HOLISM AND SUSTAINABILITY:

LESSONS FROM JAPAN

Arne Kalland

Abstract
It is often claimed that environmental problems facing the world today can be
attributed to dualism and anthropocentrism rooted in Christianity. Hence, it is
argued that a solution to these problems can be sought in holism and ecocentrism
inherent in non-western thought. Native American and Asian religions have in par-
ticular been heralded as potential sources of inspiration. Using Japan as a case, this
paper challenges this view, arguing that religions are not coherent constructions and
that their claimed benevolence to nature are based on selective reading of these
non-western religions. As to Japan, both Buddhism (not least Zen) and Shinto have
been regarded as ecocentric religions with a holistic approach to the world. This
has not prevented serious degradation of the environment taking place, however.
On the contrary, it will be argued that there are features in these holistic religions
that might facilitate such degradation. It is therefore far too simplistic to attribute
environmental problems to modernization and westernization.
Keywords: Sustainability, holism, ecocentrism, perceptions of nature, Japan

. . . [Susanoo-no-mikoto] raged . . . breaking down the ridges between the rice

paddies of Amaterasu omikami and covering up the ditches. Also he defecated
and strew the faeces about in the hall where the Ž rst fruits were tasted.
(Chapter 16 of Kojiki; Philippi’s translation)

Introduction

In recent decades there has been a growing awareness of a world-

wide ecological crisis, and this has given rise to a new discourse on
the connection between worldviews and management of natural
resources. In particular, the present dominant worldview—which has
variably been attributed to Judaeo-Christian in uences (White 1967),
the scientiŽ c revolution (Merchant 1980) or the development of the
market economy and the rise of capitalism (Devall and Sessions
1985: 45)—is seen as the root of the problem facing us today. A
dichotomy between nature and culture is held to be fundamental to
this worldview, with people separated from, and in command of,
nature. Therefore, a new ecological paradigm (e.g. Dunlap and Catton
1980) where human beings are seen as part of, and in harmony

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2002 Worldviews 6,2 145-158

Also available online – www.brill.nl
146 arne kalland

with, nature is called for. Some people (e.g. White 1967) have sought
to re-interpret western concepts and perspectives, whereas others—
both scientists and laymen alike—have searched for new inspiration
to correct these ills from outside western traditions, such as from
native North American and Eastern traditions. A large body of lit-
erature oVers alternative worldviews to the prevailing western ones:
usually depicting man as an integral part of nature instead of being
separated from and trying to dominate it.
This new global discourse—originating within the environmental
and New Age movements in the West but successfully appropriated
elsewhere, not least in Asia—has been termed the “religious envi-
ronmentalist paradigm” by Pedersen (1995). This paradigm is, per-
haps, most clearly expressed in The Assisi Declarations (WWF 1986)
where, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Worldwide Fund For
Nature (alias World Wildlife Fund, WWF), spokesmen for Ž ve major
religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism) sought
to read ecological insight into their religious texts. Pedersen argues
that this is unwarranted, and Guha (1998) has recently made a sim-
ilar point against those who read ecological insight into the writings
of Mahatma Gandhi. Considering Japan, in uenced by Zen and
Shinto, it has almost been taken axiomatically that the Japanese love
nature, or at least did until this Garden of Eden was destroyed by
modernization (e.g. Hargrove 1989: xix). Well-known philosophers and
writers such as Anesaki Masaharu and Suzuki Daisetz have repeat-
edly stressed a unique Japanese understanding of nature, taking
poems, paintings, sculptures, gardens and other artefacts as proofs
of this alleged love (Kalland 1995a). Closely related is the equally
widely-held notion that the Japanese live in harmony with nature.
If the two notions of love and harmony are valid,1 one may legit-
imately ask how to explain the reckless stripping of rain forests by
Japanese companies in Southeast Asia and why Mount Fuji and
other national parks are covered with litter after the tourist season.
It is too simplistic to blame all ills in non-western societies in terms
of cultural misŽ ts, as Callicott seems to (1982: 311), or on western-
ization as Sponsel and Natadecha-Sponsel do (1993). After all, Japan
experienced serious deforestation long before her culture was inŽ lt-
rated by western ideas (Totman 1989). We need to tread cautiously
when inducing ecological practices from philosophical traditions,
and discrepancies between theory and practice should not surprise
us (cf. Holy and Stuchlik 1983). We should not a priori assume that
 holism and sustainability: lessons from japan 147

people’s perceptions and norms toward nature are mirrored in their

actual behaviour (Bruun and Kalland 1995; Pedersen 1995). Worldviews
and cosmologies are not coherent constructions but full of contra-
dictions, making them vulnerable to interpretation and re-interpre-
tations. Reading ecological insight from religious texts tends to be
based on selective reading of these texts, ignoring evidence to the
contrary. What is often compared is a selective reading of non-west-
ern religious dogmas—usually of great antiquity—and an equally
selective reading of western—mostly contemporary—practices. In this
paper I will argue that some of the Japanese features that have
received most praise from the advocates of the religious environ-
mentalist paradigm, also can be held responsible for environmental
degradation.

What Kind of Nature?

The Japanese have, like most other people, an ambivalent attitude

toward nature in which their love of nature is only one dimension.
But they also fear nature. They have learnt to cope with natural
disasters caused by earthquakes, erupting volcanoes, typhoons and
 oods. But the threat of nature goes beyond this. Many Japanese seem
to feel an abhorrence toward “nature in the raw” (nama no shizen,
Buruma 1985:65), and only by idealization or “taming” (narasu)—e.g.
“cooking”, through literature and Ž ne arts, for example—does nature
become palatable and even lovable. It is not the devastating typhoon
that attracts the attention, but the calm morning after (Saito 1985).
In a recent anthology (Asquith and Kalland 1997) several authors
view nature (shizen, tennen) as oscillating between two extremes, var-
iously termed “bound-unbound”, “tame-wild”, “wrapped-unwrapped”
or “cooked-uncooked”, rather than being viewed as the opposite of
culture. The pair “ordered-disordered” can be added to this list. In
its cooked or ordered form nature merges with reŽ ned culture; nature
becomes civilization itself.
This oscillation between nature in the raw and cooked forms—or
between disorder and order—appears in Japanese myths, as in the
struggle between the Sun Goddess Amaterasu and her unruly brother,
Susanoo-o, which introduced this paper.2 But we do not need to go
back to mythical times to see these processes at work. Sometimes
the return to disorder can be dramatic as when areas are devastated
148 arne kalland

by typhoons, volcanoes or earthquakes. Usually the processes are

more gentle, but continuous. Housewives sweep the  oors regularly
to keep the lived environment clean and tidy; most Japanese take a
daily bath both to clean themselves of physical dirt and to feel men-
tally refreshed; and a garden which is not tended will eventually be
overgrown. The ongoing struggle to keep disorder at bay is dra-
matically grasped by Abe K˜b˜ in his famous novel The Woman in
the Dunes, where the heroïne is forced to shuZe sand endlessly to
save civilization (i.e. the village) from being covered by encroaching
nature.
Stressing processes rather than the state of aVairs, the oscillation
between order and disorder resembles that between purity (hare) and
impurity/pollution (kegare), a pair which itself is closely associated
with that of order and disorder. It makes little sense in Japan to talk
about an absolute level of ritual purity; something is only pure in
relation to something which is less pure. What matters is the process
through which something moves from the impure towards the pure
end of the continuum, or vice versa. PuriŽ cation and cleaning are
themselves ways to restore order in the physical and social environ-
ments.3 Focusing on the process of puriŽ cation or polishing (migaku
which, signiŽ cantly, also means to cultivate or improve one’s char-
acter) rather than the state of purity or cleanliness—i.e. that becom-
ing is more important than being —the, at Ž rst sight, senseless act
of Zen monks cleaning already shining  oors (or sweeping leaves
where there are none to sweep) becomes more intelligible. “Polishing
the  oor, brushing the teeth and washing the face are rituals that
metaphorically polish the mind and open the way to enlightenment”
(Reader 1995: 232).
Both order and purity are unstable conditions; cultured nature—
or civilization—degenerates unless regularly rejuvenated. This applies
both to the material and spiritual worlds. Order and disorder are
therefore intimately connected. “Order is . . . created out of the dis-
order, disorder being its precondition”, writes Plutschow (1990: 29).
Whereas people through culture create order, disorder may also be
created by nature itself, often through the agent of time, as time
moves nature from the ordered end of the continuum to the disor-
dered. Hence, the ordering —or domesticating, culturalizing, taming,
binding, wrapping —of nature is an ongoing process.
This can be done in various ways: from violence (as when hills
are levelled to make rice-terraces, rivers harnessed to provide water
 holism and sustainability: lessons from japan 149

for the Ž elds, bays Ž lled in to create urban space, or trees pruned
for aesthetic purposes) to using nature as a means of contemplation
and spiritual awakening, as well as an aid to re ect upon life and
death. Two methods of domestication are particularly relevant for
our discussion: enhancement and deiŽ cation of nature.
In all cultures, people select certain elements of the physical envi-
ronment—certain animals, plants, topographic features, celestial bod-
ies, and so on—for special attention, whereas other elements are
overlooked or ignored. In this way the physical environment is infused
with meaning, it is transformed into a landscape where the selected
elements work metonymically for the whole. A common way to do
this in Japan is by reducing nature’s profusion. By removing what
might be perceived as obstructive elements of nature, it is possible
to enhance certain aspects by bringing them to the foreground and
thereby into focus for aesthetic appreciation. The gardener’s inter-
vention allows nature to express its beauty in a louder voice (Kalland
and Asquith 1997: 16).
The true and ideal nature thus only becomes apparent when all
oVensive elements are removed. This process, which O-Young Lee
(1984) has called “reductionism”, is also a powerful device in enhanc-
ing the beauty of women. The profusion of colours of the human
skin are reduced to completely white in the maiko dancing girls thereby
achieving “a more beautiful image of the women than the real one”
(Cabañas 1997: 70). The same technique is used in ukiyo-e prints. And
in Kawabata Yasunari’s novel The House of the Sleeping Beauties, young
virgins, heavily drugged, are reduced to “de-eroticized” doll-like beau-
ties and goddesses, allowing old and impotent men to make fan-
tasies about Kannon, the Goddess of Mercy. The process has found
its ultimate reŽ nement in tea ceremonies and  ower arrangements
(Kalland and Asquith 1997).
Reductionism as used by Lee (1984) is not limited to taming
nature’s plentitude. Another often used technique is to reduce the
visual Ž eld through “framing”, a technique well-known to photog-
raphers around the world. Through the lens of the camera most dis-
turbing elements can be excluded, including undesired elements of
nature. Commonly this framing takes place at the mental level: by
ignoring elements which are regarded as irrelevant in the given con-
text the focus is sharpened and it becomes possible to attend to
details. Framing can also be achieved by physical means as when a
skillful gardener uses the mikiri (lit. “cut the view”) technique to direct
150 arne kalland

the view in a particular direction as a means to capture only the

desired part of nature.
Another way to come to terms with nature—or to bring order to
chaos—is to bestow nature with spirits, or rather nature is seen as
the oVspring of deities. Nature and the spiritual world are insepa-
rable, and by establishing a working relationship with the spirits, the
Japanese obtain the means of coming to terms with nature. As pointed
out by Reader (1991: 27), among others, there is a reciprocal rela-
tionship between human beings and spirits which is expressed through
rituals in which puriŽ cation and oVerings are central parts. In return
for these rituals, the spirits oVer their protection. Harmony and hap-
piness are seen as the “natural” state of aVairs, but this bliss can
easily be destroyed if the balanced reciprocity between humans and
spirits is lost. Illness, poor harvests and other calamities are often
interpreted as an attempt by spirits—whether kami, ancestors or
Buddhas—to communicate their misgivings and suVerings (Kalland
1995b). In this worldview nature becomes an agent, an acting indi-
vidual, which brings nature into the sphere of social relations, with
important consequences for conservation, as we soon shall see.

A Holistic Approach to Nature?

There is a common belief in Japan that people, animals, plants and

even inorganic objects have “souls”, or some inert power. In Buddhist
doctrine one talks about “Buddha-nature” in all things, while in Shinto
one talks about kami, e.g. a supernatural power that resides in any-
thing which gives a person a feeling of awe. As everything has Buddha-
nature or has the potential of harbouring supernatural powers, all
creatures, animate and inanimate, are on the same level. There is
thus not a sharp line, as in much of Judaeo-Christian thinking,
between people and the rest. Here we encounter a worldview where
“nature” corresponds to the cosmic whole, i.e. the totality of existing
phenomena (Kyburz 1997). In this view nature and the “universal
principle” (d˜, tend˜; “the Way of Heaven”) are inseparable and intrin-
sically linked. Everything is a re ection of the other: the Universe
can be understood through a stone, and the stone through the
Universe or a haiku poem. This relationship originates in Buddhist
thought in which everything is seen as connected to everything else
in a web of interdependencies, both spatially and temporally, through
 holism and sustainability: lessons from japan 151

the laws of cause and eVect (karma). These are natural laws in the
Japanese sense of nature, as are geomantic forces, and what most
westerners would classify as superstitious beliefs will, for many Japanese,
belong to the natural sciences (Kalland and Asquith 1997). In con-
trast to common Western perceptions of nature, where nature is
reduced to a set of mechanistic natural laws that can be represented
mathematically and that open nature to manipulation by mechani-
cal means, it has often been pointed out that nature in Japan is
understood holistically and spiritually, and can be manipulated by
ritual means. Japanese perceptions of nature have therefore been
taken as an example of a holistic-organic approach to nature, as an
alternative where man and nature meet in a harmonious unity of
mutual respect, complementarity and symbiosis.
However, one may wonder how useful such a worldview is for
the protection of the environment. There are several reasons for con-
cern. First, when nature is seen as the totality of existing phenom-
ena, there is no clear distinction between nature created by gods
and artefacts created by people. In other words, artefacts and nature
are not opposed, and nature becomes everything around us whether
it is a river or teapot, a mountain or heap of garbage (Tyler 1989: 24).
Litter or a vending machine are just as much a part of nature as a
crane or a pine tree. Or, in the words of Berque (1997: 143); “it can
be natural to destroy nature”. Environmental degradation as a form
of man-made disorder can even be perceived as a precondition for
re-creating order and certainly gives others the opportunity to restore
that order by cleaning up, and thereby metaphorically polishing their
own souls.
Second, in viewing nature as a process, where everything decays
and dies only to give birth to new lives in an endless cycle, one may
arrive at the conclusion that natural objects acquire little value in
themselves. It can be argued that the important thing is not the
manifestation of nature itself but the idea about nature. A preoccu-
pation with ideas about things rather than with the things them-
selves can also be observed in Japanese attitudes towards buildings.
For example, in 1992 when the last nineteenth-century building in
the community where I was conducting Ž eldwork was dismantled,
the chairman of the local history association assured me that there
was no real loss: the house was preserved on Ž lm. Ideas can live
on, in metaphors for example, even if the objects in question have
disappeared. When used for metaphorical purposes—as nature often
152 arne kalland

is in Japan—it matters little whether the rhythm of life is observed

in a small  ower pot or in a vast nature reserve, and nature as a
reservoir for metaphors is more important than nature per se (Kalland
1995a).
Third, seeing nature as a process may also imply that nature is
not regarded as something unchanging or absolute but as situational
or contextual, which allows for multiple concepts of nature to co-
exist: the wild and threatening nature which sometimes plays havoc
with people and landscape, or nature in its most cultivated form: a
garden, a dwarfed tree (bonsai ), or a soft drink in a vending machine.
It is in the latter idealized form that nature is most appreciated. It
is appreciated because it is cultured, which means that it is brought
into people’s social universe. Wilderness or raw nature has by deŽ nition
no relationship with society; it belongs to the outside world and peo-
ple have therefore no obligations towards it. On the contrary, wildlife
and wilderness might appear threatening and ought to be avoided.4
People may even have the same disdain for the wilderness as for
“uncultivated” people (Tyler 1989: 22). There is a tendency to value
secondary man-made nature more than primordial nature. Hence,
contamination of the environment rarely meets strong sanctions unless
this has a direct bearing on social relations. The Japanese are as
particularistic in their relationship with the physical environment as
they are to other human beings.
Fourth, to single out certain items and use these metonymically
for both nature as a whole and for culture is not necessarily in the
interest of the physical environment as such. Kellert, for example,
found that the Japanese appreciation for animals was restricted “to
species possessing unusual aesthetic and cultural appeal in certain
highly controlled circumstances” and “rarely did this admiration [for
nature] go beyond a single species or isolated landscape . . . Environ-
mental features falling outside the valued aesthetic and symbolic
boundaries tended to be ignored, considered irrelevant, or judged
unappealing” (Kellert 1993: 59). Similarly, Berque (1997: 164) observes
that “nature that was so delicately celebrated was merely a Ž ctitious
product, reŽ ned over the centuries and divorced from any true envi-
ronmental practice”. To enhance certain features of the environment
and neglect the rest usually implies heavy-handed reductionism, to
use Lee’s term, and may arguably not be the best way to protect
nature.
Fifth, it has been argued that when nature is seen as immanently
 holism and sustainability: lessons from japan 153

divine, as it allegedly is in Japan, this leads to a “love of nature”

relationship (e.g. Hjort and Svedin 1985: 162). But the close rela-
tionship between people and spirit also enables people to entice spir-
its to move from their abodes in order to utilize the locations in
question for other purposes. Before the construction of a house can
commence, for instance, a ground-breaking ceremony ( jichinsai ) is
invariably performed. Spirits can also be persuaded to move into
shrines so that their old abodes, in nature, can be appropriated.
Moreover, it is recognized that it is the nature of things that one
organism feeds upon another, creating relations of indebtedness in
the process. Human beings are considered to become indebted to
nature when exploiting it, but can “repay” harm that has been in icted
upon nature, animate or inanimate, through, for instance, memor-
ial rites (Kalland and Asquith 1997: 20), leaving the rest to nature
itself to mend. A divine nature is, therefore, by no means a guar-
antee against environmental degradation, as has often been claimed.
Finally, and this is a critique of another kind, in the search for
holistic-organic paradigms new dichotomies are created. One is made
between those who adhere to Cartesian dualism and those who do
not, another is made between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.
People are either one or the other. Both these distinctions are made
to upheld the notion of the “other”; it is western dualism versus non-
western monism; western anthropocentrism versus non-western eco-
centrism; and western “modernism” versus non-western “traditionalism”
(or “contextualization”). However, it can be argued that the distinc-
tion between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism is based on a west-
ern categorization—itself a child of Cartesian dualism—with little
applicability to Japan. Depending on the context, most Japanese see
themselves either as part of nature together with spirits, animals,
plants and stones (an ecocentric view of nature) or as uniquely supe-
rior to other creatures regarding nature as a potential resource to
exploit (anthropocentric view). Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism are
con ated. The Japanese are either, or both, depending on the situ-
ation.5 Guha (1989) also objects to the attempts to turn Oriental reli-
gions into ecocentric religions. He looks upon this, which he calls
appropriation of Oriental religions, as yet another expression of west-
erners’ need to universalize their messages. Guha argues that the
myth of the ecologically noble Orientals (Lohmann 1993; Bruun and
Kalland 1995), reproduces, as its noble savage counterpart (Ellen
1986; Redford 1991; Buege 1996), a false dichotomy between the
154 arne kalland

rational and science-oriented Occidentals and the spiritual and emo-

tional Orientals. The distinction between anthropocentric and eco-
centric worldviews should then best be analysed as an internal western
cultural critique, not in terms of “we” and “they”.

Conclusion

Pedersen (1995) suggests that people read ecological motives into old
religious beliefs and practices as a means to partake in a “global ide-
ology of nature’ and to deŽ ne their own “cultural identity”. This strat-
egy becomes particularly rewarding when their beliefs and practices
are praised by the powerful outside, as in the case with western
images of Oriental perceptions of nature. This enables non-western
people to produce a tradition of a glorious ecological past, a tradi-
tion that also is depicted as the solution for the future. To Pedersen
the concept of ecology is, however, intimately connected with moder-
nity. It is the interpretation of science and has a global validity, i.e.
it is universal and decontextualized. Religion, on the other hand, is
contextual and embedded in local communities. This does not mean
that people do not have ecological insight,6 but this is something
which must be empirically investigated—not taken for granted—and
the most proŽ table place to look is not necessarily religion. Nor does
it mean that religious practice may not have positive ecological eVects,
but we should be careful and not confuse positive side eVects with
the cause (Vayda 1986).
The Japanese sensitivity to nature has been taken by many as
“love of nature”, but this is nature in its idealized form. Matching
this “love” is their abhorrence towards nature in the raw. One there-
fore seeks to order, or to come to terms with, nature in various
ways, such as through reductionism, rituals and arts. But above all
nature is used as a reservoir for metaphors. Through such processes,
nature appears in a cultivated form, which then can be used metonymi-
cally for both nature as a whole and for culture. Hence nature and
culture fail to become exclusive categories in Japan. This and the
notion of the impermanence of all things have certainly caused some
Japanese to be sensitive to nature and to changes therein.
Even if this sensitivity to nature can be translated into love, it has
not prevented environmental disasters from occurring. This is not
surprising because the whole notion is based on selective readings.
 holism and sustainability: lessons from japan 155

I have tried to show that the holistic approach, viewing nature as

the totality of all things may legitimize pollution; that viewing nature
as a process may make its quantity unimportant; that enhancement
and reŽ nement of nature may imply reductionism; and that a divine
nature may open for its appropriation and exploitation. It can be
argued that my reading is equally selective, which is precisely the
point I want to make. Worldviews have many voices, and they are
open to cultural creativity. But even if old dogmas and practices are
given new ecological meanings, we are still left with the tricky rela-
tionship between perceptions and behaviour. There is little reason
to expect that the answers to our environmental problems are to be
found within religions. We should rather look at the social. Many
scholars have stressed the particularistic character of Japanese norms
and this applies equally well to the physical and social environment.
It is just as diYcult to get Japanese to Ž ght against environmental
destruction per se, as it is to get them to Ž ght for human rights in
distant countries. Only when nature is brought into the realm of the
social, and there are some immediate personal gains, do most Japanese
become interested in protecting nature (McKean 1981; Mouer and
Sugimoto 1986: 336-337). Nature invisible to an actor—as one located
far from one’s own backyard—is of little general interest. They are
not alone in this; after all the concept “not in my backyard” (NIMBY)
was coined to Ž t the situation in the United States.
However, contextualization makes also room for  exibility, inno-
vation and pragmatism which stands in sharp contrast to much west-
ern absolutism. The Japanese have on several occasions managed to
turn the tides. After periods of deforestation, Japan is one of the
industrial countries with the largest forest cover relative to her land
area. And from being one of the most polluted major cities, Tokyo
has emerged as one of the cleanest (Koh 1994). The Japanese have
achieved this not by searching for religious clues but the hard way,
via painful experience, confrontation and political pressure. This is
equally true for pre-modern times as for the present, and may prob-
ably be true in the future.

Professor Arne Kalland

Department of Social Anthropology
University of Oslo
P.O.Box 1091, Blindern
156 arne kalland

Notes
1. There are good reasons to believe they are not, however. An UNEP study
found that the Japanese rated lowest amoung fourteen countries on environmental
concern and awareness (cited in Kellert 1991:305). And comparing people’s atti-
tudes to wildlife in Germany, Japan and the United States, Kellert was unable to
conŽ rm these Japanese notions. Rather than seeking harmony, he found that the
Japanese “placed far greater value on satisfactions derived from control and mas-
tery over nature” (Kellert 1991: 297).
2. The contest between creative and destructive forces is, of course, a central
theme in many religions.
3. In Shinto, as well as in many of Japan’s new religions, there is a widely held
notion that impurities or “dust” are ceaselessly being accumulated in people’s bod-
ies or on their souls (tama, kokoro), making them vulnerable to illness, death and
other misfortune unless the impurity is removed through various forms of puriŽ cation.
The very life processes—menstruation, intercourse, childbirth, illness and death—
are themselves seen as polluting and require elaborate puriŽ cation rites. On the
other hand, in mythical times puriŽ cation rites gave birth to several important
deities, and Amaterasu and Susanoo were among the many deities born when their
father Izanagi puriŽ ed himself after returning from the land of the dead.
4. The distinction between inside (uchi ) and outside (soto) is important in this con-
text. Whereas the inside world is predictable—one knows what to expect from rel-
atives, neighbours and friends—the outside world is unpredictable and dangerous.
Yama is the ultimate outside; the term is usually translated as “mountain” but may
also mean “the wild” in contrast to the village (sato) and the cultivated, and may
even mean a Buddhist temple, i.e. the other-world in contrast to the living (Kalland
1995a: 247-248; see also Miyata 1993).
5. In a recent article Weller and Hsiao (1998) made a similar point, stressing
the anthropocentric character of Taiwanese grassroot organizations in contrast to the
more ecocentric ones inspired from the West, despite—or perhaps precisely because
of—the close relation between nature and the moral order found in dominant
Chinese thought. See Lohmann (1995: 124-126) for a similar argument for Thailand.
6. I have elsewhere argued that we have much to learn from indigenous, or
local, knowledge (Kalland 2000).

References
Abe K˜b˜. 1967. The Woman in the Dunes (translated by E. Dale Saunders). Tokyo:
Charles E. Tuttle.
Asquith, Pamela and Arne Kalland (eds). 1997 Japanese Images of Nature. Cultural
Perspectives. London: Curzon Press.
Berque, Augustin. 1997. Japan. Nature, ArtiŽce and Japanese Culture (translated from
French by Ros Schwartz). Northamptonshire: Pilkington Press.
Buege Douglas J. 1996. “The ecologically noble savage revisited”. Environmental Ethics
18:71-88.
Buruma, Ian. 1985. A Japanese Mirror: Heroes and Villains in Japanese Culture. Harmonds-
worth: Penguin Books.
Bruun, Ole and Arne Kalland. 1995. “Images of nature: An introduction to the
study of man-environment relations in Asia”. In O. Bruun and A. Kalland (eds),
Asian Perceptions of Nature: A Critical Approach. Richmond: Curzon Press, pp. 1-24.
Cabañas, Pilar. 1997. “Bijinga and nature: A single beauty”. In P. Asquith and
A. Kalland (eds), Japanese Images of Nature. Cultural Perspectives. London: Curzon
Press, pp. 68-82.
 holism and sustainability: lessons from japan 157

Callicott, J. Baird. 1982. “Traditional American Indian and Western European atti-
tudes toward nature: An overview”. Environmental Ethics 4(4):293-318.
Devall, Bill and George Sessions. 1985. Deep Ecology—Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt
Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publ.
Dunlap, W. and R. Catton. 1980. “A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant
sociology”, American Behavioral Scientists 24(1):15-47.
Ellen, Roy F. 1986. “What Black Elk left unsaid: On illusory images of Green prim-
itivism.” Anthropology Today 2(4):8-12.
Guha, Ramachandra. 1989. “Radical American environmentalism and wilderness
preservation: A Third World critique.” Environmental Ethics 11:71-83.
—— 1998. “Mahatma Gandhi and the environmental movement in India”. In
A. Kalland and G. Persoon (eds), Environmental Movements in Asia. London: Curzon
Press, pp. 65-82.
Hargrove, Eugene C. 1989. “Foreword”. In J.B. Callicott and R.T. Ames (eds),
Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press,
pp. xiii-xxi.
Holy, L. and M. Stuchlik. 1983. Actions, Norms and Representations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hjort, Anders and Uno Svedin (eds), 1985. Jord—Människa—Himmel. Stockholm:
Liber Förlag.
Kalland, Arne. 1995a. “Culture in Japanese nature”. In Bruun, O. and A. Kalland
(eds), Asian Perceptions of Nature: A Critical Approach. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press,
pp. 243-257.
—— 1995b. “Facing the spirits: Illness and healing in a Japanese community”. In
M. Kõiva and K. Vassiljeva (eds), Folk Belief Today. Tartu: Estonian Academy of
Sciences, pp. 167-182.
—— 2000. “Indigenous knowledge—. Prospects and Limitations”. In R. Ellen,
Parkes and A. Bicker (eds), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations.
Critical Anthropological Approaches. London: Harwood Press, pp. 319-335.
Kalland, Arne and Pamela Asquith. 1997. “Japanese perceptions of nature: Ideals
and illusions”. In P. Asquith and A. Kalland (eds), Japanese Images of Nature. Cultural
Perspectives. London: Curzon Press, pp. 1-35.
Kawabata Yasunari. 1970. The House of the Sleeping Beauties (translated by E.G.
Seidensticker). Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Kellert, Stephen R. 1991. “Japanese perceptions of wildlife”. Conservation Biology
5(3):297-308.
—— 1993. “Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the indus-
trial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany”. Journal of Social Issues
49(1):53-69.
Koh, T.T.B. 1994. “Asians, too, want good environment”. In: International Herald
Tribune. February 1, 1994.
Kyburz, Josef. 1997. “Magical thought at the interface of nature and culture”. In
P. Asquith and A. Kalland (eds), Japanese Images of Nature. Cultural Perspectives.
London: Curzon Press, pp. 257-279.
Lee, O-Young. 1984. The Compact Culture. The Japanese Tradition of “Small is Better”.
Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Lohmann, Larry. 1993. “Green Orientalism”. The Ecologist 23(6):202-204.
—— 1995. “Visitors to the commons: Approaching Thailand’s “environmental”
struggles from a western starting point”. In B.R. Taylor (ed.), Ecological Resistance
Movements. The Global Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism. Albany: State
University of New York Press, pp. 109-126.
McKean, Margaret A. 1981. Environmental Protest and Citizen Politics in Japan. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature—Women, Ecology and the ScientiŽc Revolution.
New York: Harper & Row.
158 arne kalland
Miyata, Noboru. 1993. Yama to sato no shinkôshi. Tokyo: Kôbunkan.
Mouer, Ross and Yoshio Sugimoto. 1986. Images of Japanese Society. London: KPI.
Pedersen, Poul. 1995. “Nature, religion and cultural identity: The religious envi-
ronmentalist paradigm.” In O. Bruun and A. Kalland (eds), Asian Perception of
Nature: A Critical Approach. London: Curzon Press, pp. 258-276.
Philippi, Donald L. 1968. Kojiki. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Plutschow, H.E. 1990. Chaos and Cosmos. Ritual in Early and Medieval Japanese Literature.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Reader, Ian. 1991. Religion in Contemporary Japan. London: Macmillan.
—— 1995. “Cleaning  oors and sweeping the mind. Cleaning as a ritual process”.
In J. van Bremen and D.P. Martinez (eds), Ceremony and Ritual in Japan. Religious
Practices in an Industrial Society. London: Routledge 1995, pp. 227-245.
Redford, Kent. 1991. “The ecologically noble savage”. Cultural Survival Quarterly
15:46-48.
Saito, Yuriko. 1985. “The Japanese appreciation of nature”. The British Journal of
Aesthetics 25(3):239-251.
Sponsel, Leslie E. and Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel. 1993. “The potential contribu-
tion of Buddhism in developing an environmental ethic for the conservation of
biodiversity.” In L.S. Hamilton (ed.), Ethics, Religion and Biodiversity. Relations between
Conservation and Cultural Values. Cambridge: The White Horse Press, pp. 75-97.
Totman, Conrad. 1989. The Green Archipelago: Forestry in Preindustrial Japan. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Tyler, Royall. 1989. “Fra hellige fjell til elektrisk fuglesang—om japanernes kjærlighet
til naturen”. Dyade 21(1):20-27.
Vayda, Andrew. 1986. “Holism and individualism in ecological anthropology”.
Reviews in Anthropology, Fall, pp. 295-313.
Weller, Robert P. and Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao. 1998. “Culture, gender and
community in Taiwan’s environmental movement”. In A. Kalland and G. Persoon
(eds), Environmental Movements in Asia. London: Curzon Press, pp. 83-109.
White, Lynn Jr. 1967. “The historical roots of our ecological crisis.” Science 155
(3767):1203-1207.
WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature). 1986. The Assisi Declarations: Messages on Man
and Nature from Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism. Gland, Switzerland:
WWF International.