Nathaniel Manning
December 18, 2007
Methods of Religious Studies
A New Movement and A New Form of Religion
The definition of religion has evolved along with the methods of the study of
religion. Geertz defined religion as a system of symbols which establish moods and
motivations by constructing conceptions of the order of existence and then masking these
conceptions in facts such that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.1 Asad
then challenged this definition and put forth the idea that there can be no universal
definition of religion, coming to the conclusion that, “not only because its constituent
elements and relationships are historically specific, but moreover because that definition
is itself the historical product of discursive processes.”2 More recently, Bruce Lincoln, in
Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11, has offered up a definition of
religion that aims to appeal Asad’s objections to Geertz that any definition which gives
favor to any one aspect of a religion is inherently normalizing some specific traditions
and thus simultaneously dismissing others.3 Lincoln’s definition attempts to create a
holistic, flexible perspective of religion by incorporating four domains that cover
discourse, practice, community, and institution. Lincoln’s polythetic and versatile
definition can be applied to the countless religious traditions of the past, but can also be
used to better understand current movements and worldviews that have developed their
“a religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting
moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4)
clothing these conceptions with such as aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely
realistic.” Clifford Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System,” The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books,
New York. 1973. p90.
2
Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1993. pp27-54.
3
Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago. 2006. Second Ed. P5.
1
own sets of philosophy and practice, but are not labeled as religions by themselves or the
rest of the world. In this paper I aim to use Lincoln’s definition of religion to better
understand the modern environmentalist and social justice movement which has its own
set of values and practices and is currently taking shape throughout the world in a largely
unseen, but monumental manner.
In the early 21rst century, books such as The Philosophy of Sustainable Design,
by Jason F. Mclennan, Cradle to Cradle, by William McDonough and Michael
Braungart, and Natural Capitalism and Blessed Unrest, by Paul Hawken, have begun to
recognize and map out the values, philosophies, and emerging practices of the modern
environmentalist and social justice movements. Paul Hawken’s book, Blessed Unrest:
How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No one Saw it
Coming, explains how the environmental and social justice movement has silently taken
form from the multitudinous autonomous actions of the masses as a cohesive
conglomeration of specific ideas independently targeted but all grounded in the same
values. In so doing it has become the largest movement the world has ever seen, although
largely unnoticed by most due to its seemingly fragmented structure. It portrays how the
environmental and social justice movements are in fact the same movement such that
they both uphold the same core values of compassion and respect and have the same goal
of sustainability—defined as: “ensuring the future of life on earth, is an infinite game, the
endless expression of generosity on behalf of all.”4 Furthermore, the more general
definition of the word, sustainable, as a part of the greater movement has been generally
4
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No
one Saw it Coming. Viking Publishing, New York. 2007. p187.
accepted as, “good for all species, for all times.”5 Thus, based upon their core values and
similar goals and for the purpose of this paper I will call this inclusive movement of
environmental and social justice, the sustainable movement; knowing that the very nature
of this movement defines that it has no all-encompassing name because it inherently
incorporates the vast multitude of specific factions that work for explicit environmental
and social justice causes in the name of a sustainable, global civil society. For this very
reason, this movement can be perceived as comparable to a religion, in Asad’s definition,
because of its indefinable nature. Furthermore, by applying Lincoln’s phrasing from his
definition of religion to the sustainable movement, one could, at first glance, describe the
sustainable movement as a community with a diverse system of values and practices
aimed at achieving a proper world and grounded in a seemingly common discourse.
Thus, to further question the parallels of religion and the sustainable movement I will
attempt to view and compare it through the lens of Lincoln’s current religious definition.
Lincoln’s first domain in his definition of religion is: “A discourse whose
concerns transcend the human, temporal, and contingent, and that claims for itself a
similarly transcendent status.” 6 The discourse of the sustainable movement is founded in
the scientific worldview of reality. This worldview might not be labeled as ‘transcendent’
by Lincoln because it is based upon hypotheses, experiments, conclusions, calculations,
and human reason – in a sense the scientific method of discerning truth: “Astrophysicists,
for instance, do not engage in religious speech when they discuss cosmology, so long as
they frame their statements as hypotheses and provisional conclusions based on
5
Jason F. Mclennan, The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Ecotone Publishing, Kansas City. 2004. p5
Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago. 2006. Second Ed. P5
6
experimentation, calculation, and human reason.”7 Thus, it does not transcend the human,
temporal, and contingent, but instead is proven within the rational domain. However,
despite the methods of discovering such truths, science does claim for itself the status as
the one holder of the truth within secular, rational society. While science does stipulate
that it can only pose hypothesis and theories which are taken as truths until further
evidence is produced, at the same time it also claims for itself the only correct method of
discovering truth, a rational method of questions, experiments, and conclusions, and thus
only further scientific-rational evidence can prove these theories to be untrue. Therefore,
although science is different in method, it is still comparable, as the accepted truth within
the secular domain, to any transcendent claim that a religion might make about the nature
of reality based upon scripture, revelation, or immutable ancestral traditions.8
These scientific-rational claims about the nature of life which construct the
discourse and philosophies of the sustainable movement are primarily founded in two
scientific fields, ecology and biology. Ecology is the study of how living organisms
interact with one another and their environment while Biology examines the structure,
function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution of living things, or the study of life
itself; hence, the conclusions from each of these fields create a set of ideas that shape the
reality of the sustainable movement. Thus, the essential philosophy and/or discourse of
the sustainable movement is that we are nature, literally, in every molecule and neuron.9
This belief is equivalent to the transcendent beliefs of religion which, “position
7
Ibid. P5.
Ibid.. P5.
9
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No
one Saw it Coming. Viking Publishing, New York. 2007. p71
8
themselves as truths to be interpreted, but never ignored or rejected,”10 in that it creates
the reality in which the secular, scientific community views the world; yet simultaneously
it differs from a transcendent belief because it is rooted in the rational scientific method.
However, the scientific discourse is comparable to a religious transcendent discourse
because, while science, beholden to its own processes, claims its conclusions to be only
theories, those who believe in the truth of the rational, scientific method, then live their
lives and create their reality using these conclusions as truths. Validated by the rationally
proven conclusions of Ecology and Biology, the sustainable movement perceives humans
within the framework of nature, and thus views reality as an interconnected web of life.
The actions, movements, and lives of each individual organism, from the amoeba to the
human build upon and interact with one another to create an interdependent—
interconnected ecosystem that encompasses the entire earth. This principal philosophy of
interconnectivity and absolute dependence upon the well-being of the entire ecosystem in
turn creates the central values that shape the modern sustainable movement.
Lincoln’s second domain in his definition of religion is: “A set of practices whose
goal is to produce a proper world and/or proper human subjects, as defined by a
religious discourse to which these practices are connected.”11 The discourse of the
sustainable movement, as defined above, states that we are all connected through the
rationally, scientifically proven conclusions concerning the reality of nature and life on
earth: “We have a connection to nature that is inherent and essential to us.”12 This
discourse forges the framework upon which the goals and values of the sustainable
10
Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago. 2006. Second Ed. P6
11
Ibid. p6.
12
Jason F. Mclennan, The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Ecotone Publishing, Kansas City. 2004. P64
movement are built; the universal goals being the very same that Lincoln accredits
religion: to produce a proper world. In Blessed Unrest, Hawken clearly states the
aspirations of the movement today as: “The goal is to create a more resilient social and
economic understory in what is basically an oligarchic world, a powerful act that restores
a measure of autonomy and power to citizens.”13 In a sense, the goal of this movement is
to create a sustainable, global civil society that is founded in a set of values which grants
fundamental human rights to all living things both now and in the future. In the secular
world these values are born from and justified by the belief in the reality of science and
the interconnectedness of all-nature. At the core of all the seemingly disperse and
different organizations and groups within the sustainable movement are two principals:
The Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and the inherent
knowledge of the sacredness of all life within the balance of the ecosystem we call
earth.14 Each environmental or social justice group from saving the whales to stopping
the genocide in Darfur, from the multi-million dollar Nature Conservatory to the fight for
women’s rights in Afghanistan, from the civil rights movements of the 1960s to those
fighting against environmental degradation and climate change, all embody these two
values at their very essence. These groups which embody these values are independently
constructing a movement which aims for a sustainable, global civil society that
champions freedom and personal rights to health, choice, nature, and culture, for all
organisms living now and infinitely into the future. Thus, I call this movement the
sustainable movement because it aims to create a balanced, proper world in which all
humans first and foremost respect the role of all living things as an integral part of the
13
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No
one Saw it Coming. Viking Publishing, New York. 2007. p175
14
Ibid, p186.
interconnected ecosystem called earth, and thereby create a cyclical and sustainable
world in which the actions of humans mirror a universal principal value of respect for
The Golden Rule.
These core values create subsequent values that further help to form the character
of the sustainable movement and its perception of a proper world. A congruent theme
throughout these values is the concept of respect from which comes ideas of how to
design, govern, and act. For instance, the chapters of The Philosophy of Sustainable
Design are titled, Respect for the Wisdom of Natural Systems, Respect for People,
Respect for Place, Respect for the Cycle of Life, and Respect for Energy and Natural
Resources. Furthermore, the author, Jason Mclennan, leads off his chapter on Respect for
the Cycle of Life with the fitting quote: “All things in this creation exist within you, and
all things in you exist in creation: there is no border between you and the closest things,
and there is no distance between you and the farthest things, and all things, from the
lowest to the loftiest, from the smallest to the greatest, are within you as equal things.”15
From this unifying notion of respect comes the principals for design and creation, such as
waste = food. Looking to nature as the master of design one realizes that nature recycles
everything, there is nothing wasted, and nothing is thrown away because there is no away
in the cyclical design of nature. William McDonough, co-author of Cradle to Cradle,
states that “design is the first form of human intent.” The sustainable movement takes on
this concept of waste = food as a core principal for any respectful design or creation that
humans make and incorporate into this world. Furthermore, the sustainable movement
holds up the system of democracy as the correct governing system which can champion
the core values of The Golden Rule and the sacredness of life. Democracy, as a
15
Jason F. Mclennan, The Philosophy of Sustainable Design. Ecotone Publishing, Kansas City. 2004. P64
philosophy, aims to give all members equal freedom, rights, and respect, but moreover
accepts change and has the ability to adapt, as Hawken explains in Blessed Unrest:
“Every physical activity the human body sustains is a part of a cyclical, biological system
with a self-correcting bias. The same should be true of every social activity, with a
system of democracy.”16 These concepts of design and governance are united by the
overarching values of respect and compassion which aim to govern all action within the
sustainable movement. In Lincoln’s second domain, within his definition of religion, he
claims that no actions are inherently religious but instead acquire religious character
when connected to the religious discourse. In this different but parallel movement these
actions and values of compassion, respect, design, and governance are religious in a
sense, because they are interwoven and connected to the discourse and philosophy of the
movement. A discourse which states that all living things are connected and
interdependent through nature, because we all, simultaneously, call this place, earth,
home.
Lincoln’s third domain in his definition of religion states: “A community whose
members construct their identity with reference to a religious discourse and its attendant
practices.”17 The sustainable movement is a community with no name. While I have
chosen to call it the “sustainable movement” it is in fact a nameless community because it
is a construction of groups and organizations that, on the surface, seem to have entirely
different goals and objectives. While some groups such as those working for women’s
rights might not at first seem to have the same values as a group of architects who follow
16
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No
one Saw it Coming. Viking Publishing, New York. 2007. p179
17
Bruce Lincoln, Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago. 2006. Second Ed. p6
the principals of sustainable design such as waste = food, they both in fact relate on the
common ground of The Golden Rule and the sacredness of all life both now and in the
future. Hence, if we follow the rationale of The Golden Rule, a woman should have the
same rights as a man, and our children and our children’s children should have the same
right to a clean, healthy earth with renewable natural resources as all those who have
come before us. Expanding further, a woman living now should have the same right to a
clean, healthy earth as any woman in generations to come. This movement diverges here
from Lincoln’s definition of religion in that it is not a community with a top-down
construction of specific practices that create borders which hold one group separate from
another. These differences between groups do not form lines which allow one group to
mark another as ‘other.’ 18 The differences between the groups and individuals which
make up the sustainable movement are not defining practices which constitute specific
actions as faithful and righteous, but instead are accepted differing paths that aim to
achieve the same goals of a proper world – a sustainable, global civil society.
This movement, however, does fall under Lincoln’s third domain in that it is a
community, although diverse and dispersed, that acts upon the same discourse of
interconnectivity, whether those practitioners define it to be true due to the model of
science and nature, or for any other reason. Many current day religions uphold these same
values; however, they are clouded by institutional practices that are held on the same
level of importance when concerning faith as the values and discourse of the religion. In
fact, the discourses of many religious communities come to the same philosophical
conclusions of interconnectivity which science proves through rationality, but as Hawken
points out, how one arrives upon this conclusion is not the source of diversity:
18
Ibid. P5
Just as the human body cannot be explained or managed by
conventional means, neither can humanity…The exquisite integration
of movement, thought, physiology, sight, touch, and metabolism
superseded the complexity of any other system we can imagine.
Something operates us, but what? Is it not the free flow of brilliant and
ancient information, an involuntary and endemic intelligence freely
exchanged on the cellular and intracellular level? This is the system in
which we should place our faith, because it is the only system that has
ever work eternally. If this enlightening, enlivening pulse is God, then
may we get on our knees and give thanks night and day. If it is Allah,
may we face the east five times between sunup and sundown to humble
ourselves. If it is Yahweh, may we touch the Holy Wall and shed tears
of gratitude. If it is biology, may science touch the sacred. I believe it is
all of these, but whatever it may be to each person, and however we
know it, it is not knowable.19
The connecting factor is that each group must live, act, and practice according to this idea
of complete interdependency and the two central values which is demands, and not
convolute their innate values with differing ideas of practice or community. This
movement differs from a religion in that its rational discourse is a method of validation
not a requirement. The identity of the sustainable community is thus inclusive to other
discourses and practices, because it focuses on the ideas produced and does not demand
that everyone arrive to those ideas along the same objectively-justifying scientific path.
Lincoln’s fourth domain in his definition of religion builds upon his third, and
states: “An institution that regulates religious discourse, practices, and community,
reproducing them over time and modifying them as necessary, while asserting their
eternal validity and transcendent value.”20 The sustainable movement diverges
completely here from the definition of religion because it is not an institutional ideology.
The sustainable movement is unified by a connection of ideas not of ideologies, which
Hawken defines as: “the vast difference between the two; ideas question and liberate,
19
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No
one Saw it Coming. Viking Publishing, New York. 2007. p177
20
Ibid. P7
while ideologies justify and dictate.”21 Or, in Lincoln’s words, institutional ideologies
regulate discourse, practices, and community and assert validity. The sustainable
movement, on the other hand, is a bottom-up system, in that it a mélange of people and
groups that are connected through a common set of ideas and values. These groups first
cohere through their values, which are founded in the philosophy of interconnection, and
are in turn defined by the scientific, secular world through a rational method of questions,
experiments, and theories. The key difference is that these groups don’t necessarily
believe firstly in the discourse (however many of them do), but instead in the values that
are born from this rationally-proven philosophy. These values and ideas construct the
movement, instead of an institution that regulates and asserts validity. This movement,
unlike institutional religions, thrives on diversity and the natural evolution of ideas to
construct its diverse membership: “Ecologists and biologists know that systems achieve
stability and health through diversity, not uniformity. Ideologues take the opposite
view.”22 The movement does not offer up one institutional idea that builds a community,
instead it offers up the universal values of The Golden Rule and the sacredness of life for
both now and in the future, and then those who find the merit in these values constructs a
vast number of ideas and paths to help achieve and further their specific goals which
together construct this movement.
The sustainable movement is inherently different because it is foremost centered
around a set of values and a larger goal to produce a proper world, not an eternal validity
21
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No
one Saw it Coming. Viking Publishing, New York. 2007. p16. Quoting footnote 11: Louis Menand, The
Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. 2001. p. xii.
22
Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No
one Saw it Coming. Viking Publishing, New York. 2007. p16.
of a transcendent claim and a set of institutional practices which adhere to this claim.
Hawken describes one of the fundamental differences as:
This movement’s key contribution is the rejection of one big idea in
order to offer in its place thousands of practical and useful ones. Instead
of isms it offers, processes, concerns, and compassion. The movement
demonstrates a pliable, resonant, and generous side of humanity. It does
not aim for the utopian, which itself is just another ism, but is
eminently pragmatic.23
This movement further mirrors nature in its understanding of its own balance; in nature
the sacred life of a deer might seem to be sacrificed for the life of a wolf, but it is the
ecosystem that must be preserved and protected. The sustainable movement is pragmatic
in that it unifies around the values of the sacredness of life, and thus aims to give the
equal right to life within the greater ecosystem. It does not pretend to be aiming to create
a utopian society in which there is no death, but instead rationally coalesces through the
shared values of creating a proper world – a sustainable, global civil society – in which
there is an equal right to life within the greater ecosystem called earth: “Life is the most
fundamental human right, and all of the movements within the movement are dedicated
to creating the conditions for life, conditions that include livelihood, food, security,
peace, a stable environment, and freedom from external tyranny. Whenever and wherever
that right is violated, human beings rise up.”24 The sustainable movement does not fall
under the past definitions of religion because it is not connected through an institution
which regulates its discourse and transcendently validates its conceptions of reality.
Instead it is a massively diverse amalgamation of differing practices and communities
whose discourse is proven within the secular world in a rational manner through
hypothesis, experimentation and provisional conclusion; a movement which rationally
23
24
Ibid. p17
Ibid. p68
aims to create a proper (not-utopian) world, encourages evolving ideas and diverse
opinions, and is foremost united by its core values, not its discourse or practice.
Perhaps the sustainable movement, as I have taken the liberty to call it, cannot be
defined as a religion of the past according to current scholars’ definitions, but instead is a
religion of the future. This religion would be defined as a unified collection of groups and
individuals who aim to create a proper world through a shared system of values that
support a sustainable, global civil society and are objectively justified by nature and
science–a rational system of theories and conclusions that continually evolves along with
society and earth through challenging thoughts and evidence. However, because science
would be an objective method of the definition of reality and not a transcendent claim, it
would not necessarily denote that it is the only path to belief in this discourse, and thus
does not inherently create a conflict in philosophy. This definition could fit a global
concept of religion that does not create boundaries or exclusions based upon top-down
institutions rooted in un-evolving discourses or philosophies which were defined in the
past. Religion, itself, must evolve as a concept to be able to mature with the secular
world. Indeed, as Hawken suggests, maybe it is happening without anyone noticing: “It
has been said that we cannot save our planet unless humankind undergoes a widespread
spiritual and religious awakening. In other words, fixes won’t fix unless we fix our souls
as well. So let’s ask ourselves this question: Would we recognize a spiritual awakening if
we saw one? Or let me put the question another way: What if there is already in place a
large-scale spiritual awakening and we are simply not recognizing it?” Perhaps the
definition of religion can evolve along with religion itself. Perhaps religion can become
an unknowable movement of enormous diversity that upholds universal values, respects
its differing practices, and realize its foremost purpose: to create a proper world.