The Political Ecology of Death: Chinese Religion and The Affective Tensions of Secularised Burial Rituals in Singapore

Abstract

This paper explores the political ecology of death and the affective tensions of secularised burial rituals in Singapore. Although scholars have recently acknowledged the roles of biopower and affect in shaping environmental politics, religion and death as socio-affective forces have not been substantively engaged with by political ecologists. We argue that death is inherently both a spiritual and ecological phenomenon, as it exposes not only the spiritual geographies that structure how people see the natural world, but also the affective tensions and struggles over what counts as a “proper” form of burial in relation to religion and nature. First, we demonstrate how the Singapore state utilises a politico-ecological discourse to secularise Chinese death rituals, such that the death can be separated from the transcendent spheres and incorporated into the environmental biopolitics. Second, we focus on how people's variegated affective inhabitations of religion and secularity condition the political ecology of death. In doing so, this paper foregrounds the roles of religion, secularity and affect in rethinking the “political” of political ecology.

When planetary cosmopolitanism meets the Buddhist ethic: Recycling, karma and popular ecology in Singapore

“…Taken together, these accounts illustrate how Buddhism is mobilised as a ‘domain of belief, knowledge, and cosmology that influences the ways people affectively connect to nature/environment’ (Gao et al., 2021, p. 5), which motivates the formation of new and diverse spaces of cosmopolitan responsibility. Despite this diversity, however, a common thread amongst our participants is a renewed sense of accountability to secure future planetary well‐being in the here and now: a trans‐temporal ethic of justice towards Earth.…”

“…Recognising the heterogenous nature of Buddhism in Singapore (Kuah-Pearce, 2009;Wee, 1997Wee, [1976), this sample is not meant to represent the views of Singapore's Buddhists, nor do they reflect a particular Buddhist tradition. Rather, these everyday stakeholders provide a counterpoint to the elite voices of religious leaders and policy experts to better illuminate the complex ways in which ecological crises are imagined, lived and responded to in everyday life (Gao et al, 2021;Lee & Kong, 2015).…”

“…Research has shown how ‘Buddhists’ in Singapore often engage in what are traditionally known as ‘non‐Buddhist’ Taoist practices, such as burning joss papers, drawing divine lots, fortune telling and spiritual mediumship (Kuah‐Pearce, 2009). Given the complexity of Buddhism in Singapore, the everyday ecological practices informed by Buddhist teachings are often much more nuanced, and do not sit neatly within major traditional schools of thought, such as Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism (Gao et al., 2021).…”

“…This raises questions about the divergences that emerge between the state‐endorsed secular worldviews, and spiritual ways of knowing and inhabiting the planet (Chan & Islam, 2015), while keeping in view the possibilities and realities of convergences in ecological actions. Such divergence‐amidst‐convergence is most acutely and palpably felt amongst Buddhists, who tap into an alternative imagining of human–ecology relationships that diverges from the prevailing secular, technocratic discourse of the state (Gao et al., 2021; Swearer, 2006). Buddhism thus emerges as a nexus through which the dominant modes of environmentalism are negotiated and entwined with the (re)production of cosmopolitan subjects.…”

Squeezed out by the market, seeking strength in the network: Makeshift temples and the spatio‐affective logics of survival in Singapore

“…Second, an over‐emphasis on market‐based competition in religious market theory elides the social‐affective processes of religious praxis through which the religious market is made possible (Chau, 2011; Palmer, 2011). In particular, religion is itself a social‐affective and immanent system that cannot be simply reduced to a ‘product’ or cultural resource for marketing and economic manipulation (Holloway, 2006, 2013; Gao et al,2021). Rather than treating the market as an axiomatic mechanism, research needs to focus on the affective logics that might mediate and shape religious marketplaces.…”