- Email: [email protected]
The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World
Book review / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 159–173
165
and civilian elements of the executive branch. Additionally, despite a recurring gulf between the parties, during periods of conflict and external threats to American national interests, cooperation—at a level not present during peacetime—resulted. Finally, Weigley’s chapter supplies considerable evidence to support a long held belief that “in times of peace” the antagonism that is a hallmark of civil–military relations is at its zenith. In Chapter 6, James Burk concludes that the military’s moral and material presence in American society is unquestioned. Nonetheless, irrespective of the differences between military and civilian institutions, the military continues to adjust to “the great social changes of the era such as racial integration, expanded roles for women, and increased civil and personal rights of individuals.” Part III provides a fascinating analysis of the implications of the civil–military gap on policy making. Of the four chapters, Eliot Cohen’s explication of civil–military cooperation and military effectiveness during periods requiring the use of force reigns supreme. Cohen posits occasional civilian intrusions into technical military affairs can help a democratic government wage war effectively. Conversely, on the question of the use of force, the unequal dialogue rests “on the willingness of senior officers to court dismissal by obdurately making their case to their civilian superiors.” The author intimates that these actions on the part of both parties are healthy in a democracy. In the conclusion, Feaver and Kohn present unquestionable evidence for two disturbing trends: the Republicanization of the military and the burgeoning belief among elite military officers that “it is their role to insist, rather than merely advise, or advocate in private, on key decisions, particularly involving the use of force.” Despite the strengths of this important study, it nonetheless has two glaring weaknesses: after establishing the existence of its data, many of its recommendations are consistent with (rather than adding to the literature) established findings. Second, though largely a balanced study, the contributors undervalued the views of the civilian elite and the general public. In fact, the authors failed to provide a chapter or two exploring civilian perceptions of the military and its impact and how declining civilian understanding (particularly those in Congress) of military affairs affects military budgets. Relatedly, the necessity of understanding of the military’s diverse roles in defending the myriad of national interests of the United States is in need of further discussion. Finally, though this book is written to influence the national security community, it is recommended for students of international affairs and ordinary civilians concerned about the direction of America’s armed forces. John Davis National Defense University, 408 4th Avenue BLDG #59, Fort McNair, DC 20319-5062, USA PII: S0362-3319(02)00269-0 The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World Stephen R. Kellert and Timothy J. Farnham; Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002, 278 pages Disciplines in the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities are paying attention to the environment in ways they never have in the past. Some disciplines—biology,
166
Book review / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 159–173
ecology, environmental science—have always been concerned, in one form or another, with environmental issues. Other fields—sociology, political science, philosophy, theology—are relative newcomers to concerns regarding the natural world. Such scrutiny, whether well formed and well articulated or only in its infancy, certainly seems justified. Few would deny that the environment—broadly understood to include water, air, plant and animal life, and entire ecosystems—is in peril. Humans now number over six billion and growing. Uncontrolled population growth and unchecked development certainly contribute to the immense damage inflicted on the environment; there are other factors as well—indifference, ignorance, materialism, and lack of political will come to mind. Can various disciplines with their differing perspectives and commitments work together to mount a concerted effort to address the complex causes and effects of our environmental crises? In May 2000, Yale University hosted a 4-day conference titled “The Good in Nature and Humanity.” Sponsors of the conference included the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, the Yale University Divinity School, the Wilderness Society, and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Stephen Kellert and Timothy Farnham collected many of the papers from that conference. The result is a provocative, well-written, thoroughly-researched, and powerful book, The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World. The book, as with the conference before it, operates on the conviction that “the root causes of modern society’s environmental and spiritual crises can neither be understood nor effectively resolved until the split between religion and science, or, more generally, between faith and reason, has been effectively reconciled.” This conviction necessitates a challenge to traditional dualistic approaches to understanding and valuing interactions between human beings and the natural world. While some value reason and material security, others value faith and eternal salvation; such dualistic thinking is, however, problematic and must be overcome. As the editors note, “For both scientists and the spiritually and religiously inclined, the recognition grows that in our abuse of the earth we diminish our moral as well as our material condition. This mutual realization forges an understanding of the link between an environmentally degraded planet and a spiritually depauperate humanity.” Kellert and Farnham provide a strong introduction to the volume in which they articulate the obstacles to any attempt at overcoming suspicions and animosities existent between science and religion. One such obstacle is the lack of a common language. Perhaps language barriers are overcome, the editors suggest, when advocates of each approach realize that the other is trying to capture the awe, the sense of wonder, in the myriad relationships between humans and the natural world. In the selections that follow, the editors have assembled writers who explore and defend this theme of commonality between the two worldviews. The book is divided into three sections: Part I: Scientific and Spiritual Perspectives of Nature and Humanity; Part II: Linking Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives with an Environmental Ethic; and Part III: From the Perspective of the Storyteller. The nine essays that comprise Part I struggle with the task of explaining and using the concept of the “good” in nature. Explanations of the “good” range from the claim that it cannot be defined at all except “as a basic ethical concept in terms of which everything else is defined,” to a description of the “good” as a broad concept that encompasses “an inspirational articulation of the connection between human evolution, spirituality, emotion, aesthetics, and
Book review / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 159–173
167
ethical relations to nature.” Behind this effort to understand the “good” and its place in articulating the connections between science, religion, and the natural world is the notion that ethics holds the key to reconciling faith and reason. Ethics—understood by many of the authors as developing, maintaining, and sustaining relationships—provides the opportunity for a livable world, a world in which all living things not only survive but flourish. The relationship between humans and the natural world is complex and manifests itself in different ways. Paying attention to our ethical commitments requires us to celebrate and embrace these complexities and manifestations. The six essays that comprise Part II are all written by environmental and resource managers and activists. The authors attempt, with some success, to operationalize the themes and convictions of the previous section. That is, they examine how the integration of reason and faith, science and spirituality, can work within relationships between human beings and their environment. One author asks, “What does it mean to be a strong environmental advocate—in a political world—an advocate guided by moral passion?” What indeed does it mean, will it mean, to integrate faith and reason in the service of environmental sustainability? Informing much of the discussion of Part II is Aldo Leopold’s San County Almanac, first published in 1949. Neither Leopold nor his work is known very well outside conservation circles, but his assertion that “[t]here are two things that interest me; the relation of people to each other, and the relation of people to the land” is more relevant than ever. Interpreting and applying Leopold’s “land ethic” leads to insightful observations on how to solve our environmental crises. The final section of the book is the shortest and “offers a narrative understanding of the link between science, spirit, and nature.” The literary selections from Terry Tempest Williams and Berry Lopez are powerful; some readers may even find them inspirational. The imagery of Williams’s essay and Lopez’s call to personal action require the reader to move beyond concepts, arguments, and rationalizations and to embrace her/his own notion of the good in nature and humanity. Both authors reflect the themes and complexities of the entire book, and their literary contributions serve as a fitting conclusion. This book is the quintessential multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work; among and within the essays are informed discussions of some of the central questions and concepts of biology, environmental science, sociology, political science, economics, philosophy, and religion. That such a broad scope leads to oversimplification is, of course, inevitable. One trained in philosophical ethics might wish that Richard Wood, in the first essay of Part I, had provided a more in-depth account of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Those with backgrounds in political science and international relations will certainly take exception to some of the claims and characterizations made by Wendell Berry in the essay that closes Part II. In addition, by painting science and religion in such broad strokes, nuances of meaning and application are lost. But painting with broad strokes may offer the advantage of allowing us to forego rigid, linear thinking that promotes separation and animosity between disciplines and worldviews. All the contributors argue that only through a deeper understanding of and appreciation between disciplines and orientations can we hope to save the natural world, and hence humanity. This book should be required reading for those scholars and graduate students in both the social sciences and humanities who possess either an academic or personal interest in environmental issues. The essays in this edited collection make a convincing case for balancing
168
Book review / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 159–173
reason with faith, science with spirituality. Our very existence and that of the entire planet may depend on just such a balancing. Bryan Hilliard Department of Philosophy New England College, Henniker, NH 03242, USA PII: S0362-3319(02)00270-7
Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues Paul Farmer; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001, 375 pages Throughout the economic boom of the 1990s, social scientists frequently commented on two dominant global trends: (1) growing social inequality and (2) expanding epidemics of infectious disease, particularly HIV and tuberculosis. Probably the most comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the linkage of these two phenomena is provided by Paul Farmer in this book. Dr. Farmer was a student of social medicine at Harvard where he developed a biosocial perspective of illness. Currently he leads the Program in Infectious Disease and Social Change at the Harvard Medical School and devotes his clinical time to Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Clinique Bon Sauveur in central Haiti. As a trained anthropologist and socially conscious physician, he has much first-hand experience helping poor patients in the developed and developing world struggle with life-threatening infectious disease. In his explanation of the continued spread of HIV, tuberculosis, Ebola, and other modern plagues, he argues against the individualistic perspective of many clinicians, public health experts, and development administrators and applies the concept of structural violence. This controversial theory has its roots in the development literature on the negative health effects of economic inequality, which can be traced to the work of Franz Fannon in the late 1950s. Dr. Farmer maintains that poor people everywhere are less likely to benefit from modern effective medical treatments for infectious diseases because their economic position limits their access to medical care. He rejects the arguments of those who say that lower-class patients do not routinely use modern medications because they lack knowledge, personal discipline, or “rationale” attitudes. This book has 10 chapters; the first provides an overview of Dr. Farmer’s involvement in efforts to reduce inequalities of access to potentially life-saving HIV and tuberculosis interventions in Haiti, Peru, and the United States, specifically Roxbury, MA. Chapter 2 focuses on the concept of “emerging infectious diseases” and describes the analytic framework used in the rest of the book. Dr. Farmer argues that social inequalities often determine both the distribution of modern plagues and clinical outcomes among those infected. Thus, inequality itself becomes a pathogenic force. Subsequent chapters apply this framework to specific diseases B principally AIDS and tuberculosis—and specific settings, e.g., rural Haiti, urban Peru, Los Angeles, and South Africa. The perspective here is ethnographic. All of these chapters tell deeply personal stories of people afflicted with these plagues. In Chapter 9, Dr. Farmer notes that in 1977, the Surgeon General of the Unites States believed that infectious diseases could be eradicated worldwide with the available technology
165
and civilian elements of the executive branch. Additionally, despite a recurring gulf between the parties, during periods of conflict and external threats to American national interests, cooperation—at a level not present during peacetime—resulted. Finally, Weigley’s chapter supplies considerable evidence to support a long held belief that “in times of peace” the antagonism that is a hallmark of civil–military relations is at its zenith. In Chapter 6, James Burk concludes that the military’s moral and material presence in American society is unquestioned. Nonetheless, irrespective of the differences between military and civilian institutions, the military continues to adjust to “the great social changes of the era such as racial integration, expanded roles for women, and increased civil and personal rights of individuals.” Part III provides a fascinating analysis of the implications of the civil–military gap on policy making. Of the four chapters, Eliot Cohen’s explication of civil–military cooperation and military effectiveness during periods requiring the use of force reigns supreme. Cohen posits occasional civilian intrusions into technical military affairs can help a democratic government wage war effectively. Conversely, on the question of the use of force, the unequal dialogue rests “on the willingness of senior officers to court dismissal by obdurately making their case to their civilian superiors.” The author intimates that these actions on the part of both parties are healthy in a democracy. In the conclusion, Feaver and Kohn present unquestionable evidence for two disturbing trends: the Republicanization of the military and the burgeoning belief among elite military officers that “it is their role to insist, rather than merely advise, or advocate in private, on key decisions, particularly involving the use of force.” Despite the strengths of this important study, it nonetheless has two glaring weaknesses: after establishing the existence of its data, many of its recommendations are consistent with (rather than adding to the literature) established findings. Second, though largely a balanced study, the contributors undervalued the views of the civilian elite and the general public. In fact, the authors failed to provide a chapter or two exploring civilian perceptions of the military and its impact and how declining civilian understanding (particularly those in Congress) of military affairs affects military budgets. Relatedly, the necessity of understanding of the military’s diverse roles in defending the myriad of national interests of the United States is in need of further discussion. Finally, though this book is written to influence the national security community, it is recommended for students of international affairs and ordinary civilians concerned about the direction of America’s armed forces. John Davis National Defense University, 408 4th Avenue BLDG #59, Fort McNair, DC 20319-5062, USA PII: S0362-3319(02)00269-0 The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World Stephen R. Kellert and Timothy J. Farnham; Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002, 278 pages Disciplines in the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities are paying attention to the environment in ways they never have in the past. Some disciplines—biology,
166
Book review / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 159–173
ecology, environmental science—have always been concerned, in one form or another, with environmental issues. Other fields—sociology, political science, philosophy, theology—are relative newcomers to concerns regarding the natural world. Such scrutiny, whether well formed and well articulated or only in its infancy, certainly seems justified. Few would deny that the environment—broadly understood to include water, air, plant and animal life, and entire ecosystems—is in peril. Humans now number over six billion and growing. Uncontrolled population growth and unchecked development certainly contribute to the immense damage inflicted on the environment; there are other factors as well—indifference, ignorance, materialism, and lack of political will come to mind. Can various disciplines with their differing perspectives and commitments work together to mount a concerted effort to address the complex causes and effects of our environmental crises? In May 2000, Yale University hosted a 4-day conference titled “The Good in Nature and Humanity.” Sponsors of the conference included the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, the Yale University Divinity School, the Wilderness Society, and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Stephen Kellert and Timothy Farnham collected many of the papers from that conference. The result is a provocative, well-written, thoroughly-researched, and powerful book, The Good in Nature and Humanity: Connecting Science, Religion, and Spirituality with the Natural World. The book, as with the conference before it, operates on the conviction that “the root causes of modern society’s environmental and spiritual crises can neither be understood nor effectively resolved until the split between religion and science, or, more generally, between faith and reason, has been effectively reconciled.” This conviction necessitates a challenge to traditional dualistic approaches to understanding and valuing interactions between human beings and the natural world. While some value reason and material security, others value faith and eternal salvation; such dualistic thinking is, however, problematic and must be overcome. As the editors note, “For both scientists and the spiritually and religiously inclined, the recognition grows that in our abuse of the earth we diminish our moral as well as our material condition. This mutual realization forges an understanding of the link between an environmentally degraded planet and a spiritually depauperate humanity.” Kellert and Farnham provide a strong introduction to the volume in which they articulate the obstacles to any attempt at overcoming suspicions and animosities existent between science and religion. One such obstacle is the lack of a common language. Perhaps language barriers are overcome, the editors suggest, when advocates of each approach realize that the other is trying to capture the awe, the sense of wonder, in the myriad relationships between humans and the natural world. In the selections that follow, the editors have assembled writers who explore and defend this theme of commonality between the two worldviews. The book is divided into three sections: Part I: Scientific and Spiritual Perspectives of Nature and Humanity; Part II: Linking Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives with an Environmental Ethic; and Part III: From the Perspective of the Storyteller. The nine essays that comprise Part I struggle with the task of explaining and using the concept of the “good” in nature. Explanations of the “good” range from the claim that it cannot be defined at all except “as a basic ethical concept in terms of which everything else is defined,” to a description of the “good” as a broad concept that encompasses “an inspirational articulation of the connection between human evolution, spirituality, emotion, aesthetics, and
Book review / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 159–173
167
ethical relations to nature.” Behind this effort to understand the “good” and its place in articulating the connections between science, religion, and the natural world is the notion that ethics holds the key to reconciling faith and reason. Ethics—understood by many of the authors as developing, maintaining, and sustaining relationships—provides the opportunity for a livable world, a world in which all living things not only survive but flourish. The relationship between humans and the natural world is complex and manifests itself in different ways. Paying attention to our ethical commitments requires us to celebrate and embrace these complexities and manifestations. The six essays that comprise Part II are all written by environmental and resource managers and activists. The authors attempt, with some success, to operationalize the themes and convictions of the previous section. That is, they examine how the integration of reason and faith, science and spirituality, can work within relationships between human beings and their environment. One author asks, “What does it mean to be a strong environmental advocate—in a political world—an advocate guided by moral passion?” What indeed does it mean, will it mean, to integrate faith and reason in the service of environmental sustainability? Informing much of the discussion of Part II is Aldo Leopold’s San County Almanac, first published in 1949. Neither Leopold nor his work is known very well outside conservation circles, but his assertion that “[t]here are two things that interest me; the relation of people to each other, and the relation of people to the land” is more relevant than ever. Interpreting and applying Leopold’s “land ethic” leads to insightful observations on how to solve our environmental crises. The final section of the book is the shortest and “offers a narrative understanding of the link between science, spirit, and nature.” The literary selections from Terry Tempest Williams and Berry Lopez are powerful; some readers may even find them inspirational. The imagery of Williams’s essay and Lopez’s call to personal action require the reader to move beyond concepts, arguments, and rationalizations and to embrace her/his own notion of the good in nature and humanity. Both authors reflect the themes and complexities of the entire book, and their literary contributions serve as a fitting conclusion. This book is the quintessential multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work; among and within the essays are informed discussions of some of the central questions and concepts of biology, environmental science, sociology, political science, economics, philosophy, and religion. That such a broad scope leads to oversimplification is, of course, inevitable. One trained in philosophical ethics might wish that Richard Wood, in the first essay of Part I, had provided a more in-depth account of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Those with backgrounds in political science and international relations will certainly take exception to some of the claims and characterizations made by Wendell Berry in the essay that closes Part II. In addition, by painting science and religion in such broad strokes, nuances of meaning and application are lost. But painting with broad strokes may offer the advantage of allowing us to forego rigid, linear thinking that promotes separation and animosity between disciplines and worldviews. All the contributors argue that only through a deeper understanding of and appreciation between disciplines and orientations can we hope to save the natural world, and hence humanity. This book should be required reading for those scholars and graduate students in both the social sciences and humanities who possess either an academic or personal interest in environmental issues. The essays in this edited collection make a convincing case for balancing
168
Book review / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 159–173
reason with faith, science with spirituality. Our very existence and that of the entire planet may depend on just such a balancing. Bryan Hilliard Department of Philosophy New England College, Henniker, NH 03242, USA PII: S0362-3319(02)00270-7
Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues Paul Farmer; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001, 375 pages Throughout the economic boom of the 1990s, social scientists frequently commented on two dominant global trends: (1) growing social inequality and (2) expanding epidemics of infectious disease, particularly HIV and tuberculosis. Probably the most comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the linkage of these two phenomena is provided by Paul Farmer in this book. Dr. Farmer was a student of social medicine at Harvard where he developed a biosocial perspective of illness. Currently he leads the Program in Infectious Disease and Social Change at the Harvard Medical School and devotes his clinical time to Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Clinique Bon Sauveur in central Haiti. As a trained anthropologist and socially conscious physician, he has much first-hand experience helping poor patients in the developed and developing world struggle with life-threatening infectious disease. In his explanation of the continued spread of HIV, tuberculosis, Ebola, and other modern plagues, he argues against the individualistic perspective of many clinicians, public health experts, and development administrators and applies the concept of structural violence. This controversial theory has its roots in the development literature on the negative health effects of economic inequality, which can be traced to the work of Franz Fannon in the late 1950s. Dr. Farmer maintains that poor people everywhere are less likely to benefit from modern effective medical treatments for infectious diseases because their economic position limits their access to medical care. He rejects the arguments of those who say that lower-class patients do not routinely use modern medications because they lack knowledge, personal discipline, or “rationale” attitudes. This book has 10 chapters; the first provides an overview of Dr. Farmer’s involvement in efforts to reduce inequalities of access to potentially life-saving HIV and tuberculosis interventions in Haiti, Peru, and the United States, specifically Roxbury, MA. Chapter 2 focuses on the concept of “emerging infectious diseases” and describes the analytic framework used in the rest of the book. Dr. Farmer argues that social inequalities often determine both the distribution of modern plagues and clinical outcomes among those infected. Thus, inequality itself becomes a pathogenic force. Subsequent chapters apply this framework to specific diseases B principally AIDS and tuberculosis—and specific settings, e.g., rural Haiti, urban Peru, Los Angeles, and South Africa. The perspective here is ethnographic. All of these chapters tell deeply personal stories of people afflicted with these plagues. In Chapter 9, Dr. Farmer notes that in 1977, the Surgeon General of the Unites States believed that infectious diseases could be eradicated worldwide with the available technology