Controversies
Buddhist Ecology and Environmentalism as Spiritual Ecology
The subject of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism is only part of a much broader and more diverse intellectual, spiritual, and practical arena of activities focused on the relationships between world religions and nature that is sometimes called spiritual ecology (Sponsel 2001a). To better understand Buddhist ecology and environmentalism, including some of the controversy it entails, the larger subject of spiritual ecology must be considered.
Ecotheology and Environmental Ethics
While spiritual ecology has ancient roots (Kinsley 1995), at least in the realm of modern academia a convenient starting point is a provocative article by Lynn White, Jr., titled "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," which was prominently published in the prestigious journal Science in 1967. It quickly became a classic and is debated to this day. [White (1907-1987) was a history professor at the University of California in Los Angeles and a specialist on medieval Europe (Hall 1988, Nelson 2001)].
White's (1967:1205) mentalist thesis is that: "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny--- that is, by religion." [See Eckberg and Blocker 1989, Holm and Bowker 1994, Proctor and Berry 2004, Tuan 1968, 1974]. White (1967:1206) continues: "More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion or rethink our old one" (cf. Mander 1991, Postman 1992).
Accordingly, White pointed to two possibilities to help resolve the environmental crisis, rethinking Christianity in the light of St. Francis (see below), or considering other religions which might be more environmentally friendly (e.g., Suzuki 1953). In his entire essay White devoted only two sentences to Zen Buddhism as one alternative, but six paragraphs to St. Francis as the Christian alternative. This is what White (1967:1206) wrote about Zen:
The beatniks, who are the basic revolutionaries of our time, show a sound instinct in their affinity for Zen Buddhism, which conceives of the man-nature relationship as very nearly the mirror of the Christian view. Zen, however, is as deeply conditioned by Asian history as Christianity is by the experience of the West, and I am dubious of its viability among us.
That last phrase, plus the relative amount of attention to Zen compared to St. Francis, makes White's choice of an alternative for the West clear. This is not surprising, since besides being an extraordinarily astute and bold historian able to examine the larger picture and pose questions as profound as challenging, White was also a Christian. His father had been a member of the clergy, and White earned an M.A. from the Union Theological Seminary. He also held the M.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard University.
Nevertheless, in a follow up reflection, White (1973:55) mentions an incident that impressed him about Buddhism. In 1926, while in Ceylon (now called Sri Lanka) he observed in an area of construction that cones of earth had been left on a new road. Upon inquiry he was told that each cone surrounded a snake's nest. The workmen were local Buddhists who believed that the snakes should not be disturbed until they left their earth homes on their own accord. White speculated that the snakes would probably have been harmed if the colonial supervisors from Scotland who were likely Presbyterians wielded the shovels instead. This incident stimulated White to begin considering how the attitudes toward nature of religions differ. Eventually this led to his famous essay.
White (1967:1207) provocatively concluded his essay as follows:
Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecological crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny. The profoundly religious, but heretical, sense of the primitive Franciscans for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature may point a direction. I propose Francis as a patron saint for ecologists [emphasis added].
Unfortunately, White's essay is usually recognized most of all, if not exclusively, for his argument that the majority of Christians tend to interpret the creation account as giving humans free license to aggressively dominate and rapaciously exploit nature for their own selfish benefit (cf. Cohen 1989). In other words, Christianity sanctioned and enforced the attitude toward nature that humans are unique and superior, and accordingly, they should subdue and dominate nature. This is supposedly the primary source of the anthropocentric and egocentric environmental ethics of Western civilization. However, his thesis was more complex, and clearly implicated science and technology in synergy with religion and also democratic culture (White 1967:1204). The latter phrase is probably a code word White used for capitalism. (Also see Weber 1930). In any case, a debate erupted which persists to this day as Christian apologists marshalled a systematic attack to counter the parts of White's thesis which pointed to Christianity as responsible for the environmental crisis. In turn, this heated controversy was undoubtedly one major factor in the development of the fields of Christian ecotheology in particular and environmental ethics and spiritual ecology more generally (des Jardins 2001, Hargrove 1986a, Kinsley 1995). [For further discussion on this controversy see Cohen 1989, Eckerg and Blocker 1989, Hargrove 1986, Hessel and Ruether 2000, Kinsley 1995, McPherson 1991, Nelson 2001, Passmore 1974, Spring and Spring 1974, Whelan, et al., 1996, White 1973. Also see Toynbee 1972 who appears to have developed similar ideas independently of White].
However, what is usually completely missed, or at least mostly neglected by superficial, incomplete, biased, or reactionary reading of White's essay, is the fact that he did not totally dismiss the possibility that religion could have some positive relevance for resolving the environmental crisis as well, nor did he reject Christianity in particular. Indeed, he went so far as to propose the medieval Italian monk St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) as the patron saint of ecology. White (1967:1206-1207) described St. Francis as "the greatest radical in Christian history since Christ...." The provocative ideas about spiritual ecology of St. Francis himself did not generate a major eco-revolution within his religion of Catholicism. Undoubtedly the world would be quite a different place had this happened. [See Armstrong 1973, Hughes 1996, Le Goff 2004, Linzey and Barsam 2001, Nothwehr 1998, Sorrell 1988].
While some praised White for posing fundamental and challenging questions in relation to the environmental crisis and religion, others denounced his ideas, some to the extreme as anti-Christ, destructive of Christianity, and communist (White 1973:60). In any event, White's ideas continue to be reflected in subsequent works in environmental philosophy and ethics, environmental studies, spiritual ecology, and related endeavors. As just one example, Shrader-Frechette (1981:28) asserts that "How to view man's relationship to the environment is one of the great moral problems of our time."
Spiritual Ecology
In recent years, however, in marked contrast to the controversy of Christian ecotheology ignited by White's essay, there has been a complete turn around in at least two decisive respects (cf. Hargrove 1986a:xvii). First, religion is being explored as part of the solution to the crisis, rather than blamed as the cause. Second, instead of singling out any particular religion, every religion is considered to be a potential source for its own adherents to derive the principles for a more ecologically viable and effective ethic in dealing with the environmental problems and issues they face as well as for constructing a more sustainable and greener society. Of course, this assumes the best, rather than the worst of religion. [See Coward 2003, The Economist 1996, Edwards and Palmer 1991, Gardner 2002, McPherson 1991, Nash 1989, Pedersen 1998, Sponsel 2001, 2005, Tucker 1997, 2003, Tucker and Grim 1998, Alliance of Religions and Conservation http://www.wwf.org.uk, Forum on Religion and Ecology http://environment.harvard.edu/religion, Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, Taylor 2004 http://www.religionandnature.com].
Accordingly, spiritual ecology may be variously characterized as positive, constructive, optimistic, holistic, eclectic, pluralistic, relativistic, and comparative. Also, for some individuals and organizations, spiritual ecology extends beyond basic research and scholarship to embrace practice, application, and action. Scientists, scholars, educators, clerics, adherents, politicians, and others are each probing into the religion and/or spirituality of themselves and/or others to discover elements to construct far more ecologically viable and effective world views, attitudes, values, and practices than are currently manifest (e.g., Callicott 1994). This revitalization movement is not necessarily offered instead of previous secular approaches, but rather in addition to them as a complement. The hope is that an appeal to religion can finally turn things around for the better and at least reduce, if not completely resolve, the persistent and worsening ecocrisis. As Gary Gardner (2002:7-8) observes:
Worldwide, the major faiths are issuing declarations, advocating new national policies, and designing educational activities in support of a sustainable world, sometimes in partnership with secular environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, sometimes on their own. Responding to the global crisis, smaller traditions are reviving ancient rituals and practices in the service of sustainability. The quickening of religious interest in environmental issues suggests that a powerful new political alignment may be emerging, one that could greatly strengthen the effort to build a sustainable world.
[Gardner provides a very useful critical analysis of the common interests, differences, potentials, and limitations underlying the emerging alliance between religious and environmental organizations].
As might be expected, the volume and momentum of spiritual ecology which has been accelerating since the 1990s has attracted the attention for various reasons of a diversity of opponents. Their criticism, skepticism, negativity, and antagonism regarding spiritual ecology falls into two general categories, anti-religious and religious. Buddhist ecology and environmentalism is often targeted, at least implicitly, if not explicitly.
Anti-religious critics are based on one or more of these persuasions: secularism, skepticism, rationalism, nihilism, humanism, scientism, materialism, and Marxism (Haught 1990:199-250, Lewis 1996, Postman 1992, Smith 2001, Schneider 1989, and Stenmark 1997). Unfortunately, here space does not allow a discussion of each of these in turn, but scientism in particular deserves at least a little attention. Those who ascribe to scientism in effect worship science in a quasi-religious manner as the exclusive path to knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and truth. Science along with technology and other secular and materialist avenues are considered to be the only solution to the environmental crisis. Of course, science, technology, government, business, industry, and so on are just as much a part of the problem as a part of the solution. Their toxification of the natural environment is what troubled biologist Rachel Carson (1962) in her landmark book Silent Spring, for example (Sponsel 2001b). Furthermore, since the first Earth Day in 1970, the environmental crisis has gotten progressively worse, not better, this despite numerous and diverse secular initiatives. Nevertheless, those who pursue scientism assert that spiritual ecology is unscientific, unacademic, subjective, and irrational. However, these characterizations often apply to opponents of spiritual ecology who have not examined the subject with any care and/or lack an open mind, attributes that are actually contrary to scientific and academic pursuits (e.g., Lett 1997).
The Noble Other, Indigenous and Oriental
Largely within the anti-religious camp, but sometimes also in the religious opposition, there are critics who dismiss spiritual ecology as idealistic, romanticism, simplistic, and the like. One of their main lines of attack is the assertion that champions of spiritual ecology are unrealistic in naively thinking that Buddhist or other societies, such as animistic indigenes, are in harmony, balance, or equilibrium with their natural environments (e.g., Kalland 1993, 2003a,b, Lohman 1993, Pedersen 1995). However, these anti-idealists usually ignore the details of the cultural, historical, and spiritual ecology of many societies which have survived and prospered for centuries or even millennia without depleting natural resources and degrading environments irreversibly (IUCN 1997, Sponsel 1998, 2001b, 2004). These antagonists concentrate instead on striking examples of environmental destruction, such as Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions which appear to coincide with the aboriginal colonization of new frontiers like the Americas and Australia in prehistory (e.g., Kretch 1999). A few cases of anthropogenic environmental destruction are naively generalized to the assertion that human nature is anti-nature, the stance labeled as "Homo devastans" by anthropologist William Balee (1998). The proponents of the Homo devastans position assert that only population size and technological capacity limit the environmental impact of a society. Also proponents ignore religion including a culture's world view, attitudes, and values regarding nature, a deficiency reflecting their materialist bias and/or ignorance. (Also see Headland 1997, Redford 1991, Redman 1999, Smith and Wishnie 2000).
Some critics, in marshalling their own theoretical (and often ideologically based) arguments, have taken points from the publications of others out of their original context, disregarded nuances of the latter, over-simplified them, and thereby distorted them and spread misinformation. A case in point is anthropologist Arne Kalland (2003a,b) who constructs a strawman argument with the problematic dichotomies of the "Noble/Ignoble Other" and "Oriental/West." Kalland simplistically depicts the "Ignoble Other" as scientific fact, and the "Noble Other" as myth. He is just as uncritical of the "Ignoble Other" as he is critical of the "Noble Other," and that is hypocritical.
Kalland draws on publications such as anthropologist Shepard Kretch's (1999) book The Ecological Indian: Myth and History to try to refute the idea of the indigenous ecologically "Noble Other." Kalland follows Kretch uncritically, whereas the book has been exposed as problematic in many respects (e.g., Deloria 2000). (Also see Buege 1996, Grinde and Johansen 1995). As Sponsel (2004) states:
In conclusion, whether it is the relationship of "savages" to one another within or among societies, or with nature, Westerners tend to emphasize either the positive or negative image. That is, "savages" exemplify a life of harmony socially and ecologically far more than any other culture, or else they are antithetical to sociality and nature. In reality, however, the world is far more complicated, varied, and variable than to sustain such all-or-none and always-or-never postures. Either pole, the "noble savage" or the "ignoble savage," is simplistic, dualistic, reductionist, and essentializing. Extremists ignore the tremendous variations among and within the up to 7,000 distinct cultures extant today. It is far more scholarly and scientific to consider this great diversity through particular cases, rather than to over-generalize in either idealistic or derogatory excess (e.g., Buege 1996). Both the noble and the ignoble representations of the "primitive" need to be scrutinized for the possibility of a hidden agenda and its consequences as well as deconstructed and thereby demystified.
In the case of the "Oriental Noble Other," Kalland (2003a:7, 2003b:166-167) refers in particular to one of our own publications where we clearly state: "This weakening of adherence to tradition in Thailand has been referred to as a "moral collapse" in a benchmark symposium on cultural ecology sponsored by the Siam Society (Kunstadter 1989)" (Sponsel and Natadecha-Sponsel 1993:87-88). Kalland (2003a:7) mistakenly attributes the thesis of "moral collapse" to us. Actually we were not able to attend the symposium and were just reporting one of the major conclusions from the last chapter of the published proceedings which summarizes them (Kunstadter 1989:548-550). Kalland's allegation that this conclusion is an instance of Westerners idealizing or romanticizing the traditional "Oriental Noble Other" is false. Although the symposium was international, in fact the majority of the participants were Thai. Also one of us, Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel, is a Buddhist born in Thailand where she resided for the first half of her life until moving to Hawai`i. We visit relatives and pursue field research yearly in Thailand. The other co-author, Leslie Sponsel, is a German American and Buddhist. The two of us do not fit Kalland's East/West dichotomy.
In part as a follow up to this conclusion of the Siam Society symposium, we constructed a diagram as a heuristic model comparing and contrasting some pivotal attributes of Buddhist and Western world views, values, and related phenomena. In one of his publications Kalland (2003b:167) replicates this diagram without permission, and in an otherwise essentially identical passage in another publication Kalland (2003a:7) reformulates the model as a table with the omission of crucial data regarding biodiversity, biopoverty, and extinction trends. Our model was constructed in an attempt to help clarify relationships and develop hypotheses for testing with data. Such models are intended to simplify reality because it is impossible to deal with the entire range of complexity for any given phenomenon. However, we cautioned that this represents generic Buddhism, and disregards the variation among its 18 schools (Sponsel and Natadecha Sponsel 1993:809). We also acknowledged the complexity of environmental problems in Thailand, like deforestation which has multiple causes, the specific combination varying in time and space in that country (Sponsel and Natadehca-Sponsel 1993:87). We stated that: "... most societies in Thailand have apparently been in a relative condition of dynamic ecological equilibrium for millennia throughout most of the human prehistory and history of the region" (Sponsel and Natadecha-Sponsel 1993:86). Kalland (2003a:7) simplifies this statement, omitting some of our crucial qualifiers: "In their analysis Thailand remained in a "dynamic ecological equilibrium for millennia" (p.86) until the introduction of western modernization about 200 years ago." In fact, we specified that, apparently, there was a relative condition of dynamic equilibrium for most societies in the region during most of the time until Western influences accelerated, not all of Thailand for all time until 200 years ago. Moreover, our model was tested and successfully demonstrated in a subsequent detailed analysis of the historical ecology of Thailand that Kalland does not consider (Sponsel 1998).
For the record, it should also be noted that our 1993 publication obviously dealt with the case of Thailand. Given that our fieldwork on spiritual ecology has been concentrated in Thailand and that 95% of the Thai population identifies itself as Buddhist, we naturally focused on that religion. However, in the same publication we noted that many different religions have the potential to contribute to the development of a viable environmental ethic for biodiversity conservation for their adherents (Sponsel and Natadecha-Sponsel 1993:78). (Also see Sponsel 2001a, 2005). We certainly did not and would not argue that Buddhism alone can save the biodiversity of the entire world, contrary to Kalland's implication as he ignores the context of Thailand which was clearly the specific geographical focus of our publication. (Also see Broswimmmer 2002 and Sponsel 2001b). Lastly, Kalland's (2003a:7, 2003b:166) allegation that we blame Western influence for all ills and allow no merit whatsoever for modernization is absurd. The Siam Society symposium participants were critical of indiscriminate acceptance of Westernization, but did not totally reject the West. We ourselves recognize that there are both positive and negative things in every society, and we enjoy the positive in both American and Thai society as well as in Buddhism just as we are critical of the negative in all of them (cf. Edgerton 1992). In short, Kalland's caricature of our study is reminiscent of the many careless and reactionary misreadings of White's essay mentioned earlier, and unfortunately, such inaccuracy generates confusion rather than understanding.
The religious opposition to spiritual ecology, and in some cases to Buddhist ecology and environmentalism, comes mostly from the apologists for Christianity who react defensively against White's assertion that their religion is primarily to blame for the world's environmental crisis. Also they summarily reject the gamut of possible alternative religions from Buddhism to neo-paganism (e.g., Whelan, et al., 1996). Here it is not necessary to pay further attention to this set of critics. (The example of Ian Harris is considered in detail in Resource 10).
Buddhologists and/or Buddhists
The third domain of criticism, one specific to Buddhism, comes from some students of Buddhism (Buddhologists) on basically two counts. First, they assert that contemporary concerns regarding nature and environment are uniquely modern, Buddhism is not directly applicable, and attempts to apply it are appropriations which distort its doctrines, traditions, and texts. Second, they allege that Buddhism involves an individual quest for enlightenment that is merely escapist and consequently oblivious to practical social concerns like environmentalism. Accordingly, they dismiss the entire matter of socially engaged Buddhism. [Enough material which counters these two points has already been presented in our short article in this encyclopedia, and even more arguments and evidence are available in the expanded version (see Resources 10). The argument of the most vocal and persistent critic, Ian Harris, is also discussed and refuted in detail in Resource 10].
There is also an ongoing debate as to who is in the best position to know and understand Buddhism: (1) Buddhists who are not scholars but study and practice Buddhism in their daily lives; (2) scholars who are not practitioners but formally schooled as academics and often with the ability to read the sacred texts in their original language(s); or (3) individuals who are both practitioners and scholars of Buddhism (Swearer and Promta 2000, Wallace 2000)? Our answer is that in general these are complementary rather than competing perspectives, and that taken together they provide a better understanding of Buddhism. This issue also enters the criticisms of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism, some scholars, for example, claiming that practitioners who are environmentalists are not faithful to the ancient texts, doctrines, and traditions of Buddhism.
Sand Castles
The environmental crisis is far too grave and urgent for attention to be diverted from it by spurious criticisms, petty turf battles, egomania, religious bias, and the like. The Buddha's allegory of sand castles is as pertinent here as in many other situations. To paraphrase the allegory, children playing along a river shore each constructed their own individual sand castle which they aggressively defended from others who might intrude on it or damage it. Ugly fights broke out among the children over their individual property and territory. However, at the end of the day as dusk approached, each child no longer cared about defending and preserving the castle, each destroyed his own castle, and then left for home. (For the original story see Kornfield and Fronsdal 1996:16).
In any case, constructive criticisms, informed debates, and serious controversies can be very useful because in the course of defending one's own argument it may be strengthened by elaborating further the reasoning and evidence, or, it may be rejected in favor of a better alternative. Thus, students and proponents of spiritual ecology in general, and of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism in particular, should be grateful for any genuine criticisms. Furthermore, the discussion is even exhilarating, since the opposition to these subjects comes from so many directions as this essay has revealed.
Future
In conclusion, we may speculate on the future of the relationship between religions and nature in general, and those of the East and West in particular? It is unlikely that any Eastern religions will replace any of those of the West, or vice versa, because time has proven that the faithful masses are far too tenacious. Perhaps some convergence, or even synthesis, of world religions may evolve, focused on underlying commonalities of spiritual ecology (see Basett, et al. 2000:78, Kinsley 1995:227-232, Pedersen 1998:281). Another possibility is that a completely new religion may evolve and gain an increased following from a substantial portion of humanity, it wouldn't be the first time (e.g., Crosby 2002). A remote possibility is that humanity may transcend religion into a completely secular world view with associated attitudes and values regarding nature, perhaps a form of environmentalism under the stress of an ecological apocalypse with the synergetic impacts of global warming. While no one can be certain about such future directions, it does seem probable that, as White predicted, some fundamental changes in the relationship between humans and nature are necessary if they are to survive and prosper (Ayres 1999, Barney 2000, Wilson 2003). We are pleased to join many others in critically analyzing the relevance of Buddhism for the environment and nature for Buddhists, and we hope that those who have only an intellectual interest in Buddhism will find our work useful too. For readers interested in spiritual ecology and/or committed to another religion, some of the references we provide below should prove helpful.
References Cited
Alliance of Religion and Conservation
Armstrong, Edward A. Saint Francis: Nature Mystic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
Ayres, Ed. God's Last Offer: Negotiating for a Sustainable Future. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1999.
Balee, William. "Historical Ecology: Premises and Postulates." Advances in Historical Ecology. Ed. William Balee. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998, 13-29.
Barney, Gerald O. Threshold 2000: Critical Issues and Spiritual Values for a Global Age. Ada: CoNexus Press, 2000.
Bassett, Libby, John T. Brinkman, and Kusumita P. Pedersen, Eds. Earth and Faith: A Book of Reflection for Action. New York: United Nations Environmental Programme Interfaith Partnership for the Environment, 2000.
Broswimmer, Franz J. Ecocide: A Short History of the Mass Extinction of Species. Sterling: Pluto Press, 2002.
Buege, Douglas J. "The Ecologically Noble Savage Revisited." Environmental Ethics 18(1):71-88.
Callicott, J. Baird. Earth's Insights: A Multidisciplinary Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1962.
Cohen, Jeremy. "Be Fruitful and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It": The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Coward, Harold. "Ethics and Nature in the World's Religions." Environment Across Cultures. Eds. Eckart Ehlers and Carl F. Gethmann. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2003, 91-109.
Crosby, Donald A. A Religion of Nature. Albany: State University of New York, 2002.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. "The Speculations of Krech." Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion 4.III(2000):283-293.
Des Jardins, Joseph R. Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001.
Edgerton, Robert B. Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony. New York: Free Press, 1992.
Edwards, Jo, and Martin Palmer, Eds. Holy Ground: The Guide to Faith and Ecology. Northamptonshire: Pilkington Press, 1997.
Eckberg, Douglas Lee, and T. Jean Blocker. "Varieties of Religious Involvement and Environmental Concerns: Testing the Lynn White Thesis." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28.4(1989):509-517.
The Economist. "Godliness and Greenness." The Economist 341.7997(December 21, 1996):108-110.
Forum on Religion and Ecology, Harvard University
<http:// environment.harvard.edu/religion>.
Gardner, Gary. Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Paper 164, 2002.
Grinde, Donald A., and Bruce E. Johansen. "Native Americans" America's First Ecologists?" Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 1995, 22-55.
Hall, Bert S. "Lynn White, Jr., April 1907-March 1987." ISIS 79.3(1988):478-481.
Hargrove, Eugene C. "Religion and Environmental Ethics: Beyond the Lynn White Debate." Religion and Environmental Crisis. Ed. Eugene C. Hargrove. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1986a, ix-xix.
Hargrove, Eugene C., Ed. Religion and Environmental Crisis. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1986b.
Haught, John F. What is Religion? An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990.
Headland, Thomas N. "Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology." Current Anthropology 38.4(August-October 1997):605-630.
Hessel, Dieter T., and Rosemary Radford Ruether, Eds. Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Being of Earth and Humans, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Holm, Jean, and John Bowker, Eds., Attitudes to Nature. New York: St. Martin's Press/Pinter Publishers, 1994.
Kalland, Arne, 1993 (December), "Whale Politics and Green Legitimacy: A Critique of the Anti-Whaling Campaign," Anthropology Today 9(6):3-7.
Kalland, Arne. "Environmentalism and Images of the Other." Nature Across Cultures: Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures. Ed. Helaine Selin. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003a, 1-17.
Kalland, Arne. "Anthropology and the Concept of `Sustainability': Some Reflections." Imagining Nature: Practices of Cosmology and Identity. Eds. Andreas Roepstorff, Nils Bubandt, and Kalevi Kull. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2003b, 161-177.
Kinsley, David. Ecology and Religion: Ecological Spirituality in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
Kornfield, Jack, and Gil Fronsdal, Eds. Teachings of the Buddha. Boston: Shambhala, 1996.
Kretch, Shepard III. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1999.
Kundstadter, Peter. "The End of the Frontier: Culture and Environment Interactions in Thailand." Culture and Environment in Thailand. Ed. Siam Society. Bangkok: Siam Society, 1989, 543-552.
Le Goff, Jacques. Saint Francis of Assisi. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Lett, James. "Science, Religion, and Anthropology." Anthropology of Religion: Handbook. Ed. Stephen D. Glazier. Westport: Praeger, 1997, 103-120.
Lewis, Martin W. "Radical Environmental Philosophy and the Assault on Reason." The Flight from Science and Reason. Eds. Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 775:209-230.
Linzey, Andrew, and Ara Barsam. "Saint Francis of Assisi 1181/2-1226." Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment. Ed. Joy A. Palmer. New York: Routledge, 2001, 22-27.
Lohmann, Larry. "Green Orientalism." The Ecologist 23.6(1993):202-204.
Mander, Jerry. In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1991.
McPherson, James. "Ecumenical Discussion of the Environment 1966-1987." Modern Theology 7.4(1991):363-371.
Nash, Roderick F. "The Greening of Religion." The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989, 87-120.
Nelson, Michael P. "Lynn White, Jr., 1907-87)." Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment. Ed. Joy A. Palmer. New York: Routledge, 2001, 200-205.
Nothwehr, Dawn M., Ed. Franciscan Theology of the Environment: An Introductory Reader. Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1998.
Palmer, Joy A., Ed. Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment. New York, NY: Routledge, 2001.
Passmore, John. Man's Responsibility for Nature: Ecological Problems and Western Traditions. New York: Scribner's Sons, 1974.
Pedersen, Kusumita P. "Environmental Ethics in Interreligious Perspective." Exploration in Global Ethics: Comparative Religious and Interreligious Dialogue. Sumner B. Twiss and Bruce Grelle, Eds. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998, 253-290.
Pedersen, Poul. "Nature, Religion and Cultural Identity: The Religious Environmentalist Paradigm." Asian Perceptions of Nature: A Critical Approach. Eds. Ole Bruun and Arne Kalland. Richmond: Curzon, 1995, 258-276.
Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf, 1992.
Proctor, James D., and Evan Berry. "Social Science on Religion and Nature." Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. Ed. Bron Taylor, et al. New York: Continuum Press, 2005.
Redford, Kent H. "The Ecologically Noble Savage." Cultural Survival Quarterly 15(1):46-48.
Redman, Charles L. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1999.
Schneiders, Sandra M. "Spirituality in the Academy." Theological Studies 59.4(1989):676-697.
Shrader-Frechette, K.S. Environmental Ethics. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood Press, 1981.
Smith, Eric Alden, and Mark Wishnie. "Conservation and Subsistence in Small-Scale Societies." Annual Review of Anthropology 29(2000):493-524.
Smith, Huston. Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Sorrell, Roger. St. Francis of Assisi and Nature. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Sponsel, Leslie E. "The Historical Ecology of Thailand: Increasing Thresholds of Human Environmental Impact from Prehistory to the Present." Advances in Historical Ecology. Ed. William Balee. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998, 376-404.
Sponsel, Leslie E. "Do Anthropologists Need Religion, and Vice Versa? Adventures and Dangers in Spiritual Ecology." New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections. Ed. Carole L. Crumley. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2001a, 177-200.
Sponsel, Leslie E. "Human Impact on Biodiversity, Overview." Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Ed. Simon Asher Levin. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001b, 3:395-409.
Sponsel, Leslie E. "The Noble Savage." Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. Eds. Bron Taylor, et al. New York: Continuum Press, 2004 (in press).
Sponsel, Leslie E. "Religion and Nature." Handbook on the Psychology of Religion. Ed. David M. Wulff. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 (in press).
Sponsel, Leslie E., and Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel. "The Potential Contribution of Buddhism in Developing an Environmental Ethic for the Conservation of Biodiversity." Ethics, Religion and Biodiversity: Relations Between Conservation and Cultural Values. Ed. Lawrence S. Hamilton. Cambridge: The White Horse Press, 1993, 75-97.
Spring, David, and Eileen Spring, Eds. Ecology and Religion in History. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1974.
Stenmark, Mikael. "What is Scientism? Religious Studies 33(1):15-32.
Suzuki, Daisetz T. "The Role of Nature in Zen Buddhism." Eranos-Jahrbuch 22(1953):291-321. (Reprinted in William Barrett, Ed. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D.T. Suzuki. New York: Doubleday, 1956, 229-258).
Swearer, Donald K., and Somparn Promta, Eds. The State of Buddhist Studies in the World 1972-1997. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Center for Buddhist Studies, 2000.
Taylor, Bron, Ed. Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. New York, NY: Continuum Press, 200
<http:// www.religionandnature.com>.
Toynbee, Arnold. "The Religious Background to the Present Environmental Crisis." International Journal of Environmental Studies 3(1972):141-147.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. "Discrepancies Between Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: Examples from Europe and China." Canadian Geographer 12.3(1968):176-191.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.
Tucker, Mary Evelyn. "The Emerging Alliance of Religion and Ecology." Worldviews: Environment, Culture and Religion 1.1(1997):3-24.
_____. Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase. LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Company, 2003.
_____, and John A. Grim, Eds. "Religions of the World and Ecology: Discovering the Common Ground." Earth Ethics: Evolving Values for an Earth Community 10.1(Fall 1998):1, 3-5.
Wallace, B. Alan. "Three Dimensions of Buddhist Studies." Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars. Eds. Roger Jackson and John Makransky. Surrey: Curzon Press, 2000, 61-77.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner, 1930.
Whelan, Robert, Joseph Kirwan, and Paul Haffner. The Cross and the Rain Forest: A Critique of Radical Green Spirituality. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
White, Lynn, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." Science 155(March 10, 1967):1203-1207.
White, Lynn, Jr. "Continuing the Conversation." Western Man and Environmental Ethics. Ed. Ian Barbour. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1973, 55-64.
Wilson, Edward O. The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
Zimmerman, Michael E. "Ken Wilber's Critique of Ecological Spirituality." Deep Ecology and the World's Religions: New Essays on Sacred Ground. Eds. David Landis Barnhill and Roger S. Gottlieb. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001, 243-269.