Ecology, feminism, and a revised critical rhetoric: Toward a dialectical partnership

The purpose of this project is to construct a critical ecofeminist rhetoric (CEFR) as an example of a revised critical rhetoric (RCR). It does so through critical resolutions of debates occurring in the literatures of two discursive domains: the critical rhetoric (CR) project and contemporary ecofeminism (EF). CR emerged out of encounters with critical cultural studies and was initially theorized in the communication and rhetorical studies literatures by McKerrow (1989). The critical rhetorician's task is to illuminate intersections in the dense discursive web that might otherwise remain eclipsed in the long shadow of the taken-for-granted. Rhetorical scholars generally value CR but insist that its evolution is incomplete. Some important debates within CR are posited as reasons for, and are resolved within, the RCR constructed. Contemporary ecofeminism (EF) is a world with its own gravity and atmosphere. Nevertheless, one can identify the distinguishable spheres of ecological feminism and feminist ecology crossing EF's orbit and disturbing its atmosphere from time to time as they revolve, respectively, around contemporary feminism and critical ecology. This study investigates the rhetoric of each of these intertextual spheres as a prelude to constructing a CEFR. It defines ecofeminism as the belief that the repression of what is thought feminine, and the domination of what is nature-identified, are connected (in Euro-American cultures). It warrants that reading through critical reviews of EF texts, intertexts, and contexts. These readings also ground some conclusions about dominant social discourses. The RCR-CEFR developed here follows McKerrow's model of presenting a theoretical orientation and perspectives on practice. Though it embraces much of his style and substance, it also departs in meaningful ways---most notably in its call for (at least) five critical moments. This study tests a critique of domination, a momentary pause for reflection and research, a constructive critique, a critique of closure, and a critique of cynicism. I conclude that ecofeminist arguments warrant (and illustrate) RCR, that a revised critical rhetoric should explore ecofeminist problematics, that ecofeminists should read the critical literatures of CR, and that a critical ecofeminist rhetoric is viable in our current bio-social context.