Introduction
“I wonder what a country is like where all the children have hare faces. Maybe hares have a child’s face”[1].
The environmental hazards and expenses are disproportionately felt by certain socioeconomic groups, as has been mentioned. The causes of environmental disasters are frequently attributed to a small minority on a worldwide scale that engages in extracting, producing, consuming, and repeatedly placing the blame on Others. Those who were unfairly disadvantaged due to factors such as gender, color, or class are required to pay an additional fee. Increasing one’s exposure to the harmful effects of pollution, contamination, and abuse of the environment is a form of penance. In contrast to idealized portrayals of nature, environmental justice advocates do not seek to protect the rich biodiversity of unspoiled “without walls” locations known as locus amoeni. Environmental justice hotspots do, in fact, have barriers. The walls are usually those in the house, and they may have wallpaper from the 1970s. Or perhaps the ones at the steel plant, where asbestos and reinforced concrete form its structural framework. Humans pollute both the natural environment and themselves to the same extent, turning the outdoors into a “space of everyday life” (Armiero, 2013, p.22). From this vantage point, we may grasp the ecofeminist ecological self and reject it: an identity that is greatly affected by its environment as it develops and changes in relation to it. Overexposed and symptomatic in environmental justice is the human body. As a matter of fact, it is the gold standard—often utilized as proof in extensive trials—of the correlation between human actions, environmental exposure, and illness. The existence of a relationship that is not immediately apparent does not negate its existence.
[1]Gaard,G.(2017).CriticalEcofeminism.Lanham(MD):Rowman&Littlefield.Gaard,G.andMurphy,P.D.(1998).EcofeministLiteraryCriticism.Champaign(IL): UniversityofIllinoisPress.