![]() (I mention those credentials because, in this business, credentials seems relevant, and because their critique of Bendell implicitly critiques his credentials.) Clarifying what that impulse is can be helpful when one is trying to disentangle the arguments between the movement and its critics.Įarlier this week, Open Democracy published a lengthy article entitled “ The faulty science, doomism, and flawed conclusions of Deep Adaptation,” co-written by a University of York physics PhD student, a Brown University climate and development researcher, and a graduate of Columbia University. When it gets critiqued on empirical grounds, as it has been recently - and when it gets defended on those same grounds - the spiritual impulse underlying the movement might get lost. Jem Bendell’s Deep Adaptation movement is, in my view, a spiritual movement. As a (sometime) scholar of religion and spirituality, I avoid those assumptions. ![]() ![]() ![]() Of course, I define both “ spiritual” and “ religious” quite broadly, and am well aware of how both terms have been shaped within histories that are Eurocentric and dominated by monotheistic, Christian, and more recently Protestant assumptions about what constitutes religion (and “spirit”) and what does not. I’ve long been receptive to the idea that we need a spiritual, or even a religious, movement to address the climate crisis. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |