In the second half of the “Ecofeminism” chapter in Tong’s Feminist Thought, she describes three branches of Ecofeminism:  Spiritual Ecofeminism, Social or Social-Constructionist Ecofeminism, and Socialist or Transformative-Socialist Ecofeminism.   Tong ends the chapter with critiques of all the subdivisions of Ecofeminism that she had previously presented.  

note:  I have reproduced Tong’s subject headings in an attempt at clarity.
 
Spiritual Ecofeminism

Spiritual-ecofeminists see a link between the commonly held Judeo-Christian belief that God gave humans dominion over the earth and the degradation of the earth’s ecosystems.  According to the general principals of ecofeminism, women are inextricably linked to nature, and therefore, debasement of the earth is considered to be synonymous with debasement of women.  By allowing—and even encouraging—subjugation of the earth, Judaism and Christianity sanction subjugation of women as well.  If Judaism and Christianity cannot be freed from the idea of a “disembodied”, male God, then spiritual-ecofeminists call for both an abandonment of these religions and a celebration of nature through the practice of “earth-based spiritualities”. (260, 261).  According to Starhawk—a prominent Spiritual Econfeminist—the three most important concepts of earth-based spiritualities are the immanence of the Goddess in the living world; interconnection of mind, body, and nature; and a compassionate life-style (261-263).

The Argument for Deemphasizing the Nature Women Connection:  Social, or Social Constructionist, Ecofeminism

As opposed to spiritual-ecofeminists, social (or social-constructionist) ecofeminists deemphasize the connection between nature and women and instead focus on the dissolution of all conceptual dichotomies, particularly between men and women and between nature and culture.  Every human being should realize that s/he is just as much natural as s/he is cultural and that s/he is—in some sense—both man and woman.  These concepts (viz. nature, culture, man, and woman) are, in fact, social constructions.  According to Dorothy Dinnerstein—a prominent social ecofeminist—man and woman, culture and nature are one, and “it is counterproductive for half of reality to try to dominate the other half” (263, 264).  

Socialist Ecofeminists [Transformative-Socialist Ecofeminists]

Though socialist-feminism aims to eradicate the social relations that separate men from women, it has not traditionally concerned itself with the relationship between humans and non-humans.  Transformative-feminists, on the other hand, recognize that oppression of women by men is inextricably linked to oppression of non-humans by humans.  Transformative-feminism, in fact, acknowledges the interconnections among all systems of oppression.  It also discards the concept of dominance; maintains that science and technology should only be used to benefit the earth; and supports a diverse view of women, rejecting the idea of a singular feminine experience.  (267, 268)  Tong uses the example of two distinguished ecofeminists (Mies and Shiva) in attempt to bridge socialist-ecofeminism and transformative-ecofeminism but never clarifies the differences among socialist-feminism, socialist-ecofeminism, transformative-feminism, transformative-ecofeminism, and transformative-socialist ecofeminism (268-272).    

Critiques of Ecofeminism

Nature, or Cultural Ecofeminism

Nature/cultural ecofeminism mistakenly categorizes women as uniquely ecological, relating to nature and to each other in ways that men cannot.  This limits women to their bodies and relegates the possibilities for womanhood to be necessarily caring and compassionate without freeing woman from the “negative cultural baggage” associated with this stereotype.  This potentially thwarts the possibility of liberation for women by binding them to a kind of biological destiny.  (273).

Spiritual Ecofeminism

Spiritual-ecofeminists have been criticized for trying to replace politics with religion and subsequently engaging in spiritual activity instead of “serious” thought about how to improve the state of the world.  After this brief criticism, Tong seems to digress into a spiritual ecofeminist response to it. (273, 274).

Social and Social-Constructionist Ecofeminism

By deemphasizing the connections between women and the earth, social ecofeminists subsequently dilute the initial power of ecofeminism as a movement to reclaim the earth as an extension of the biology of women.  Traditionally-feminine-characteristics do have value separate from traditionally-masculine-characteristics.  These feminine virtues should be embraced and used in society to make the world a more peaceful, nurturing place instead of being viewed as limiting.

Socialist Ecofeminism and Transformative-Socialist Ecofeminism

The necessary changes indicated by socialist-feminists seem too challenging for ordinary citizens in contemporary culture.  Most people do not want to radically change their life-styles, particularly in the ways suggested by socialist-feminists, and therefore, their prescriptions are unrealistic.  Socialist-feminists respond that though wholesale changes might seem difficult, everyone can do something, even if it seems small.  

Conclusion

All ecofeminists believe that human beings are connected both with each other and with the rest of the non-human world.  Unless humans more fully acknowledge these connections, they will continue to harm one another and destroy the earth on which they live.