About the need for a common and tentatively formal theory of ESD and self-critical reflections

Abstract

Through philosophical reasoning, this article will argue for two theses, which function as two sides of the same coin. The first thesis is that Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), as a science and in addition to numerous concrete individual studies, must work self-reflexively on a common and tentatively formal theory of ESD. The first substantive section of the article attempts to justify why ESD is a highly complex science that is anything but easy to work on. I will try to justify this second thesis by reflecting, even if only by example, on the question of why, how and with what objectives the addressees of ESD pedagogy are to be educated.

Critical questions in respect of the scientific discourse on ESD will substantiate the second thesis. Simultaneously, I aim to argue that to work self-reflexivel y on a common and tentatively formal theory of ESD is necessary for the systematic and scientific development of the discipline, and that only self-critical and systematic ESD research can provide precise knowledge on how ESD, as a pedagogical practice, can unfold its potential for the designated and desired transformation.

Keywords:

• Climate change education
• education for sustainable development
• environmental education research
• environmental and sustainability education
• global citizenship education
• philosophy of science

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Michael Håkansson for his thoughtful and helpful comments on this article and Simone Blandford for the thorough editing.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The contribution follows a demand by Bob Jickling, who criticised the lack of consideration of philosophical research methods (cf. Jickling, 1992, 2014/1993).

2 In this article, ESD is widely understood and used. Hence, the arguments developed in the article also apply in large parts to related concepts, such as environmental and sustainability education, environmental education or global citizenship education. At least, so it appears to the author. ESD is used because it is probably the most frequently used term due to its educational designation by UNESCO.

3 Above all, this contribution is oriented towards the method of immanent critique that has its origins in philosophy (cf. for example, Stahl, 2013 and Romero, 2014). In orienting towards this way, I am arguing from a position that draws on the tradition of so-called ‘older’ critical theory of the Frankfurt School (cf. for example, Adorno, 1990 and Gruschka, 2004). With this brief note on my philosophical stance, I follow the demands of Bob Jickling, who criticised a lack of consideration for philosophical research methods (cf. Jickling, 2014/1993, c.f. for philosophy of science, for example, Carnap, 1928; Feyerabend, 1979; Kuhn, 1962; Lakatos 1970, 1971; Nagel, 2016; Popper, 1935; Wittgenstein, 1951), and Sund and Lysgaard (2013) who argue that, ‘all research articles might include a paragraph that illustrates which philosophical traditions they are inspired by and build on’ (p. 1603). However, I do not intend to write a methodological contribution and, for this reason, the method of immanent critique is not expanded on in this article.

4 This also applies vice versa. Hannah Arendt’s (2000) reflections on pedagogy, for example, belong in principle to mode 1 because it is a writing on the philosophy of education. Nevertheless, statements about empirical reality, for example about the reason for teachers’ loss of authority, enter into her argument.

5 From a distanced perspective, it is striking that in the ESD debate, the questionability of sustainability is hardly taken up concerning normative-programmatic educational concepts.

On the one hand, this is not surprising. To be effective in practice, one must be convinced of a concept and have a clear idea of the goal. Hence, since ESD scientists also want to have an impact in practice, a practically unquestionable conception is just necessary. However, on the other hand, the motive of wanting to have an effect in practice might obstruct the possibility of asking scientific questions. In addition, there is a danger that researchers will not request critical questions because the researchers themselves want to have a practical effect. These jeopardise the possible contribution that science – freed from the pressure of the (pedagogical) practice to act – could make to practice, namely enlightening practice about itself.

6 In the meantime, this position is already (partially) taken with ‘Scientist Rebellion’.

7 To avoid a misunderstanding: The discourse to survive (philosophically-) normatively-conceptually what the practice of ESD should be is an important one, which is not denied here because ESD, like every pedagogy, must ask itself normatively whether it is legitimised at all. This is especially true if the pedagogical practice is directed at addressees who are not free to participate in the pedagogical practice (above all, children and young people). Through compulsory participation, especially compulsory schooling, pedagogy and the individual pedagogues restrict the addressees’ freedom and determine their lifetime. Namely, the normative demands of future generations and what consequences this has for today’s age and the education and training of today’s descendants.

Furthermore, a normative orientation, which guides one’s actions as an educator, is necessary. Because this normative orientation makes it possible to act in practice, in which one is under pressure to act, to make decisions regarding the different options on how to act – the attempt in practice itself to carry out self-critical reflections before acting can only fail.

8 As it is well known, Vare and Scott want themselves to take a mediating position. An interesting question of its own is the confrontation of ESD with, for example, Hannah Arendt’s (2000) diagnosis of the crisis of education. On the one hand, she would probably express a suspicion of instrumentalisation and criticise ESD. And yet, at the same time, it would have to be asked whether Arendt would not also argue that, analogous to the power of integration - I am referring here to her remarks on the immigration society of the USA - pedagogy in particular can successfully (co-)deal with social problems.

9 In the international English-language discourse, Gert Biesta (2002) is perhaps the most prominent advocate of the term or concept of Bildung, although he argues for a necessary adaptation of the term or concept to ‘our time’. I follow Biesta’s historical reconstruction of the concept of Bildung, though not his conclusions regarding the concept for today. I will have to unfold my counter-argumentation at another point, as well as my own unfolding of the concept of Bildung with regard to ‘our time’. At this point, only a brief sketch of the ‘complex concept’ (Biesta, 2002, p. 343) of education can be given: Bildung has no obvious English-language substitute. It has been translated variously as education, edification, formation, learning, culture, cultivation and literacy. Bildung was given canonical definition by Wilhelm von Humboldt as ‘the linking of the self to the world to achieve the most general, most animated, and most unrestrained interplay’ (Humboldt et al., 1995; Flitner & Giel 1980, p. 58). In keeping with the breadth of this phrasing, Bildung is defined as ‘the process of the forming (die Formung) of humans, as well as the determination (Bestimmung) of the goal and purpose of human existence’ – further underscoring the vast, ill-defined semantic space that this term occupies in the German language. In addition, Bildung signifies the ideal of the autonomous, self-determined, and self-reflected personality in its full realisation. However, Bildung goes beyond this as well. Bildung cannot be completely contained by terms such as education, ‘socialisation’, ‘instruction’, or ‘schooling’. Bildung identifies a kind of ‘becoming human’ that spans biographical, collective, institutional and historical dimensions. As such, it opens up the possibilities of a generative process through which we are formed by the world, form ourselves, and form the world (immediately) around us (Kminek, 2023, page still unknown).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Helge Kminek

Helge Kminek is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for General Educational Science at the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main. He is also a member of the board of the Commission on Education for Sustainable Development within the German Society for Educational Science.