ABSTRACT
Like some of the other key terms in this book, place is an important concept in part because it is so commonplace. We take place for granted without thinking about what it means and why it matters. Place can refer to spatial relationships, describing a physical, geographical location: “Let’s meet at my place” or “I want to buy a hotel on Park Place.” Place also refers to social relationships, especially one’s position or rank in a social hierarchy: “That ought to keep her in her place” or “I finished in first place.” Thinking critically about place demands sorting out the ways social and spatial relationships are often intertwined. Both these senses of place are key to the study of religion and ecology. We
have particular places that matter to us personally; sites that hold particular memories and meanings, and shape our ethical commitments. This is true collectively as well. American environmentalism, for example, traces its history through particular sites such as Walden Pond and Yosemite Park, Warren County, North Carolina and Love Canal, New York, or more recently the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward. Religious traditions ground their concern for the natural world in particular places, whether these exist in sacred texts and myths (Eden, New Jerusalem) or as sacred sites (Mecca, the Ganges). Religions also teach us how we should understand our place in the social sense, mapping norms within human communities, and situating humans within broader more-than-human worlds, whether natural and supernatural. This chapter introduces critical perspectives and theories for thinking about
place in the study of religion and ecology, with particular emphasis on three: phenomenology, bioregionalism, and cultural geography. Each of these stresses the social and spatial aspects of place in different ways. As you consider these differences, think about how each approach defines this common and complex category. What does place mean for each and why does place matter? What aspects of religion does each approach emphasize? Rather than think about these approaches in the abstract, try to keep in mind particular places you
care about. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach for thinking about these places, and about particular religious beliefs and practices, and about particular environmental issues you can examine in place?
