No abstract

Purpose: First, the article offers a critical examination of the Deweyan conception of “common faith” in the context of climate change. Second, the article explores the conceptual linkages among the Confucian conception of the human–nature unity, the Buddhist doctrine of “no-self,” and the Deweyan conception of common faith. Third, the article proposes a transformative pedagogical praxis that welcomes and embraces the pursuit of the intra- and intergenerational justice in this Anthropocene Age of climate change. Design/Approach/Methods: This study is based on a philosophical inquiry into interrelated issues concerning the cultivation of common faith in the age of climate change. Findings: The Confucian conception of a human–nature unity, the Buddhist doctrine of “no-self,” and the Deweyan “common faith,” collectively in recognition of a coterminous coexistence of humans and the universe, can shed light on the development of a transformative climate pedagogy. Further, embracing a dialogical pluriversality, recognizing human fallibility, can cultivate a shared agency and ecological identity. Originality/Value: Grounded in the coterminous coexistence of humans and the universe, the conceptual linkages among the Confucian conception of the unity of humans and nature, the Buddhist doctrine of “no-self,” and the Deweyan common faith reveal the possibility of cross-cultural collaboration for our interdependent future.

In this essay, Huey‐li Li inquires into how ecofeminist analyses of the woman‐nature affinity call for the rectification of polarized conceptions of “nature.” By attending to the interconnections between various forms of oppression, Li argues, ecofeminism sheds light on how gender ideology influences our worldview and the construction of educational institutions. Above all, she contends, ecofeminism as a pedagogical project emphasizes ethical activism within oppressive contexts. The recent development of ecofeminism, in particular, represents a collaborative feminist coalition aimed at redressing interrelated oppressive systems in patriarchal societies. The transformative potential of the praxis of ecofeminism, Li concludes, lies in its mobilization of both dominant groups and subordinate groups to undertake collective educational efforts to critically examine existing social norms and to explore the possibilities of establishing new ethical norms in the global community.

In this article, I offer a clarification of the ambiguities surrounding the pivotal concepts that have shaped and will continue to shape environmental education movement in the United States and beyond: nature, conservation, sustainable development, and environmental justice. I point out that dualistic frameworks not only polarize environmental educators’ ethical, political, and pedagogical values but also oversimplify complicated ecological issues. It is critical to generate inclusive and collective pedagogical efforts that recognize the interactions between the natural and the cultural, the possibility of integrating ecocentric and technocentric conservation education movements, and the need to foster humility for ongoing dialogues concerning sustainable development and environmental justice.

In this essay, Huey‐li Li argues that, although precariousness has always been embedded in human existence, our human vulnerability has been heightened by seemingly omnipresent and omnipotent risks in the modern era, ranging from the 9/11 terroristic attacks and nuclear meltdowns to infectious disease outbreaks and climate change. Li unravels some of the ambiguities surrounding the conceptualization of vulnerability, pointing out that human vulnerability, to a large extent, is coterminous with the increasingly more vulnerable global–local ecological systems in the age of the Anthropocene. She then connects this formulation of vulnerability to the existential, ontological, and social vulnerability in education and its accompanying discourses. Li questions the wisdom of thinking that human invulnerability is an attainable goal in the modern era and argues further that all protective and preventive efforts are actually counterproductive — that is, that they instead tend to maximize our fears and thus render us more vulnerable. Instead of perpetuating the vulnerable pursuit of invulnerability in formal educational institutions, Li concludes, modern schooling should embrace and engage ecological and human vulnerability. In this way, education might better assume ethical responsibility for mitigating the ongoing ecological decline.