Searching for the political dimension in education for sustainable development: socially critical, social learning and radical democratic approaches

Abstract

By means of a narrative research synthesis, the aim of this article is to explore how the political dimension can or should be staged as a teaching and learning content in education for sustainable development (ESD). The study is limited to research literature dealing with the political dimension in relation to the phenomenon of conflict. Three approaches to the topic are identified: a socially critical approach (SCA), a social learning approach (SLA) and a radical democratic approach (RDA). Notably, SCA and SLA are already established in the research field, whereas RDA is a result of our synthesis. The scope of the synthesis is limited to these three approaches. We follow up the narrative research synthesis by comparing the three approaches to discern how the political dimension emerges as an educational content by using conflict as part of the teaching and learning activities. The main results are that all three approaches tend to downplay the political and produce political sameness. The article ends by suggesting possible directions for further research that would fruitfully translate the idea of the political dimension into educational settings and enrich the political dimension as a concept in ESD in both practice and research.

Keywords:

• Sustainable development
• political dimension
• conflict
• knowledge overview

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the anonymous reviewers of this article. We would also like to thank Senior Lecturer Eva Lundqvist and Joacim Andersson at Uppsala University and Professor Jim Garrison at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA, for their valuable comments.

Notes

1. There is a complexity in finding a demarcated research field of what Hart and Nolan (1999) call environment-related education. Today, we find environmental education (EE), education for sustainable development (ESD) and environmental sustainability education (ESE) doing research on the same object (Sauvé and Berryman 2005). Against this background, we here on refer collectively to environmental-related education as ESD.

2. Jickling (1992) argues in a similar way when it comes to education for sustainable development (ESD).

3. Notably, Fien and Spork (1993) collaborate in Trends and issues in environmental education. Study guide and reader. Apart from this publication, Spork does not appear in research related to the topic of this article.

4. Articles from 23 journals are included in the synthesis: Applied Environmental Education & Communication, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, Cambridge Journal of Education, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, Ecology and Society, Environmental Education Research, European Educational Research Journal, Green Teachers, International Journal of Environment & Science Education, International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, International Journal of Science Education, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, Science Education, South African journal of education, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, The Journal of Environmental Educatio, Theory & Practice, Utbildning & Demokrati [Education and Democracy].

5. Lucas (1972) explains that Environmental education may refer to any one of, or any combination of, education about, for (the preservation of), or in the environment. See also Fien (1993) and Le Grange (2002) for a more detailed description of the characteristics of and differences between education about, in/through, for the environment.

6. SLA has many interpretations (Krasny, Lundholm, and Plummer 2010; Reed et al. 2010; Rodela 2011; see also Wals 2011; who sorts social learning under the label of transformative learning). Other possible names for what we refer to here as the social learning approach are social deliberative learning (Johansson and Læssøe 2008), deliberative participatory models (Wals 2007) and lately the concept transgressive learning turns up as an expansion of social learning (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015).

7. Mouffe (2013) builds on Carl Schmitt, Derrida, Freud and Lacan to construct a concept of agonistic pluralistic democracy.

8. We recognize the inclusionary perspective in other ESE research. For example, Öhman (2006) understands pluralism as ‘not a question of including a multitude of theoretical perspectives, but rather one of not excluding human ways of reacting and certain forms of human life – that is, not excluding certain human beings from the democratic community’ (160).

9. In a special issue in Environmental education research this kind of worries discusses from the view of a neoliberal hegemony. Hursh, Henderson, and Greenwood (2015) writes that ‘this [special issue]illustrates how neoliberalism currently dominates how we think about the world, including what is and is not (dreamed or deemed) possible in and as an environmental education’ (313).

10. Here CO² (carbon dioxide) turn out as a fetish and externalized foe that requires dealing with if sustainable climate futures are to be achieved. In this way, conflicts within the people are pushed aside. The enemy is externalized or reified into a positive ontological entity (excessive CO²) whose annihilation would restore balance and justice (Swyngedouw 2010). Every distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ has disappeared and ‘the system is not the problem, the problem is blamed on an outsider’ (Žižek 2006, 555, in Swyngedouw 2010, 222) and instead we have a situation that pits the society versus CO².

11. The emotional part is acknowledged in the ESD research field (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008; Eilam and Trop 2010). However, emotion as part of the political dimension is not, as far as we know, investigated. Furthermore, several scholars already acknowledge that conflicts of interest involve more than cognitive aspects. Research has shown that when students make decisions on socio-scientific issues, arguments are more often based on values and ethical considerations than on scientific knowledge. The close intertwinement of subject matter, personal values and emotions mediate responses to the specific learning experience (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008; Lundegård 2008; Rickinson, Lundholm, and Hopwood 2009; Rickinson and Lundholm 2010). In that way cognitive and affective aspects are indispensable elements in ESE teaching and learning, and this includes conflicts of interests (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008; Lundegård 2008; Christenson, Chang Rundgren, and Höglund 2012).