Ritual Responses to Environmental Guilt and Shame

Abstract

Having articulated the conditions to respond to or induce environmental guilt and shame, it is reasonable to wonder how humans could develop such resources. Chapter 9 maintains that religious rituals have the ability to create and sustain the conditions. This argument is founded on two strands of thought: J. Z. Smith and Catherine Bell’s theories of ritual, particularly regarding rites of affliction, which respond to disorder or wrong and provide terminology for conceiving of ritual in general. Studies of environmental ritual, especially the work of William R. Jordan III, Gretel van Wieren, and Joanna Macy who identify ritual as a way of responding to negative experiences, affects, and states of being, enable the consideration of environmental rituals. Their work requires expansion to deal relationships between humans or involving collectives, particularly the need to apologize to those harmed and change behavior to prevent further harm. Spontaneous confessional rituals about environmental guilt and shame in popular online confessions and an apology ritual at the Standing Rock prayer camp against the Dakota Access Pipeline exhibit some of these features but are still limited with respect to the conditions required to respond to guilt and shame. Thus, intentional ritualization and using multiple rituals will likely be necessary to respond to all of the dimensions of guilt and shame.

The Ethics and Politics of Religious Ethics, 1973–2023

“…Relatedly, studying the ethical ideas of various religious traditions can help to dismantle cultural and religious stereotypes, especially the idea that religions are little more than monolithic dogmatic beliefs and regulations (Sells 2015; Raucher 2016; and Sheikh 2019). It is also the case that studying religious reasons for human behavior can help fill out how we understand the many sources of moral psychology and moral formation (see Lauritzen 1992; Antonaccio 2000, 2012; Stalnaker 2006; Cates 2009; Miller 2016; Fredericks 2021; and Dunn 2021). And because religious ethics is a field unto itself, it is important to study how scholars reflect on the work of others in the effort to clarify the guild's organizing categories, proceeding in a self‐reflexive way (see Little and Twiss 1978; Stout 1980; Santurri 1980; Lovin and Reynolds 1985; Green and Reynolds 1986; Green 1997; Gustafson 1997; Twiss 2005a; Little 2006; Davis 2008; Kelsay 2012; Ranganathan and Clairmont 2017; and Hwang 2021).…”

“…Methodologically speaking, this third trajectory poses an obvious alternative to the first two, seeking first to ascertain the many ways that practices help to generate frameworks as a necessary step in understanding how they can provide resources “for inventing new capacities from their moral traditions” (Jenkins 2009, 284–85; see also Peterson 2007; Fredericks 2021). That methodological shift invites religious ethicists to explore how different religious communities look to their writings to address concrete environmental challenges and engage in “practical theological creativity” to guide social action among their constituents (Jenkins 2009, 296).…”

Anthropocene in Context: A Response to Rasmussen

“…Collective change has been inspired by, and interacted with, religion in the past (abolition of slavery, satyagraha, and so forth) so we know this is possible. Many of our colleagues are already working on this topic (see Carter 2021; Fredericks 2021; O'Brien 2017; Moe‐Lobeda 2013), but more is surely needed.…”

“…Crippling feelings of guilt for participating in environmental destruction? Traditions of confession, repentance, restitution, and restoration have been handling guilt for centuries (Fredericks 2021; Jenkins 2013).…”

Learning together out of climate change denial

“…Messaging that is perceived as threatening our way of life or our perceived privileges (such as driving big trucks, electricity consumption etc.) might be resisted, especially if it induces shame at an individual rather than collective level (Fredericks, 2021). Narratives of climate change can indeed sometimes cause reactance (Chinn & Hart, 2021; Palm et al., 2020)—negative feelings that arise in response to perceived threats to personal freedoms and being told what to do.…”