The Rites of Spring (and Other Seasons)

as performance? Dttual and performance are two ̄ ~words increasingly heard in discussions of ecological restoration, but they are terms that tend to create a lot of unease in a secular society. For those who like their ecology "straight," the idea of incorporating ritual and/or performance into restoration may sound like eccentricity at best, and quasi-religious propaganda at worst. However, for those who have a broader idea of what might constitute restoration practice, ritual and performance present intriguing elements that could serve to enhance the discipline. Claims for the potential of ritual in restoration have varied from the suggestion that it might be possible to create an ecological equivalent to the sacrament of Communion, to the more modest conviction that "giving back" to one’s place fosters a sense of humility and respect for the land. In both of these examples, however, the common underlying assumption is that to fulfill its potential, restoration must include a conscious renegotiation of the relationship between nature and culture, and that ritual and performance are means of effecting that. We propose that ritual and performance could be of considerable importance to the ongoing development of ecological restoration. There are, however, serious issues regarding its use that need clarification and discussion before ritual practice ought to embraced by restorationists. In this paper, therefore, we discuss a number of observations1 and claims about the potential of ritual in ecological restoration from the perspective of two schools of anthropological theory. As a first step we draw from literature in the anthropology of landscape, with its focus on the manner in which the relationship between nature and culture is constructed, to consider the claim that the Western relationship with nature needs to be, or even can be, reworked. Second, we use anthropological theories of performance to investigate how the various functions of ritual, such as creating meaning out of experience, and sparking creative and transformative power, could perhaps be applied to enhance restoration projects. However, this same body of theory raises concerns about such applications of ritual: if one accepts the view that ritual and performance are powerful enough to effect social change, then clearly they have political implications which must be grappled with before restorationists adopt them. There are four closely-connected terms used in this essay that require clarification: performance, ritual, rite and focal practice. We take performance to be the broadest term. For many anthropologists-notably Victor Turner, whose name is often associated with ideas about ritual-theories of performance have included discussions of rituals and rites. For our purposes "performance" means any planned, consensual set of actions. This very wide definition gives rise to all manner of public and private activity, from established practices such as theater to private rites of passage. "Performance" is used also to refer to activities that might not be regular--that is, which might be carried out only once or a few times. Both the general and specific senses of performance are found in writings about ecological restoration. The terms "ritual" and "rite" are often used interchangeably, and both are