A White Paper for The Noetic Feminist Institute. Awe Series. 2025

---

Executive summary

The dragonfly is one of the oldest living creatures on earth. It predates dinosaurs, flowering plants, and birds by roughly 300 million years. It has survived every mass extinction the planet has produced, not through dominance or armor but through adaptation: the capacity to change form, perceive more broadly, and move in directions that rigid bodies cannot.

This white paper argues that the dragonfly is not merely an aesthetically pleasing logo for a feminist institute. It is a philosophically coherent symbol of the Institute’s central commitments: expanded perception, embodied transformation, adaptive intelligence, ecological interdependence, and the integration of ways of knowing that patriarchal epistemology has dismissed. Drawing on interdisciplinary research in biology, feminist theory, philosophy of consciousness, Jungian psychology, ecofeminism, and noetic studies, the paper demonstrates that the dragonfly embodies the very processes that feminist consciousness requires: the willingness to see more, to become differently, and to move with precision through systems designed for rigidity.

The Noetic Feminism Institute takes as its founding premise that feminism needs both structural analysis and epistemic transformation, that the work of dismantling patriarchy includes recovering forms of knowing that patriarchal systems have suppressed. The dragonfly, with its compound eye that sees in nearly every direction at once, its metamorphosis from aquatic nymph to aerial hunter, and its flight mechanics that defy the constraints of fixed-wing systems, is a working metaphor for the kind of intelligence this Institute exists to advance.

As Simone de Beauvoir wrote: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” (The Second Sex, 1949). The dragonfly, too, becomes. And the question this paper poses is what feminist philosophy can learn from how it does so.

1. Deep time: survival through transformation

Dragonflies belong to the order Odonata, an ancient lineage whose ancestors emerged during the Carboniferous period, approximately 300 to 325 million years ago (Grimaldi and Engel, 2005). Fossil relatives such as Meganeura possessed wingspans exceeding two feet, making them among the largest insects ever recorded. These were creatures of a world unrecognizable to us, a planet of dense forests and oxygen-rich atmospheres, long before anything resembling a mammal had appeared.

What matters philosophically is what happened next. Dragonflies survived several mass extinctions, including the Permian-Triassic extinction approximately 252 million years ago, the most catastrophic extinction event in Earth’s history, in which roughly 90 percent of all species disappeared (Erwin, 1993). They survived the event that killed the dinosaurs. They are still here. They did not endure because they were the strongest or the most heavily armored. They endured because they could change. Their bodies adapted. Their sensory systems became more complex. Their flight mechanics grew more precise. Survival, for the dragonfly, has always been a function of transformation, not force.

The resonance with feminist history is not accidental. Feminist movements have survived backlash, suppression, legal reversal, and cultural erasure across centuries. First-wave feminism fought for legal personhood and suffrage. Second-wave feminism challenged domestic confinement and reproductive control. Third-wave feminism insisted on the complexity of identity. Intersectional feminism, shaped by the work of Kimberle Crenshaw, bell hooks, Audre Lorde, and Patricia Hill Collins, revealed how gender oppression intersects with race, class, sexuality, and empire. Ecofeminism linked environmental destruction to patriarchal logics of domination. Transnational feminisms challenged the colonial assumptions embedded in Western feminist movements themselves.

Feminism has never been a single doctrine. It has been a practice of metamorphosis: changing form across generations, geographies, and political conditions while retaining its core commitment to liberation. As bell hooks defined it, feminism is “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (Feminism Is for Everybody, 2000). That definition is a living structure, not a monument. Like the dragonfly, feminist thought has survived because it refuses to stay fixed.

Clara Zetkin, socialist feminist and organizer of International Women’s Day, understood this. She knew that liberation movements survive only through collective adaptation, that the conditions change but the work continues. The dragonfly’s evolutionary record is an echo of this feminist persistence: ancient and contemporary, fragile and resilient, rooted in material reality and capable of transcendence.

2. The compound eye: feminist consciousness as expanded perception

Dragonflies possess some of the most complex visual systems in the animal kingdom. Their compound eyes contain up to 30,000 individual ommatidia, or visual receptors, providing nearly 360 degrees of vision, the ability to perceive ultraviolet light, exceptional motion tracking, and rapid visual processing that exceeds what most other creatures can achieve. Research published in Current Biology demonstrated that dragonflies have specialized neurons enabling them to predictively track moving prey, calculating the trajectory of motion with remarkable accuracy (Wiederman et al., 2013). The dragonfly does not merely see. It anticipates.

This is, symbolically and structurally, what feminist consciousness does.

Feminist theory is, at its core, a theory of perception. It is the practice of seeing what has been made invisible: unpaid labor, systemic inequality, normalized violence, the social conditioning that teaches women to abandon their own perception in favor of compliance. Feminist consciousness is a shift in how reality is perceived, a refusal to accept the partial view as the whole picture.

Caroline Criado Perez’s Invisible Women (2019) documents with devastating precision how societies systematically design systems around male bodies and male experience. Medical trials have historically excluded women. Crash-test dummies replicate male physiology. Urban planning ignores caregiving labor. Artificial intelligence systems absorb and reproduce gender bias from data sets built on male-centered assumptions. The default human, in system after system, is male. Everything else is a deviation. Perez observes that it becomes difficult to trust one’s own perceptions when one’s experience of the world is consistently made invisible.

The dragonfly’s compound eye is the refusal of the single angle. It is perception that does not collapse reality into one dominant viewpoint but holds multiple perspectives simultaneously, tracking movement, sensing light across spectrums invisible to the human eye, processing information from directions that a forward-facing gaze would miss entirely. Feminist consciousness makes the same demand: that perception itself must be expanded, that the partial view presented as universal must be recognized as partial, and that the knowledge produced from one position cannot claim to describe the whole.

Sandra Harding’s standpoint theory argues that knowledge produced from marginalized positions reveals truths that dominant perspectives cannot access, precisely because the dominant perspective has the luxury of not noticing what it excludes. Donna Haraway insists that “feminist objectivity means quite simply situated knowledges” (1988), knowledge that names where it stands rather than pretending to stand nowhere. Patricia Hill Collins’s Black Feminist Thought demonstrates that lived experience, particularly the experience of those at the intersection of multiple oppressions, produces epistemological insight that detached observation cannot replicate.

The dragonfly sees in nearly every direction at once. Feminist epistemology asks what becomes visible when we stop accepting the single authoritative angle and begin perceiving from the margins, from the body, from the situated and the multiple. The expanded field of vision is method. It is the practice of looking from enough positions that the partial can no longer disguise itself as the whole.

3. Metamorphosis: the philosophy of becoming

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”

— Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949)

Dragonflies spend the majority of their lives as nymphs beneath the surface of water. Depending on the species, this aquatic phase may last months or years. The nymph breathes through gills, hunts in darkness, and inhabits a world defined by different physics than the one it will eventually enter. Then emergence. The nymph crawls from the water, breaks through its own exoskeleton, and becomes a winged adult. The transformation is not cosmetic. It involves a radical reorganization of the nervous, muscular, respiratory, and sensory systems. What emerges is not a decorated version of what went in. It is a different kind of creature.

Cultures across the world have recognized the philosophical weight of this process. In Japan, dragonflies are symbols of courage and renewal. In Chinese cultural traditions, they are associated with prosperity and attentiveness. In various Indigenous traditions, they represent transformation, adaptability, and the capacity to move between worlds. The metamorphosis of the dragonfly has spoken to human consciousness for millennia, not because it is pretty but because it enacts something people recognize as true about the nature of change: that genuine transformation requires dissolution before reconstruction, vulnerability before flight.

Simone de Beauvoir’s insight that one is not born but becomes a woman redefined identity as socially produced, a process shaped by conditions and choices, not a fixed biological essence. The dragonfly’s metamorphosis mirrors this understanding. Identity, for the dragonfly and for the feminist subject, is not a static given. It is a process of becoming, shaped by environment, structured by necessity, and capable of radical reorganization when the conditions shift.

Feminist consciousness often begins this way: beneath the surface, in conditions that feel natural until they are recognized as constructed. Consciousness-raising, the practice developed by second-wave feminists, was precisely this emergence: naming experiences that had been private, recognizing oppression that had been normalized, and developing a political understanding that transforms how one inhabits the world. It is, in a real sense, the process of crawling from water into air, breaking through an old structure, and discovering that one can fly.

Audre Lorde understood that transformation is inseparable from vulnerability. “The transformation of silence into language and action is an act of self-revelation,” she wrote (Sister Outsider, 1984). The dragonfly at emergence is exposed. It must dry its wings before it can fly. There is a period of transition, a space where the old structure has been shed and the new one has not yet hardened, when the creature is most vulnerable and most changed. Vulnerability at the threshold of becoming is the cost of genuine change. It is what every dragonfly and every woman who has ever broken through an old structure knows in her body. Feminist institutions exist, in part, to hold this space: to provide the intellectual, emotional, political, and spiritual conditions in which transformation can occur without requiring that it happen at speed or under threat.

4. Flight: feminist agility and the refusal of fixed position

Dragonflies are among the most accomplished fliers in the natural world. They can move forward, backward, upward, downward, and laterally. They hover with precision. They change direction instantaneously. Their hunting success rate exceeds 90 percent, a figure unmatched by most predators in any domain (Alexander, 2002). Each of their four wings operates independently, producing a maneuverability that fixed-wing systems cannot replicate. In engineering, dragonfly flight mechanics inspire research into drones and robotics because their efficiency and adaptability outperform conventional design.

Feminist movements require exactly this kind of agility. Patriarchal systems do not remain static. Workplace discrimination takes new forms. Online misogyny evolves faster than platforms can regulate it. Reproductive control shifts legally and technologically across jurisdictions. Economic inequality deepens through mechanisms that grow more sophisticated with each generation. A feminism that responds to only one configuration of oppression will be outmaneuvered by a system that continually reconfigures itself.

Feminist strategy has always been multidirectional: legal advocacy, mutual aid, labor organizing, consciousness-raising, digital activism, reproductive justice frameworks, community healing, cultural criticism, institutional redesign. These are not competing approaches. They are the independent wings of a single movement, each capable of operating on its own axis while contributing to the whole. The dragonfly does not choose between forward and lateral movement. It moves in whatever direction the situation requires. Feminist strategy, when it is working well, does the same.

A line frequently attributed to Gloria Steinem captures this adaptive spirit: the truth will set you free, but first it will make you angry. The anger is not the destination. The freedom of movement that follows is.

5. Water and air: ecofeminism and the intelligence of interdependence

Dragonflies inhabit two worlds. They begin in water and complete their lives in air. Their presence in an ecosystem is a reliable indicator of environmental health; dragonfly populations decline when waterways are polluted or degraded. The creature’s dependence on clean water systems makes it, in ecological terms, a sentinel: its absence signals harm that has not yet become visible to less sensitive observers.

This ecological sensitivity resonates deeply with ecofeminist thought. Ecofeminists including Vandana Shiva, Carolyn Merchant, and Val Plumwood have argued that patriarchal systems exploit both women and nature through shared logics of domination, extraction, and control. In The Death of Nature (1980), Merchant traces how the rise of mechanistic science in Western culture coincided with the devaluation of both the natural world and women’s knowledge, framing both as raw material to be managed rather than relational systems to be respected. Plumwood extends this analysis, arguing that Western rationalism severs humans from relational belonging to the natural world, producing an impoverished understanding of intelligence that serves patriarchal and colonial power.

The dragonfly’s life between water and air enacts a different model of intelligence: one grounded in interdependence. Its existence depends on the health of both systems. It does not extract from its environment; it registers the condition of its environment with extraordinary sensitivity. Strength and vulnerability coexist. Resilience and fragility are not opposites but dimensions of the same creature, the same ecosystem, the same feminist understanding that well-being is relational or it is nothing.

Ecofeminism insists that the feminist project cannot stop at human institutions. If patriarchy and capitalism share logics of extraction and domination with environmental destruction, then feminist transformation must also address how societies relate to the living systems that sustain them. The dragonfly, by inhabiting the threshold between water and air, embodies this insistence. Its symbol is one of attentiveness, a creature that reads the health of a system through sensitivity rather than control.

In a political moment defined by ecological crisis, the dragonfly’s role as indicator species carries additional weight. When dragonflies disappear from a watershed, the water has already been compromised, even if the damage is not yet visible to human observers. The dragonfly perceives what less sensitive systems miss. Feminist analysis does the same: it reads the conditions of a system before those conditions announce themselves as crisis. It notices what dominant frameworks are designed to overlook. The dragonfly’s ecological intelligence is not separate from its symbolic intelligence. Both are forms of perception that depend on sensitivity, not armor.

6. Noetic dimensions: consciousness, symbol, and the dragonfly

Noetic thought concerns itself with consciousness, intuition, interconnectedness, and the relationship between inner experience and external reality. Though noetic studies take many forms, they share a common commitment: the recognition that perception is not passive reception but an active, constitutive relationship with reality. What we are able to perceive shapes what we understand to be real. What we have been trained not to perceive does not cease to exist; it becomes invisible, which in political terms is something far more dangerous than absence.

Across cultures and centuries, the dragonfly has carried symbolic weight precisely because it enacts qualities that consciousness traditions value: the dissolution of illusion, clarity of perception, spiritual development, the capacity to move between states of being. In Jungian psychology, winged creatures frequently symbolize transcendence and psychic transformation, the movement from unconscious limitation toward expanded awareness. The dragonfly, which literally transforms from a creature of depth to a creature of light and air, performs this symbolic work with unusual precision.

Feminist theory has long contested the false opposition between reason and intuition, an opposition that patriarchal philosophy constructed and then used to devalue women’s knowledge. Patriarchal epistemology associated masculinity with rationality, objectivity, and control while coding emotion, intuition, embodied knowing, and relational awareness as feminine and therefore intellectually suspect. This hierarchy did not describe a natural order. It produced one, by systematically excluding certain forms of intelligence from the institutions authorized to define what counts as knowledge.

The dragonfly’s compound eye, which perceives multiple dimensions simultaneously, is a working image of the epistemological shift that noetic feminism proposes. Feminist objectivity, as Haraway defines it, does not mean knowledge stripped of perspective. It means knowledge that names its position, holds multiple perspectives, and refuses the pretense that any single vantage point describes the whole. The dragonfly does not see from one angle. It sees from thousands. It moves between worlds. It registers what the less perceptive miss.

Noetic feminism does not reject science or empirical inquiry. It asks what knowledges have been excluded. It asks what the wisdom of embodiment, relationality, and intuition might contribute to fields that have historically dismissed them. It asks how transformation and consciousness are related, and whether the separation of those questions from political analysis has itself been a political act. The dragonfly, ancient and precise, is the symbol of these questions because it lives them: perceiving broadly, transforming radically, moving fluidly between conditions that rigid systems treat as incompatible.

7. Intuitive inquiry, feminist knowing, and the dragonfly as guide

If the dragonfly is a symbol, it is also, within the framework of Intuitive Inquiry, a potential guide to feminist consciousness itself. Intuitive Inquiry, a qualitative research methodology originated by feminist transpersonal psychologist Rosemarie Anderson (2004), combines intuition, imagination, embodied experience, symbolic interpretation, reflective contemplation, and scholarly rigor into a single investigative practice. Unlike purely positivist methodologies that require the researcher to separate herself from her subject, Intuitive Inquiry recognizes that knowledge is generated relationally, through the dialogue between outer observation and inner awareness.

This framework is deeply compatible with feminist epistemology, which has long challenged the patriarchal assumption that legitimate knowledge must exclude emotion, embodiment, intuition, spirituality, and lived experience. Anderson writes that intuition is a way of knowing that supplements and enlarges analytical thought. What it offers is an expansion of what rigor is permitted to include.

Traditional Western academic structures have tended to privilege abstraction over embodiment, rational analysis over intuitive perception, detachment over relationality, and certainty over emergence. Feminist scholars have critiqued these binaries extensively. Patricia Hill Collins argued that lived experience is a legitimate and necessary form of knowledge, that all groups possess a distinctive standpoint shaped by their social location. The dragonfly, with its compound eyes processing information from thousands of angles simultaneously, embodies a kind of multidirectional consciousness that refuses to collapse perception into a single authoritative view.

An Intuitive Inquiry approach to the dragonfly would ask not only what dragonflies are biologically but what meanings emerge in relationship with them. Why has the dragonfly symbolized transformation across cultures that had no contact with one another? What psychological states does the dragonfly evoke, and what do those states reveal about the observer’s relationship to change, vulnerability, and expanded perception? What shifts in awareness occur through sustained attention to this creature? These are not soft questions. They are epistemological ones, questions about what counts as evidence and what forms of knowing have been dismissed by systems that benefit from narrow perception.

The body as a site of knowledge

Intuitive Inquiry centers the body as a location of intelligence, a position that echoes feminist critiques of patriarchal systems that have historically disdained women’s bodily knowledge, pathologized intuition, separated mind from body, and reduced emotional intelligence to a secondary competency. The dragonfly’s metamorphosis provides a profound embodied metaphor. Immersion precedes flight. Emergence follows vulnerability. Dissolution precedes reconstruction. The body does not merely transport consciousness from one state to another; the body is the site where transformation actually occurs.

This is analogous to many feminist processes of becoming: consciousness-raising, recovery from trauma, the development of political awareness, the reclamation of voice, the rewriting of identity beyond patriarchal scripts. In each case, the body knows something before the language arrives to describe it. As Lorde wrote, the transformation of silence into language and action is an act of self-revelation. Dragonflies literally emerge by breaking through their former shape. The transformation is structural, not decorative.

Intuition as political reclamation

Feminist scholars have increasingly recognized intuition as politically significant. Patriarchal systems teach women and marginalized people to distrust their own perceptions: to dismiss emotional awareness, to override bodily signals, to defer to external authority rather than trusting internal knowledge. Intuitive Inquiry reclaims intuition as a valid and rigorous knowledge process.

This does not mean abandoning evidence or scholarly discipline. It means broadening the definition of what constitutes evidence. Dreams, physical responses, symbolic resonances, recurring imagery, emotional patterns, and reflective contemplation may all become meaningful sources of inquiry when the investigator attends to them with the same care and precision that traditional methodologies bring to quantitative data. The dragonfly, with its extraordinary sensory capacities, becomes a metaphor for the recovery of expanded perception, a reminder that intelligence is not limited to what can be measured from a single position.

Ecological consciousness and relational knowing

Because dragonflies are ecological indicators, their presence signals the health of the systems they inhabit. An Intuitive Inquiry framework might therefore attend not only to the dragonfly as symbol but to the emotional and ethical responses it provokes: responses to ecological vulnerability, to the feminist ethic of care for living systems, to the grief and awe that arise when we recognize how deeply interconnected survival actually is.

Val Plumwood and other ecofeminist scholars have argued that Western rationalism systematically severs humans from relational belonging to nature, producing a model of intelligence that treats the living world as raw material rather than kin. The dragonfly, linking water and air, movement and stillness, fragility and strength, embodies the interdependence that ecofeminism insists we remember. Its presence asks us to pay attention. Its absence asks us to account for what we have allowed to be destroyed.

8. Beauty, wonder, and the feminist recovery of awe

Patriarchal systems tend to instrumentalize nature, to extract value from living systems while suppressing the wonder that might slow extraction down. Feminism, in many of its traditions, recovers wonder as an intellectual and political practice. To be awestruck is to be interrupted. It slows the impulse toward domination, enhances empathy, and broadens the perceptual field. Research by psychologists Dacher Keltner and Jonathan Haidt suggests that experiences of awe decrease self-focus and increase orientation toward the collective (2003). Wonder, in this sense, is a form of attention that makes solidarity possible.

We admire dragonflies because they combine qualities that patriarchal logic insists are incompatible: antiquity and modernity, elegance and precision, fragility and extraordinary resilience, scientific interest and symbolic depth. They are beautiful without being ornamental. Their beauty is evolutionary intelligence made visible, the result of 300 million years of adaptation refined into iridescent wings and compound eyes that see what others cannot.

Virginia Woolf wrote: “No need to hurry. No need to sparkle. No need to be anybody but oneself” (A Room of One’s Own, 1929). The dragonfly’s beauty operates on similar terms. It is not performed for an audience. It is the expression of a creature that has become, through deep time and relentless adaptation, exactly what it needs to be. A feminist institute that takes the dragonfly as its symbol is not choosing prettiness. It is choosing a form of intelligence that combines precision with wonder, structural analysis with the capacity to be moved, and survival with the refusal to stop becoming.

The recovery of wonder is itself a political act: a refusal of the patriarchal assumption that seriousness requires the suppression of beauty, that rigor cannot coexist with awe, that the analytical mind and the perceiving heart must be kept in separate rooms. The dragonfly, iridescent and precise, ancient and newly emerged with each generation, insists that these are not separate capacities. They are dimensions of the same intelligence. The feminist project needs both.

9. Why the dragonfly, and why now

A feminist institute needs symbols that can hold what language alone cannot. The work of the Noetic Feminism Institute crosses disciplines that patriarchal knowledge systems have kept deliberately separate: structural analysis and consciousness studies, embodied wisdom and scholarly rigor, political clarity and spiritual depth. The symbol must hold these together without collapsing their differences. It must communicate intelligence, transformation, resilience, creativity, complexity, and liberation, not as a list of virtues but as a single lived reality.

The dragonfly meets this requirement with unusual precision. It is ancient and contemporary. It is delicate and formidable. It is grounded in biology and rich in symbolic resonance. It is scientifically documented and culturally storied across civilizations that developed their symbolic traditions independently. Unlike symbols of domination, the dragonfly represents relational intelligence and adaptive strength. Its power is not expressed through force but through perception, transformation, and the capacity to move in ways that rigid systems cannot replicate.

The timing matters. We are living through a period of ecological crisis, democratic fragility, rising authoritarianism, accelerating technological disruption, and persistent gender inequality. In such a moment, the temptation is to reach for symbols of armor and battle, images that promise protection through hardness. The dragonfly offers something different: a model of survival that does not depend on rigidity. It has outlasted every catastrophe the planet has produced, not by becoming harder but by becoming more perceptive, more adaptive, more capable of transformation. This is what feminist institutions need now. Not a symbol of defense, but a symbol of the kind of intelligence that outlasts what it opposes.

The dragonfly’s transformation from aquatic nymph to aerial hunter is a feminist becoming. Its compound eye is a mirror of feminist consciousness. Its multidirectional flight is a sign of feminist strategic agility. Its ecological sensitivity reflects the feminist ethics of care and interdependence. Its symbolic resonance across cultures and centuries points toward the noetic, spiritual dimensions of transformation that the Institute exists to take seriously. Each of these connections is grounded in research. Together, they form a coherent philosophical statement: the dragonfly is not an illustration of feminism. It enacts the processes that feminism requires.

10. The dragonfly as feminist philosophy

A symbol, at its best, does not merely represent an idea. It thinks. It holds complexity that prose alone cannot contain, offering the reader a single image that unfolds, over time, into a way of seeing.

The dragonfly does this. Its compound eye is the feminist demand for expanded perception, for seeing what dominant systems have rendered invisible. Its metamorphosis is the philosophy of becoming that Simone de Beauvoir articulated and that feminist consciousness-raising practices enact. Its flight is the adaptive, multidirectional intelligence that feminist strategy requires. Its ecological sensitivity is the ecofeminist insistence that liberation cannot stop at human institutions. Its symbolic resonance across cultures and centuries is a reminder that the forms of knowledge noetic feminism seeks to recover have never been absent from human understanding, only from the institutions authorized to define what understanding means.

The Noetic Feminism Institute exists at the intersection of structural feminist analysis and epistemic transformation, asking what becomes possible when intuition is treated as data, when embodied knowledge is afforded the same respect as analytical reasoning, and when the soul is allowed to stand up alongside the mind. The dragonfly does not choose between water and air, between stillness and flight, between depth and breadth of vision. It inhabits all of them. It moves between them with a precision that rigid systems cannot replicate.

Perhaps the deepest lesson of the dragonfly is this: survival and transformation are not separate achievements. They are the same practice. The creature that endures is the creature that keeps becoming. The feminism that endures will be the feminism that does the same.

The dragonfly is not a logo. It is a philosophy of motion. ©

References

Alexander, D. E. (2002). Nature’s Flyers: Birds, Insects, and the Biomechanics of Flight. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Anderson, R. (2004). Intuitive Inquiry: An Epistemology of the Heart for Scientific Inquiry. The Humanistic Psychologist, 32(4), 307–341.

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge.

Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Abrams Press.

de Beauvoir, S. (1949). The Second Sex. Trans. Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier. Vintage Books, 2011.

Erwin, D. H. (1993). The Great Paleozoic Crisis: Life and Death in the Permian. Columbia University Press.

Grimaldi, D., and Engel, M. S. (2005). Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

hooks, b. (2000). Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. South End Press.

Keltner, D., and Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching Awe, a Moral, Spiritual, and Aesthetic Emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press.

Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. Harper and Row.

Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge.

Wiederman, S. D., Shoemaker, P. A., and O’Carroll, D. C. (2013). A Model for the Detection of Moving Targets in Visual Clutter Inspired by Insect Physiology. Current Biology, 23(24), 2560–2565.

Woolf, V. (1929). A Room of One’s Own. Hogarth Press.

Share this: