by

The term ecofeminist is often attributed French theorist Françoise d’Eaubonne, who is believed to have coined the term in her book, Le Féminisme ou la Mort (1974). The word was picked up by Carolyn Merchant, who suggests that “emphasizing the interconnectedness between people and nature” and juxtaposing “the goals of” feminism and environmentalism can help to “suggest new values and social structures” (Merchant, xv), thus creating the core principle of ecofeminism whereby ecocritical theory offers a way to understand the exploitation of women. This line of thinking is furthered by the likes of Sylvia Bowerbank, who observes “that harmony in the family, as well as in government and in nature” is necessary (Bowerbank, 8). Ynestra King has also contributed, suggesting that women “have to be the voice of the invisible, of nature who cannot speak for herself in the political arenas of our society” (as cited in Bowerbank 3). These concepts of both women speaking for nature, and learning about the structures of their own oppression through an understanding of nature are central to ecofeminist theory, and when bringing these tenets of ecofeminism to a reading of E.B. White’s classic children’s novel Charlotte’s Web (not to be confused with the strain of medical marijuana of the same name), it seems that the novel serves as the template for an ecofeminist work. Though Charlotte’s Web was written more than twenty years prior to d’Eaubonne’s coining of the phrase, and nearly thirty years prior to Merchant’s seminal work, the novel’s female characters, notably Charlotte and Fern, seem be written as ecofeminist heroines, and the novel seems to suggest the kind of ‘new values and social structures’ Merchant suggests that ecofeminism should create.

King’s suggestion that nature requires women to speak on its behalf is best exemplified through Fern, the young girl who develops a fondness for Wilbur, the pig who serves as the novel’s protagonist. Fern’s link with nature is obvious, given that White chose to name her after a fern, an organism from the natural realm. When she hears that her father is going to kill a small pig, with an ax no less, because the pig is so small, Fern questions him about: “You mean kill it? Just because it’s smaller than the others?” (1) She then goes on to plead on Wilbur’s behalf, saying, “Please don’t kill it!”, and claiming that “It’s unfair” (2). The exclamation marks notes the emotive responses and demonstrates how the feminine realm is capable of empathizing with the natural realm, whilst the phrasing of the process being ‘unfair’ calls to mind other social movements women engaged in, such as the abolition of slavery. In both Britain and America, many abolitionist groups were spearheaded by women who, despite not having the ability to vote, were eager to advocate and fight for the rights of others. Fern, then, is doing for the natural realm what women did for the enslaved people of Africa. Far from simply stating that it is ‘unfair’, she argues the case, first using an analogy: “If I had been very small at birth, would you have killed me?” (3) Her father claims that the analogous situation is different, but rather than accepting the patriarchal authority, Ferns challenges him to back his statement up with reason: “I see no difference… This is the most terrible case of injustice I ever heard of” (3). Here, Fern not only challenges her father to explain the difference, but elevates the situation from being simply ‘unfair’, to being an act of ‘injustice’. Her father has no answer to her questions, and so concedes the point to his daughter, demonstrating how women can effectively serve as a voice for marginalized and silenced groups. White reinforces Fern’s link with nature by noting that those in the natural realm trusted Fern (15) and “treated her as equal” (42). The latter of which is especially important as White frames the human realm as being lifted to an equal position with the natural realm, thereby suggesting that the human realm is subordinate to the natural realm. It is clear, then, that Fern serves as a representative for the natural realm, giving a voice to “the invisible… in the political arenas of our society” (King, as cited in Bowerbank 3).

Ferns is not the only figure demonstrative of the manner in which women give a voice to the natural realm, as both Charlotte, the title character, and Mrs. Zuckerman makes efforts to represent the voice of the natural realm. Charlotte, being a spider, can be seen as an element of the natural realm defending another element of the natural realm, but as much as she is a spider, she is also a woman, and it is not her own interests that she is trying to give a voice to, but, like Fern, she is trying to protect the life of another being. When Charlotte discovers that Mr. Zuckerman is planning on slaughtering Wilbur and making a delicious, bacon-filled Christmas dinner (and likely Boxing Day breakfast), Charlotte picks up where Fern left off. With this new impending death threat, Charlotte employs her web-slinging abilities to write messages praising Wilbur, ensuring that the human realm recognizes Wilbur’s value and in turn surrenders their plan to fry Wilbur’s hide into delectable crispiness. Here, Charlotte is using her voice to give representation to the voiceless. When Mr. Zuckerman sees the complimentary language directed at Wilbur in Charlotte’s web, he notes that he has ‘some pig’, but Mrs. Zuckerman recognizes the true anomaly, correcting her husband and suggesting that what they really have is “no ordinary spider” (80). In this instance, Mrs. Zuckerman recognizes Charlotte’s ability, and where her skill and efforts are overlooked by the patriarchal figures, Mrs. Zuckerman tries to give credit to the exceptional elements of the natural realm.

Among the men in the novel, there seems to be a usurpation of nature’s voice. When carting Wilbur to the country fair, Mr. Zuckerman does not use Wilbur’s name, but instead take authority over Wilbur, describing him as “Zuckerman’s Famous Pig” (96). Through this choice, Mr. Zuckerman chooses to reject Wilbur’s identity, and project his own onto the pig, ignoring nature’s voice and replacing it with a human one, much as a husband would replace his wife’s maiden name with his own. This offers insight into the various customs that reinforce patriarchal authority. As noted, Mr. Zuckerman also gives credit for Charlotte’s literacy to Wilbur, offering an example of how the masculine realm often takes credit for the work done in the feminine realm, given that Wilbur is male and Charlotte female. A loud speaker at the fair makes the same mistake later in the novel, stating that though “Spiders are very clever at weaving their webs”, they “cannot write” (158). This scene is especially demonstrative of how the masculine voice usurps the feminine as the loud speaker is narrating a description of the pig overtop the whispers of Mrs. Zuckerman, and no credit is offered to Mrs. Zuckerman for washing Wilbur with buttermilk to make him look especially radiant, a trick that was handed down to her through by her mother. These instances demonstrate the ignorance of the masculine realm, and the insight of the feminine realm.

White does not present men and women with broad strokes, however, as he also offers examples of women who internalize and propagate patriarchal oppression, and contrasts them with forwarding thinking men who do not feel the need to unilaterally apply prescribed gender roles. Mrs. Arable, Fern’s mother, takes issue with Fern’s interconnectivity with the natural realm, and when Fern shares details of her conversations with the animals, Mrs. Arable expresses concern about Fern mental wellbeing to her husband. Here, Mrs. Arable is internalizing patriarchal oppression and trying to project her own limits onto her daughter. Mr. Arable, already having been won over by his daughter’s strong reasoning, shows no concern about Fern’s claim that she can talk to animals, suggesting to his wife that “Maybe [animals]do talk” and that their “ears aren’t as sharp as Fern’s” (54), explaining why they can’t hear animals. Mrs. Arable challenges her husband’s authority, but not in the same way that her daughter did. Fern simply challenged her father’s reasoning, but her mother, unable to argue with her husband, seeks a higher authority in the patriarchal hierarchy by going to see a doctor about Fern’s interactions with farm animals. Mrs. Arable tells the doctor that “It didn’t seem natural for a little girl to be so interested in animals” (107) and suggests that Fern should be spending more time with human friends like one Henry Fussy. The doctor, however, proposes “that spiders and pigs were fully as interesting as Henry Fussy” (111), and suggests that “Perhaps if people talked less, animals would talk more” (110), adopting Fern’s belief that humans should listen to the natural realm. As the conversation concludes, the doctor draws out the sexist double standard society has, by asking Mrs. Arable how her son is doing. She replies: “Avery is always fine. Of course, he gets into poison Ivey and gets stung by wasps and bees and brings frogs and snakes home… He’s fine” (112). In her reply, Mrs. Arable essentially catalogs all the activities that her own daughter was engaging in and says that they are ‘fine’ when a boy is doing them, but that they don’t seem ‘natural’ when a ‘little girl’ engages in them. It is clear, then, that Mrs. Arable is internalizing patriarchal oppression and then projecting it onto her daughter, reminiscent of the recent “Inspire Her Mind” campaign put on by Verizon, where a similar double standard is applied to a young girl, leading her to abandon her scientific curiosity. The video encourages parents to foster their daughters’ curiosity, and both Mr. Arable and the doctor seem to take Verizon’s prescribed approach, the only difference being that White wrote his narrative more than sixty years prior. Fern’s interactions with nature and the resulting response, demonstrates how an ecofeminist reading of the work serves to illuminate how various forms of patriarchal oppression works.

The novel also positions women as strong figures. Fern, for instance, has the strength to stand up to her father’s authority, and likewise the authority of her cousin Avery, who is emblematic of how the masculine realm encroaches on the natural realm without just cause in that he tries to capture Charlotte. Ultimately, though, Avery is foiled by Fern and the barn yard animals (73). Charlotte likewise proves strong as even when she nears death, she is able to not only rescue Wilbur at the fair by spinning a new web for him and thereby winning over the audience and endearing Wilbur to his would be murderer, Mr Zuckerman, but also makes a pouch for her eggs (140-144). This maternal strength is also demonstrated through the mother goose, who gives birth to seven goslings. It is noted that the goose displayed “unremitting effort and patience” (44) as well as “good management and hard work” (45). These instances of feminine strength, especially as it related to motherhood, illuminates the innate strength of womankind, and because most of the examples are found in nature, it serves to demonstrate how an ecofeminist approach can be empowering for women and offer insight into the nature of uniquely feminine strength.

Aside from demonstrating the value of the feminine realm, the novel also demonstrates the innate wisdom of the natural realm, placing it above human wisdom. Fern expresses concern that Wilbur will be cold if left outside a night, but discovers that despite not having been offered any lessons on how to keep warm, he innately knows how to burrow a hole in the ground and keep warm under hay (9). Charlotte’s web-slinging abilities are described in much the same way by the doctor, who concedes that he doesn’t “understand how a spider learned to spin a web in the first place.” This is especially humbling given that the doctor notes that a man of his intelligence is expected to know everything, illustrating how even the smartest men lack the intuitive knowledge of the natural realm. When Mrs. Arable responds that she can crochet as well as a spider spins a web, the doctor offers a counter observation, noting that “somebody taught” her to crochet (109), and going onto ask “Who taught a spider” to spin a web (110). This refers again to the fact that the organisms in the natural realm each have an innate ability to do tasks that humans require learning to accomplish. Charlotte, for her part, likewise suggests that the human realm is inferior, observing that “Even men aren’t as good at [building webs] as spiders, although they think they’re pretty good and they’ll try anything”, claiming that it took man eight years to build a bridge, whilst she can build an entire web in a single night (60). Charlotte also notes that the bridge isn’t capable of catching food, and only allows humans to move from one spot to another, which stands in sharp contrast to the sedentary life Charlotte embraces. Charlotte says that she stays in one place because she knows “a good thing when [she] see[s] it, and [her] web is a good thing” (61). This is in sharp contrast to members of the human realm who feel the need to travel. Charlotte also suggests that “If [she] can fool a bug… [she] can surely fool a man” because “People are not as smart as bugs” (67). This again situates nature’s innate instincts of above the learned knowledge of the human realm as humans are easier to trick than bugs.

In praising the innate wisdom of the natural realm, White also critiques the constructs of the human realm. After spending the first two months of his life in a pig pen, Wilbur announces that he is already “tired of living” (16). This constructed and constrictive life, not unlike the life of the working class, saps the will to live out of Wilbur. When Wilbur breaks free form the pen, the humans are able to lure him back by offering him food and giving him praise. The praise makes Wilbur feel “happy and sleepy” and encourages him to concede that he was “really too young to go out into the world alone” (24). Constructs such as praise and vanity, then, serve as a pacifying weapon that keeps people complacent and encourages them to be happy and too tired to protest, whilst simultaneously convincing people that they are dependent on the system. Such counterproductive human constructs arise when Wilbur is told by a lamb that pigs mean less than nothing to him. Wilbur replies: “I don’t think there is any such thing as less than nothing. Nothing is absolutely the limit of nothingness” (28). Though this might sound silly, as negatives have long been an accepted theoretical principle, they don’t actually have a practical application in the real world. In the human world, however, the capitalist economic system is based on negatives. Banks accounts and credit cards are often in the negative, meaning people can have far less than nothing. This construct has led to any number of working-class people going into debt and becoming further dependent on institutions like banks and governments, just as Wilbur became dependent on the humans. The value of such constructs seems nonexistent, suggesting that the intellect of the human realm only serves to subjugate, unlike the instinct of the natural realm that provides warmth and sustenance.

White’s novel also makes a case against humanity’s needlessly carnivorous eating habits. When first discovering the nature of Charlotte’s diet, Wilbur seems appalled that she would capture and eat other bugs. Charlotte, though, is not happy about her diet: “It’s true, and I have to say what is true. I am not entirely happy about my diet of flies and bugs, but it’s the way I’m made” (39). Because this is the way that Charlotte is made, she does not have a choice in the content of her diet. When Wilbur tells her that she has a ‘miserable inheritance’, she agrees, but notes again that she can’t help it (39). Charlotte’s carnivorousness is excused by her lack of choice, but the human realm has no excuse for taking lives when eating, as they have other options. Charlotte also rejects Wilbur’s initial judgement of her: “Well, you can’t talk… You have your meals brought to you in a pail. Nobody feeds me. I have to get my own living” (40). Here, Charlotte is essentially instructing Wilbur to check his privilege. He does not have to work for his food, and so is not in a place to judge others who do not have the same benefit. When it is discovered that Mr. Zuckerman is planning on slaughtering Wilbur, it is agreed by the animals that it is “the dirtiest trick” they’ve ever heard of (51). Charlotte’s carnivorous diet is excused out of necessity, but humanity’s carnivorous ways are criticized as ‘tricks’.

Though the novel predates ecofeminism by at least twenty years, it is clear that the text easily lends itself to an ecofeminist reading. Fern and Charlotte both serve as feminine voices that try and secure representation to the natural realm, like Ynestra King, who suggests that women “have to be the voice of the invisible, of nature who cannot speak for herself in the political arenas of our society” (as cited in Bowerbank 3). The contrast between natural and human constructs offer, as Carolyn Merchant suggests, “new values and social structures” (Merchant, xv), whilst the interrelatedness of the characters works in concert with Sylvia Bowerbank’s assertion “that harmony in the family, as well as in government and in nature” is necessary (Bowerbank, 8), and nature offers a template of that in White’s novel. The novel also offers insight into the ways in which women are oppressed both through analogous forms of oppression, such as Mr. Zuckerman projecting his name onto Wilbur, and also by highlight hypocrisies in the human realm, such as when Fern’s mother expresses concern for Fern when she engages with nature, but sees it as normal behaviour for her male nephew. The work has a clear focus on humanity’s relationship with nature, and likewise promotes strong, advocating female characters, and forming a narrative that encourages a reading through an ecofeminist lens.

If you enjoyed this post and would like updates on my latest ramblings, be sure to follow me on Twitter @LiteraryRambler.

Quotable quotes:

“Never hurry and never worry” (64, 65)

Works Cited:

Bowerbank, Sylvia. Speaking For Nature: Women and Ecologies of Early Modern England. The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore Maryland, 2004.

Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. Harper & Row. New York, NY. 1980. Print.

White, E.B. Charlotte’s Web. New York: Harper Collins. 1952. Print.