Towards (comparative) educational research for a finite future

ABSTRACT

Educational scholars, particularly those working in comparative education, have largely failed to recognise, let alone discuss, the impending finite-ness of global resources. The field continues to operate on an assumption of infinite resources, an implicit cultural horizon in place since at least the Western Enlightenment. It has missed the epochal shift that is now upon us; unable to contribute to the deep transformation of research and practices that has now become urgent. Herein we discuss how such concerns might be addressed, suggesting an approach that centres ontological alterity through comparative method as means of making the turn towards a sustainable future.

KEYWORDS:

• Economic growth
• (un)sustainability
• kosmos
• anthropocene
• ontology

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Iveta Silova and Euan Auld for their substantial inputs and contributions to our thinking. We also thank Bob Cowen for his support and mentorship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Jeremy Rappleye is Associate Professor at Kyoto University, Graduate School of Education.

Hikaru Komatsu is Research Associate at Kyoto University and a member of the Hakubi Project. He holds a doctorate in forestry from the University of Tokyo. His research interests lie in the scientific and philosophical study of human-nature interactions.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Maki Yusuke is the pen name for Mita Munesuke, but he does not always consistently use his pen name. For clarity we use Maki Yusuke throughout. We retain the original Japanese order of names in this article, i.e. family first and individual second.

2 We believe that Maki could have drawn partial inspiration from an article published in America entitled “A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology” (Catton and Dunlap 1978). That article also utilizes a logistics curve conceptualization and critiques mainstream sociology. However, Maki departs, in characteristic fashion, by pushing onward to the ontological layer and highlighting that what is purported to be ‘human’ is actually culturally specific (found primarily in the Anglo-American West). 

3 Even in Maki’s latest work (published June 2018) the omission of education is striking.

4 We should acknowledge that we are making a political assumption here that the dominance of the OECD, World Bank, and other organizations that carry such cultural visions worldwide will continue to dominate politically for at least the next 4–5 decades. If there was a drastic political change – the sudden rise of a new World Order - that threatened our portrayal of a relatively stable world political universe, it would complicate our analysis considerably. But we do not foresee that possibility. One additional note: after our piece had been accepted and whilst doing our final revisions, we found that even the OECD was now realizing that the first and foremost challenge facing education was environmental (OECD 2018). We wonder if an organization dedicated to economic growth for the last 70 years be able to make the turn in time?

5 Limited by space we cannot discuss work on the periphery of mainstream paradigms that are aware of and challenge the limits of Western Enlightenment thoughts. This group would include scholars of indigenous knowledge, post-colonial and de-colonial projects, some strains of feminism, and post-structuralism and post-modernity. Still, even these paradigms do not always ensure awareness of a finite future. Here is a key distinction. For example, one can work with post-structuralism to get beyond Western Enlightenment assumptions without then recognizing finite natural resources. We are suggesting the need for both moves.