As far as a simple circuit like this is concerned, there is no difference. The three components that make up the circuit (battery, bulb and switch) are all connected in series.
This is of course a simple ideal case (which is perfectly OK in a pure circuit theory point of view), presumably in an hobby context.
If we consider what this circuit is connected to outside its ideal world, it depends on the context. For example, if the battery were not a battery but a earth-grounded power supply and the bulb had a metallic enclosure also connected to earth-ground (safety ground). These external connection would matter in some cases.
Anyway, as long as the circuit exactly represents what it shows (a real-world 9V battery, a light bulb and a switch), then what I said still stands.
Note: my emphasis about when these circuits might not be equivalent is prompted by my impression that you are a newbie. Sometimes newbies post a circuit that don't represent exactly what's in it. Or sometimes also they think that the answer is easily applicable to "slightly" different situations, and this brings up safety concerns. For example: what I said could be applicable also if the battery were a household power outlet, but only in theory (the theory where the power outlet is seen as a simple AC voltage generator). In practice, in such cases there are safety issues to be considered which call for a deep understanding of what's the real environment "where the circuit lives".
Another thing to notice is that the position of the switch may matter if you are engineering a product, then the physical size of the components and the routing of the actual wires used for the connections may dictate whether one of the circuit is better than the other, although electrically they will behave the same.
This resembles old CryBaby Wah-pedal. It had a sweepable band boost filter or more precisely a sweepable high-pass filter with some resonance boost. This is an active filter where the result is formed by a feedback loop that can be varied by turning a pot. This is not a bandpass filter that consists L1 and C2.
In pure math the order is the total number of reactive components (=inductors and capacitors in the signal and feedback paths. If 2 reactive components of the same type happen to be purely in series or parallel, they should be counted only as one.
In practice the most remarkable effect (here the wah) can be caused by a subcircuit. The others affect remarkably only at the ends of the frequency range. For example C1 only cuts some bass and makes a gap for DC.
The measures XXX desibels per octave or decade are not good for this. They are developed for easy comparisons between the steepnesses or selectivities between frequency selective filters. This filter is an equalizer, it's not for killing some frequencies.
Best Answer
Yes it does matter.
Your two sections are rather oddly matched, as Tony says. I presume you know you'll have quite a bit of passband ripple, and it's the right decision for your application.
If the high Q section is first, then high amplitude signals around the pole frequency will be amplified by the Q, and cause the amplifier to clip, i.e. become very non-linear.
The harmonic distortion caused by the clipping may be difficult to measure as it will be attenuated by both filter sections, but the intermodulation distortion will not. That is, tones at (say 3.3 and 3.5 kHz), both clipped, will produce a 200Hz component which will NOT be attenuated.
Put the low Q low frequency section first, and these tones will be attenuated by 12dB/octave, and they are 1 octave above its passband. That reduces their amplitude to about 1/4 before the second stage (Q = 4.6) would increase them about 4x.
So the low Q section first prevents the high Q section clipping.