Ecospirituality in French-Speaking Europe: Linking Ecological Thought with Alternative Spirituality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe that the issues tackled in the essay are very interesting and deserving of attention. However, there are three problems with it.
1. Problems Related to the Essay’s Structure
Consider the abstract of the paper and lines 105-110; they point to a three-part plan:
a) Outline of the ideological roots of ecospirituality;
b) Definition of ecospirituality
c) Description of the types of knowledge produced by those involved in such stance.
However, this plan is not very clearly followed in the essay. After all, after spelling out this plan, one would expect the author to start by tackling a). Instead, a methodological discussion is inserted. So, the structure of the paper, I tend to think, needs to change. In other words, the essay should have a clearer plan and actually follow it. Otherwise, it gets a bit confusing.
2. Problems Related to the Essay’s Use of Certain Terms
The author does not adopt clear and simple working-definitions of core terms, such as “science”, “religions”, “knowledge”, “ecology”, “spirituality”, “ecospirituality” etc. Instead, these terms are used very loosely throughout the essay, while all kinds of senses are associated with them . This procedure, I believe, is quite problematic and ultimately leads to all sorts of unnecessary imprecisions.
Example 1: The essay states that “ecospirituality” has a “scientific” component insofar as it is connected to “ecology”. However, given that these terms’ senses are not very precisely spelled out, it is not clear what is meant by that. Depending on the definition of “science” one adopts (e.g., a definition more related to logical positivism), one may take that “ecospirituality” is not related to science at all; that this is indeed a mere anti-scientific movement. Accordingly, it would be more interesting if the author had explicitly stated what he or she means by “science”.
Example 2: Similar issues arise with the concept of “religion”. One may claim that this term only applies to institutionalized activities, such as Christianity or Judaism; not to the kinds of ecospiritual anti-institutional practices the author addresses. So, to avoid this kind of worry, it might be more useful to explicitly state a concept of religion that includes ecospiritual practices.
3. Problems Related to the Author’s Findings
My view is that the most interesting part of the essay was the discussion of the author’s findings. For instance, when the essay discussed the statement of Celine or stated the following: “Most of the people I interviewed consider plants, animals and even minerals as their partners, like Nathalie, a forest bathing guide, who has an almost fraternal relationship with the trees” (406-407). These parts, I believe, could have been expanded; they should be the very core of the essay. That is: it would have been much more interesting if the author had spelled out several other statements like Celine’s and Nathalie’s so that evidence regarding the author’s view on ecospirituality became stronger. The way it is these findings were not sufficiently described.
Besides, the author’s findings do not back up a claim explicitly made in lines 244-246: that the “new system of religion ‘à la carte” is the “dominant religion” of our time. After all, these religions on the “menu” are somehow anti-capitalist stances. The capitalist stance itself is very likely the dominant one. That is, it is plausible to believe that there is a religion of capitalism. In this sense, consider Walter Benjamin (“Capitalism as Religion”, in Selected Writings: Volume 1 1913-1926, ed. Marcus Bullock, and Michael W Jennings, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996); Giorgio Agamben (Creation and Anarchy: The Work of Art and the Religion of Capitalism, California: Stanford University Press, 2019), Felipe G. A. Moreira (“Capitalism as Religion: A Bolstered Defense”. In O que nos faz pensar, [S.l.], v. 29, n. 48, p. 256-176, june 2021) etc.
Why not believe that this religion of capitalism is the truly dominant one, whereas “ecospirituality” or other alternative religions are merely a minoritarian oppositions to it? I think that the author should consider this point because those engaged in “ecospirituality” are only a few in comparison to the countless others who do not do that. Moreover, given the religion of capitalism, I am not convinced that “we can now choose who we want to become” (237) and I take Charles Taylor’s views (48-50) to be quite problematic. This is because such views excessively attenuate the importance of all sorts of oppressions imposed by capitalism. The author could also have alluded to those (e.g., Marxists) who may not be very sympathetic to “ecospirituality”; that mainly see it as a sort of “bourgeois” or even “nihilist” attitude. I mean: how do these people engaged in ecospirituality actually survive? How are they financed? These questions should be answered, I believe.
Additionally, the passage in lines 100-101 indicates that “ecospirituality” is related to a reconnection with nature which is distinct from one with the “cosmos”, the “universe” etc. This appears like a sort of return to the views of “indigenous societies” (344). But what kind of return is that? The essay does not allow one to answer this question very well. Yet, it is important to do so while more explicitly connecting this movement with the context of contemporary wealthy French-speaking countries in Europe. More directly, when such Europeans aim to act as if they were Native Americans aren’t they actually doing something new vis-à-vis “true” native behavior? Consider, in this vein, Ailton Krenak’s Ideas for Postponing the End of the World, House of Anansi Press, 2021). Besides, do people, such as Nathalie, truly believe that trees have souls or are they just engaged in a sort of make-belief game where they act as if they believed so? What is exactly new about “new animism” (154-155)? More explicitly responses to these questions would have been useful.
Conclusion
Despite 1, 2 and 3, I take the essay to be quite valuable. So, I tend to think that it could be revised into something interesting, if the author is willing to take 1 to 3 into account.
Author Response
First of all, thank you for the review.
1) Problems Related to the Essay’s Structure
You are right, I did a mistake while reviewing it the first time. Now it should be clearer.
2) Problems Related to the Essay’s Use of Certain Terms
I have provided definitions in the footnotes. I hope they will help to clarify this point.
3) Problems Related to the Author’s Findings
3.1) My view is that the most interesting part of the essay were the discussion of the author’s findings. These parts, I believe, could have been expanded; they should be the very core of the essay.
You are absolutely right. Since the first edition of the paper, I have transcribed more interviews and included other quotes.
3.2) Besides, the author’s findings do not back up a claim explicitly made in lines 244-246: that the “new system of religion ‘à la carte” is the “dominant religion” of our time. After all, these religions on the “menu” are somehow anti-capitalist stances.
I have decided to drop this statement as I don't want to dwell on this here. But I'd like to say that if they appear - in theory (and in discourses) - anti-capitalist at first, these spiritualities are entirely based on the consumerist model, resulting from capitalism. I invite you to read François Gauthier, Religion, Modernity, Globalisation: Nation-State to Market, 2020, and Eva Illouz, Manufacturing Happy Citizens: How the Science and Industry of Happiness Control our Lives, 2018.
3.3) The author could also have alluded to those (e.g., Marxists) who may not be very sympathetic to “ecospirituality”; that mainly see it as a sort of “bourgeois” or even “nihilist” attitude. I mean: how do these people engaged in ecospirituality actually survive? How are they financed? These questions should be answered, I believe.
This is an interesting question but this is not the subject of the article. I reserve a critique of ecospirituality for future developments, as my thesis is not yet finished. I have added a sentence about the main professional activity of ecospirituals. They are not marginal people, outside of society. On the contrary!
3.4) Additionally, the passage in lines 100-101 indicates that “ecospirituality” is related to a reconnection with nature which is distinct from one with the “cosmos”, the “universe” etc. This appears like a sort of return to the views of “indigenous societies” (344). But what kind of return is that?
Again, not having completed my thesis, I can only sketch out some initial observations. What I have added here.
Reviewer 2 Report
The title implies that there is a split between ecological thought (science) and alternative spirituality (religion). The real question is how so? and where? Is it in French speaking countries because of the process of secularization? Is it true in other countries in a global context of world religions? There are many religious thinkers and spiritual movements who have integrated the two of them as part of their ecological spirituality. What if ecology is not just secular or scientific but spiritual in nature, as pagan and animistic traditions always have pointed out? This argument would make your article stronger if you pursue it differently. Also, the language of outlining the ideological roots of eco-spirituality sounds too political. Your Contribution is your Abstract. In line 137 what do you mean by (Christian, Catholic, or Protestant)? Perhaps Orthodox Christian because Catholics and Protestants are Christians. In line 241, it is unclear to me how these religions a la carte are the dominant religion of today. Again, be more specific and contextualize the statement by providing compelling evidence. If not, drop it. In the References, are all these sources cited in this short article? Or is it a list of references from your dissertation? The list of of sources is almost half of the article.
Author Response
1) The title implies that there is a split between ecological thought (science) and alternative spirituality (religion). The real question is how so? and where?
I have changed the title because this was not my intention. Conversely, it is not a split but a reconciliation between ecology and spirituality. A junction between the two.
2) What if ecology is not just secular or scientific but spiritual in nature, as pagan and animistic traditions always have pointed out?
This is a very interesting question and I have recently read a brilliant essay from Philippe Pelletier who outlines the puritan roots of ecology. I leave this question for later in my thesis as I don't have much time to develop it here.
3) Also, the language of outlining the ideological roots of eco-spirituality sounds too political.
You are right. I have changed it to "sociological and historical roots".
4) Your Contribution is your Abstract.
I don't understand this statement.
5) In line 137 what do you mean by (Christian, Catholic, or Protestant)?
They are Christian, either Catholic or Protestant (no one has claimed to be Orthodox). I kept "Christian" and removed the other two.
6) In line 241, it is unclear to me how these religions a la carte are the dominant religion of today. Again, be more specific and contextualize the statement by providing compelling evidence. If not, drop it.
I droped it, I don't want to dwell on this here.
7) In the References, are all these sources cited in this short article? Or is it a list of references from your dissertation? The list of of sources is almost half of the article.
Yes these are all sources cited in the paper.
Thank you for your review.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I wish the author had developed in more detail the connections between ecospirituality and capitalism. I interpreted the essay’s previous version as suggesting that the former was an anti-capitalist stance. Now, given the author’s reply, it strikes me as more plausible to believe that ecospirituality is just another branch of the religion of capitalism. It is yet reasonable, as the author stresses out, to reserve the discussions of such matters to another essay. Additionally, the author: revised the essay’s structure; clarified the essay’s use of certain key terms and depicted in more detail the essay’s findings while drawing connections with native ways of thinking. Given so, I think the author addressed my previous objections in a pertinent fashion.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind review. I will definetely talk about ecospirituality as some sort of capitalist religion in my thesis.
