Neoliberalism and Justice in Education for Sustainable Development: a Call for Inclusive Pluralism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Environmental Education Research ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20 Neoliberalism and justice in education for sustainable development: a call for inclusive pluralism Helen Kopnina & Brett Cherniak To cite this article: Helen Kopnina & Brett Cherniak (2016) Neoliberalism and justice in education for sustainable development: a call for inclusive pluralism, Environmental Education Research, 22:6, 827-841, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1149550 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1149550 © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 15 Mar 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 938 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20 Environmental Education Research, 2016 Vol. 22, No. 6, 827–841, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1149550 Neoliberalism and justice in education for sustainable development: a call for inclusive pluralism Helen Kopninaa* and Brett Cherniakb aFaculty Social and Behavioural Sciences, Institute Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; bIndependent Researcher, Ontario, Canada (Received 5 March 2015; accepted 24 January 2016) Commonly conceived, sustainable development is concerned with social and economic equity and maintenance of ecological stability for future generations. The Brundtland Report addresses the ethical principles of intragenerational and intergenerational equity as fundamental pillars of sustainable development. This equity is often defined in economic terms, involving fair distribution of natural resources, and in practice dependent on the workings of a neoliberal market economy. Simultaneously, it is assumed that democratic learning enables stu- dents to be critically rational and ethical agents able to make informed choices in regard to sustainability challenges. This article questions whether the benefits of sustainable development should be meant for humans only, and whether con- cern for environmental sustainability should be limited to the environment’s abil- ity to accommodate social and economic equity. It is argued that the dominant form of pluralism employed within education is essentially anthropocentric, pri- oritizing social justice over interests of more-than-humans. This article will argue for a bolder move in the direction of inclusive pluralism through eco-representa- tion and reinstatement of education for nature. Keywords: education for sustainable development (ESD); inclusive pluralism; neoliberalism Introduction Ethical principles of intragenerational equity (spatial equity within a generation) and intergenerational equity (temporal equity between generations) are the central princi- ples of sustainable development (Sund, forthcoming). This equity is often defined in economic terms, meaning fair distribution of natural resources. Plural perspectives are encouraged in order to engage broader participation in the enterprise of sustain- able development (UNESCO 2015). Concern for democracy and participation is also crucial to the current practice of Education for Sustainable Development or ESD (Van Poeck and Vandenabeele 2012; Sund, forthcoming). ESD emphasizes the need to reflect on the implicit normativity of education in favor of more plural ethical approaches (e.g. Öhman and Östman 2008; Payne 2010a; Kronlid and Öhman 2013) in order to avoid preaching pre-determined values (e.g. Wals 2010).1 Citizenship education aims to prepare students to become knowledgeable individuals committed to active participation in a pluralist society (Jickling 1994, 2005, 2009, 2013; Sears, *Corresponding author. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduc- tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 828 H. Kopnina and B. Cherniak Clarke, and Hughes 1998). While citizens have different and conflicting viewpoints on political, moral and religious matters, it is often assumed that in essence these cit- izens are rational and essentially ethical decision-makers (Bansel 2007). Following from this, it is assumed that sustainability can be achieved by economic and techno- logical development (Lidskog and Elander 2012) and that democratic processes can advance environmental agendas (Koukouzelis 2012). These assumptions are often counted on in order to find a common consensus on sustainability; one that is acceptable to the majority of citizens regardless of their different viewpoints (Atkin- son and Wade 2014). Pluralism, an intellectual and ethical position that ideally allows for the demo- cratic exchange of ideas, is associated with the notion of active citizenship. While pluralism can be discussed from many different ideological standpoints including liberalism, communitarianism, pragmatism, and deliberative democracy (e.g. Norton 1987; Cuomo 1998; Cherniak 2012; Kronlid and Öhman 2013), in this article we focus on moral pluralism in an educational context. Pluralism encourages active par- ticipation and open views rather than teaching consensus (Jickling 1994, 2005, 2009; Wals 2010; Peters and Wals 2013). As a cumulative theory for the participa- tory and democratic mission of EE/ESD, pluralism often disputes a single vision of (or path to) sustainability, presenting instrumentalism in education for sustainability as a ‘strait-jacket’ on democracy (Saward 1998). Within this vision, instrumental or expert education is seen to undermine students’ ability to take responsibility as democratic citizens (Sund 2008; Læssøe and Öhman 2010; Wals 2010). Countering this, others have doubted whether an open pluralistic space alone will enhance individuals’ competences to act on behalf of the environment (RICKINSON 2003; Smith 2003; Chawla and Cushing 2007; Kopnina 2013a, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2015). As Washington (2015, 370) has pointed out, pluralism as it is currently conceived is grossly inadequate for environmental protection. When it comes to specific solutions to sustainability, especially in cases that require scientifi- cally informed or committed decisions, public morality and rationality is highly questionable (MacIntyre 1988; Lidskog and Elander 2010; Atkinson and Wade 2014). Should we allow a plurality of opinions on the problems and causes of unsus- tainability or promote a more instrumental approach teaching – and even advocating – one course of action over the other? Should we teach for sustainability, and what type of sustainability – social, economic, ecological, or all of them concurrently? In this article we discuss why we should not readily abandon goal-oriented, instrumen- tal, and expertly informed education. We aim to critically examine the type of rela- tivistic pluralism that makes it difficult to defend a commitment to any particular moral or political standpoint as it assumes that there are no uncontestable universal standards by which we may evaluate competing moral views (Rawls 2005). Our objection is to relativistic pluralism that pretends to be open to all views but presents only one dominant perspective and leads the discussion away from the key drivers of unsustainability and away from pro-environmental advocacy. We shall refer to relativistic pluralism as an assumption that there are many dif- ferent visions, approaches and pathways in approaching sustainability. When refer- ring to pro-environmental advocacy, we shall engage environmental ethics, described, variously, as ecocentrism, deep ecology, or dark green ecology (e.g. Naess 1973; Callicott 1980, 1999; Rolston 2015). These various strands of ethics remove humans from the moral pedestal and are united against anthropocentrism, Environmental Education Research 829 which regards all parts of the natural world as exploitable for our benefit (Garner 2015.2) Both animal liberationist and deep ecology philosophies take a stance towards protecting species, ecological niches, and biodiversity (Bekoff 2013, 34). In this article we will examine different conceptions of pluralism while exposing the anthropocentric democracy buried within. Furthermore, we examine the implica- tion of an ethical pluralism, in research, educational practice and curriculum, refer- ring to the purposes, tasks and scope of educational activities. We take a clear stance toward both human and more-than-human interests, breaking of the boundary between humans’ and nonhumans’ moral concerns, and call for inclusive pluralism. Discussing climate change and extinctions Climate change and extinctions are two of the many complex moral dilemmas that students and educators face in the context of broader environmental unsustainability. Kronlid and Öhman (2013, 21) reflect that due to climate change it is estimated that 150–200 million people will be displaced and 30% of all species run the risk of being extinct by 2050. They reflect that a ‘climate change ethic’ involves both anthropocentric and an ecocentric concern, as it affects biodiversity as well as