October 17, 2001
Rosemary Radford Ruether and Carolyn Merchant:
"Women, Religion, Ethics, and the Environment"This was an event co-sponsored by CWR, TREES, WiRES, and CTNS. There were about 80 people in attendance (including GTU people, UC Berkeley people, and people from the Berkeley community).
For the first hour, Carolyn Merchant and Rosemary Ruether each took about 20 minutes to discuss their current research interests; then, they asked one another questions for about 20 minutes. The second hour consisted of a "Q and A" session that involved the audience.
Carolyn Merchant began by asking the question, "How is science complicit in the environmental crisis?" Up until the Enlightenment, the euro-worldview dictated some sort of "I-thou" relationship with the earth, with non-human life. There were consequences for behaving poorly towards nature (whether thought to be drought, famine, plagues, etc.). The universe was described in more "organic" terms. Then, during the enlightenment period, we get the Newtonian, non-organic billiard ball, mechanistic worldview. This view, arising out of Enlightenment thought (in part) and affecting the way in which science was done led to the hermeneutic of the Scientific Method; that is, it led to the belief that everything can be understood via prediction, controlled experiment, analysis of data, and drawing conclusions from that data. It led to the isolation of specific parts of nature, or of a phenomena, in order to understand that part / phenomena, rather than seeking to understand a part in relationship to "the whole" (however defined). The scientific method led to the belief that science and technology are progressive; through prediction, we will learn how to control nature and thus dominate nature in a way that allows us to manage nature towards our own (human) ends. Thus, through science, we will save ourselves from the travails of nature. Merchant noted that Francis Bacon even stated (something to the effect of), if man looses dominion over nature, he can regain it via arts and sciences. This suggests that the Arts and the Sciences, post-Enlightenment, are offer a way to regain a sense of order, a sense of safety, a sense of paradise.
Merchant goes on to explain that underlying modern science is the ethos that via technology we can regain our garden; we can regain paradise by making deserts bloom, cutting forests for food, creating lakes through damming rivers, etc., etc. Capitalism, technology, and scientific progress, according to Merchant, are all bent towards re-creating Eden. This religious symbolism goes even deeper to affect the roles in which the female / male sexes have in this modern-scientific worldview. Adam is seen in the garden as the symbol of technology and Eve as the symbol of the Earth. Thus, coupled with the dominion over nature is the dominion over the symbol of nature (Eve) via technology (Adam).
So, how can something different emerge that will take account of the fact that all life is interconnected (as Einstein, Chaos, Complexity, Ecology, and other sciences have shown us since the Enlightenment period)? Merchant suggests that we need a new ethic, not one of dominion or utility, but one of partnership. Partnership between male and female, humanity and the earth, all races, and all classes. We need a human community in relationship with the many non-human communities; these communities must respect cultural diversity and bio-diversity in order to respect its many different members.
The partnership ethic is similar to the types of eco-movements coming out of religious communities, only in this case it is grounded in a more secular world-view. An ethic of partnership will bring people and representatives of non-human animals and the earth to the table together, to talk about specific issues affecting a specific community. The emphasis is on working within a community.
The partnership ethic will also help us to overcome the way in which the cosmos has become engendered. An ethic of partnership, like (in a different way) process theology/thought, will demand that we overcome the tendency to allocate certain tasks to certain sexes. It will do this because an ethic of partnership requires both female and male at the table to solve the problems facing a given community (much like a process theology demands that we are interrelated and deeply affected by both male and female; male and female influences make up any given individual, and any given community; thus, we cannot easily separate out male and female without being reductionistic).
Rosemary Radford Ruether began her talk by discussing the field of Religion and Ecology. This field seeks to ask both the question of how Christianity (among other world religions, but mainly Christianity) is culpable in the current, ecological crisis and how is science culpable? She then discussed the book series on "Religion and Ecology" (being published by the Harvard Center for the Study of Religion and which came out of conferences sponsored by Harvard CSR and the Forum on Religion and Ecology). This series is dedicated to finding out what beliefs, attitudes, and thought-systems different world religions have for understanding human-earth/human-non-human relations. It examines both the ways in which different world religions can help heal the earth, and the ways in which different world religions have been interpreted in ways that are harmful towards the well-being of the overall earth community.
Ruether then went on to give specific examples from different world religions. For instance in all three Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) humans are given "care" of the earth and not "ownership / dominion." The earth/ creation is clearly Gods and humans are only caretakers. Redemption is harmony and justice for all of creation in these traditions, not just individual salvation. This suggests that our salvation is corporate, tied to other people, other animals, and this earth. Likewise, in looking at the history of religions, and at the texts that make up the different religions, one will find that these religions are dynamic, not static. They change with changing times, some parts of the religion are lifted up while others lie dormant. Not to mention that these religions take on a different flavor depending on the culture / ethnic make-up of the people that adhere to them. These religions respond to the different crises found in different times.
In Buddhism, one gets an even deeper anthropology than can be found in the Christian tradition. One gets a real sense of all things being interconnected (the "co-dependent" arising-ness of things), a sense that all that is is connected in a very real way. However, one can also read Buddhism and find that it leads to asceticism, or withdrawal from the world. The idea that release from samsara, from the ever-changing nature of this world, is the end goal of Buddhism, Nirvana. Just as some have read the creation story in Genesis 2 as implying that we have full authority to do with nature as we please, or just as some have read Christianity in a very anthropocentric way, so can one read the sutras, the texts of Buddhism.
Finally, in Taoism one finds a real sense of the poetic and aesthetic harmony of creation (of earth and of the universe). One can find a beautiful picture of the ecological whole, but perhaps not much about the details. It is the details that, if left out, can be disastrous.
Perhaps one of the greatest insights that comes form the series on "Religion and Ecology" is that all world religions have resources for a sustainable worldview but none offer full systems for living ecologically. Because religions are dynamic, and because we live in a period of mass ecological degradation, perhaps to be a good Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, or Jew in our time means to live ecologically-minded. The earth, and many animals therein are among the poor of our day and we must make our cause to work for and with the poor.
Ruether then went on to discuss how theological institutions of education need to respond to this call to live in an ecologically-minded way. Ecological thought should not be seen as one segment of a curriculum, rather it should be integrated into all curricula. This fragmentation of different fields is part of the problem; it provides support in our divisions of human/ nature, ethics / theology, theology / praxis, etc. We need to transform our institutions of theology into places where people can learn to live ecologically, with Creation.
Ruether provided a concrete example of what form this reformation might take, the "Interreligious Sustainable Neighborhood Project" in Chicago. This project is part of a cooperation between the Theological Schools in Chicago and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) (www.cnt.org). As part of this project, the whole Chicago "bio-region" was mapped out and analyzed. One result found was that ecological degradation is closely related to socio-economic status and race. In other words, the most polluted areas were the areas in which the poorest people could afford to live; the majority of these peoples were ethnic minorities. This is an example of the type of environmental racism that runs rampant in our country and on a global scale. The Sustainable Neighborhood project calls on representatives from different community churches and religious communities to come together, talk about issues of eco-justice, and work on specific projects within their own neighborhoods. They have both a local (neighborhood) and bio-regional (the greater Chicago bioregion) focus. That is, by working to heal their own neighborhoods (environmentally and socially) they are also working to heal the greater Chicago Bioregion. Furthermore, the greater Chicago bioregion is part of a global network of bioregions; so in this sense, they are doing their own part to heal the broken planet.
This raises questions such as "What about the larger, global problems?" Well, in a consumer-driven society, such as ours, it will take local communities to begin taking back their own spaces from global corporations. It will have to be local communities demanding that they be in control of their own bioregions, their own commerce, etc. If enough local demand builds up, it will change the way things are done globally.
This ends the portion of the evening when Ruether and Merchant were discussing their most current research. At this point, audience members began asking questions. The questions ranged from religions role in government, to how to deal with despair when you are trying to change the world, to questions about economics. Unfortunately, I only wrote down parts of answers to these questions, so I can't go into detail here. Needless to say, the clock ended the conversation and there were still many more questions to be asked.
Close Window