as a social movement, “ You can paint a more nuanced portrait of its first reception (P. 47).
Propose a typology of contemporary ecofemism
On the database harvested during her work on seven main research fields, of which she offers a detailed presentation table in the appendix to her book, the author identifies three ideal-typses on the rural eco-feminist continuum: The eco-feminist configuration “ separatist differentialist “, The eco -feminist configuration” intersectional queer “And the eco -feminist configuration” Holistics Integrationist ». If it is not a question here of detailing each of these configurations, which are the subject of exhaustive chapters in Field feministsit is important to briefly return to this typology which undoubtedly constitutes the main contribution of the Constance Rimlinger investigation.
It is now accepted that there is not an eco -feminism, but of the Ecofemismisms. However, it remains rarer, in French research, to find work that analyzes in depth the tensions internal to this nebula. The sociologist devotes part of her work to thorny questions, often put aside, the whitening of eco-feminist utopias and the exclusion of transgender and non-binary persons. As the ecofeministic communities are not free from the reproduction of the logic of discrimination and domination specific to a patriarchal and colonial capitalist society, then arise – among others – the questions of racism and transphobia within them. Furthermore, Constance Rimlinger also notes differences with regard to the animal cause (it is necessary to promote, even impose, veganism ?) And relation to spirituality (is it necessarily essentialist and guilty of cultural appropriation ?) Who testify to an eco -feminist continuum not without internal tensions.
Lifestyles and spirituality as political praxis
In the (eco) feminist tradition of questioning public-private dichotomy and incentive of the novices of politics to acquire a confidence and legitimacy necessary for action, Field feminists constitutes an exciting example of redefinition of politics. The book confirms that “ The private sector is political And that theoretical and militant training is not essential to act. The author therefore insists on the need not to consider only the traditional means of political action. To understand ecofeminism, attached to its libertarian roots, it is not to be simply studying the classic commitment of activistses, but to examine their daily commitment (p. 45). Constance Rimlinger then shows the plurality and diversity of the repertoires of political action. The return to the eco -feminist and non -heterosexual land – which is not always queer in that it also concerns radical lesbian feminists opposed to this concept – thus translates a quest for meaning in the margins of patriarchal capitalism. This quest implies for the respondents of Constance Rimlinger to build an alternative and radical daily life questioning the relationship to work, food, housing and family. For some, it will be a question of training in permaculture, for others of adopting a vegetarian diet or of practicing rituals inspired by various feminist spiritualities. The sociologist’s work also brings many clarifications on this last point and the comparative perspective is all the more interesting, revealing the differences between the movement of the American goddess and the French sacred feminine. In line with Geneviève Pruvost’s work, Constance Rimlinger’s investigation reaffirms how political is political and that the campaign is the scene of multiple, concrete and current experiments. Contrary to popular belief, rurality is therefore not in essence hostile to feminist populations and LGBT+, but becomes “ a new space from which to think and live emancipation (P. 46).
If Field feminists Offer in the first place a counter-discourse to the idea of an airtight France with eco-feminist cultures, the work also makes it possible to think of the future of ecofeminism. The book overflows with avenues of reflection and we would be almost frustratedare not to be able to continue the discussion with the author. What about the compatibility of ecofeminism with the concept of intersectionality, the results of the survey of which show us that it is not always acquired ? Constance Rimlinger thus wonders about the evolution of an ecofeminism “ less white “(P. 40) and a return to the earth” Explicitly (eco) queer (P. 263).
We may regret a more decided point of view on the question of the logic of exclusion reproduced by certain authors and communities, although we understand the empathy of the sociologist for her respondents and the tone chosen for this work. The adoption or rejection of an intersectional approach, involving the recognition of specific types of oppressions, and a queer perspective, considering the fluidity of identities, challenges the very definition of eco -feminism. This definition fluctuates if we consider that the political subject of movement is only the woman Cisgenre – as is the case for some of the respondents – or that transgender and non -binary people are also concerned. Field feminists However, is already a reference, especially for the young research in search of internal criticism on the subject, and its accessible writing will just as much captivate the general public.