Is there a danger in environmental
education? This may seem like an odd question but it is one that I feel I need
to assess and answer. This question has come about through many ‘discussions’
with my younger brother. After suggesting that perhaps measuring society based
on monetary value was not the best method for a sustainable world, I was told
that what I was suggesting was the opposite of capitalism and that we live in a
capitalist society. I was then questioned as to whether I wanted a communist or
socialist society, for that is what I am implying when I suggest that
capitalism may not be the best form of society? At the time of this
‘discussion’ a couple thoughts crossed my mind. One was in relation to my
brother’s worldview and the other was a stark realisation of my own worldview.
Is there a danger in the way I view the world and is my brother’s worldview
‘safer’? Or, is there a looming danger
in the belief that society should be measured through money?
To assess both these thoughts I will use
the Education for Sustainable Development principle of envisioning.
Envisioning through my world view
It is apparent through looking back on
previous reflections that my world view is something that I grapple with and it
appears I am still grappling with it. I do not agree with what Fein (1993)
describes as the ‘Dominant social paradigm’, a world where economic growth is
valued higher over social equity and protecting nature and other species. Yet,
when I suggest that there could be a different way to view the world I think
people get scared and immediately espouse that this would mean communism or
socialism. This has been my feeling and when this happens I question what I am
suggesting. However, I have a continually nagging question when I start
doubting myself. This incessant question is: Could we not evolve from the
current world view just as we have evolved from other world views in the past?
Nothing is stagnant and could this evolution be better than today’s current
‘Dominant social paradigm’?
This is my vision:
-
Our responsibility to care for
the environment and other species trumps monetary gain.
-
Success of countries is
measured through social equity and their treatment of their environment, not
their economic growth.
-
Environmental, social and
cultural issues are just as important as the economy.
-
Things are not considered
‘right’ if they make people money or prevent them from loosing money.
-
Empathy and compassion for
other people and other species are highly regarded values.
-
Development that considers the
environment and even helps the environment is valued higher than development
that disregards its impact on the environment.
Envisioning through the current world view
Unfortunately I am unable to give an
unbiased vision of the world through the current world view. I can only give a
vision of how I see the world if we do not change the way we think.
This is how I see it
-
The loss of species and their
environments will occur due to the need for development.
-
The loss of species and their
environments is viewed as being an unfortunate casualty to the need of
development.
-
Monetary gain is valued higher
than humanistic qualities. Everything is measured by what it is economically
worth.
I may be wrong in this vision and I am sure
my brother would say that the current world view would not create this vision.
However, this need to change the current world view is something that I keep
hearing through journal papers, through fellow students and through people who
are championing for a greater treatment of the environment and sustainability.
In a current paper by Ernst and Theimer
(2011) they refer to growing sentiment by many conservation psychologists that
there needs to be a change in out current world view, while just recently in a
class on ecology students were stating a need for a cultural shift towards
valuing the environment before monetary gain. Similarly, at a talk given by
Richard Louv (2012) at a recent Nature Education Symposium he refers to
‘cultural change’ where nature is woven into our lives, not separate.
In my mind these ‘cultural shifts’ away
from the ‘Dominant social paradigm’ (Fein 1993) does not sound like communism
or socialism. Instead it sounds like a hopeful future and one that I will try
not to disregard because someone thinks I want to start a revolution and a new
social movement that will see humanity become oppressed. On the contrary, a
‘cultural shift’ to nature being woven into our lives does not sound like
oppression. It is interesting to note here that Richard Louv (2012) made a
statement at the Nature Education symposium that I find quite fitting. He
stated that when Martin Luther King was envisioning a future where Anglo
Americans and African Americans were equal, he did not say ‘I have a
nightmare’, instead he stated ‘I have a dream’. A world where each person is
equal is not a scaring thought; a world where there is inequality definitely is
something to be afraid of. Similarly, a world where nature is considered and
valued cannot be frightening, yet a world where there is no value for nature? I
find that to be a scary thought.
Therefore, the answer to, is there a danger
in environmental education? Is no, but there is a danger in having no environmental
education.
Ernst J &
Theimer S 2011 Evaluating the effects of environmental education programming on
connectedness to nature Environmental
Education Research 17(5):577-598.
Fein J 1993 Education for the environment: Critical
curriculum theorising and environmental education Deakin
University and Griffith
University, Geelong.
Louv R 2012 Talk given by Richard Louv at the Nature
Education Symposium, Taronga Zoo New
South Wales.
