Author:
Senda-Cook Samantha,Bloomfield Emma Frances
Abstract
The Asian Rural Institute (ARI) is a Christian organization based in Tochigi, Japan that emphasizes foodlife work (working to grow food to sustain life), servant leadership, and community development. In analyzing the experiences of ARI community members, we located three themes that encapsulate ARI’s negotiation of religious environmentalism: 1) hierarchy, 2) ritual, and 3) tensions. These themes create polyvocality, or multiple voices, which we argue builds coalitions among community members at ARI through shared values. In conversation with work on religious environmentalism, this essay positions Christianity as a coalition building resource for some environmental and social justice advocates. Furthermore, we demonstrate the capacity for coalition building among groups that share pieties rather than identity and illustrate how an organization can rhetorically mobilize and emphasize some parts of its identity to its advantage while remaining committed to all of its core values.
Subject
Religious studies,Ecology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics,Cultural Studies
Reference43 articles.
1. Abe, Hiroshi. 2014. ‘From Symbiosis (Kyosei) to the Ontology of “Arising Both from Oneself and from Another” (Gusho)’, in J. Baird Callicott and James Mc Rae (eds.) Environmental Philosophy in Asian Traditions of Thought (New York: SUNY Press): 315–36.
2. Asian Rural Institute. 2022a. About. http://www.ari-edu.org/en/about
3. ———. 2022b. Rev. D. Toshihiro Takami, Founder of ARI. https://ari-edu.org/en/dr-takami/
4. Baker, Lauren, Samara Brock, Luisa Cortesi, Aysen Eren, Chris Hebdon, Francis Ludlow, Jeffrey Stoike, and Michael Dove. 2017. ‘Mainstreaming Morality: An Examination of Moral Ecologies as a Form of Resistance’. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture, 11.1: 23–55. http://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.27506
5. Bartkowski, John P., and W. Scott Swearingen. 1997. ‘God Meets Gaia in Austin, Texas: A Case Study of Environmentalism as Implicit Religion’. Review of Religious Research, 38.4: 308–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/3512193