Unsettling orthodoxies: education for the environment/for sustainability

Abstract

In this paper I employ Foucault's notion of governmentality to reflect on a debate that occurred in the pages of this journal some 10 years ago. I argue that their exchanges indicate ways in which various positions are engaged in a struggle for dominance in this field, and how particular strategies are used to legitimate and maintain these positions. My purpose is not to propose a new orthodoxy -or even to critique those we have -but rather to raise questions about how the unquestioned 'that-which-is' of orthodoxies comes to be, and their effects. I also suggest that as environmental educators and researchers, we need to work harder to unsettle more often the taken-for-granted in environmental education so that we remain alert to our own easy acceptance of orthodoxies. Without this, we risk our exhortations to those we seek to educate -to think critically, to question assumptions, and so forth -becoming empty rhetoric if we are not practising these ourselves -examining our own, as well as others', assumptions and practices.

Education for sustainable development (ESD): the turn away from ‘environment’ in environmental education?

“…According to Huckle (1983) and Robottom (1987), 'education for the environment' has generated powerful images, which have resonated with educators seeking empowerment and new *Email: h.kopnina@hhs.nl Environmental Education Research 2012, 1-19, iFirst Article directions to enable inquiry into socio-political dimensions of EE (e.g. Ferreira [2009] account and the criticism of the socially critical perspective is instructive for these distinctions).…”

Taking stock of the UN Decade of education for sustainable development: the policy-making process in Flanders

“…By bringing this forward in our descriptions we want to invite and inspire the reader to be attentive to different ways of seeing, speaking, thinking, and acting. Such inquiries can contribute to what Ferreira (2009) calls 'unsettling the taken-for-granted' in EE and ESD, illuminating how certain orthodoxies have become 'normal' and 'obvious' all the same, how these orthodoxies assumes the possibility of infringement, and subversion (Duyvendak and Uitermark 2005;Ferreira 2009). …”

“…An ecologically sound and sustainable society emerges thus as a challenge that can be met by applying the proper learning strategies and, thus, education becomes first and foremost a matter of socialisation, that is, the acquisition of particular knowledge, skills, competences, or dispositions. EE and ESD are reduced to instruments to foster the values and principles of sustainable development, to promote corresponding behavioural changes, and to qualify people for the role of active participants that contribute to the democratic realisation of sustainable development (Ferreira 2009;Van Poeck and Vandenabeele 2012). As we already showed above, this tendency to frame sustainability as a learning problem is also addressed in the debate concerning the influence of ESD policy and discourse on EE as such an 'instrumental' approach to education is criticised by scholars as well as policy actors.…”

Reflecting on the 5th World Environmental Education Congress, Montreal, 2009

“…Having said this, I do not want to give the impression that there are no problems within EE. Of course, there is a suite of tensions (see, e.g., Ferreira 2009), but that is a story for another day. Considering the Ahmedabad documentation (Ahmedabad drafting committee 2007), I was inspired by the clear sense of urgency it conveyed: 'We no longer need recommendations for incremental change,' it states, 'we need recommendations that help alter our economic and production systems, and ways of living radically.…”