Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
with the naturalization of environmental degradation and poverty - that is, an
education that does not critique to socio-economic structures that have largely been
responsible for them - will not engender the transformative learning and actions
required. Given that education, certainly higher education, is or at least should be
about free enquiry and debate the notion of sustainability as a heuristic dialogue of
values is all important. Indeed, in their critical discourse analysis of various ESD
declarations and the steady accommodation of neoliberal ideologies within them
over the last thirty years, Sylvestre
et al
. state: 'contestation around the concept
should be seen as an opportunity to develop a plurality of divergent position in
interaction with one another from out of which the potential for premise reflection
and deep social learning may occur' (2013: 1369).
In
Earth in Mind
, the American educator David Orr (1994) notes that, with
climate change, environmental degradation and species extinction, a great deal of
that on which our future health, livelihood and prosperity depends, is under serious
threat. Significantly, he continues, this is not the work of ignorant people but of
highly educated ones, often holding highly desirable and well-respected qualifications.
It is therefore logical to deduce that there is something wrong with the education
systems dominating the advanced and developed nations of the world. One cause
may lie with the root metaphors and assumptions informing our scientific worldviews
- the world is like a machine, the mind is separate from the body, the planet and
all its wonders are just there for humankind to exploit and destroy. Orr also suggests
that it is imperative to confront a number of common myths. First, that ignorance
is a solvable problem. It isn't; it is part of the human condition and so it is something
we have to live with. Second, that with sufficient knowledge and technology we can
manage the Earth and all the problems we have given it. However, the ultimate
complexity of the Earth's natural systems means that the best we can manage are
our own desires, emotions, policies, economies and communities. We must reshape
ourselves, not the planet. Third, that our stock of knowledge is increasing. However,
in fact, with the information explosion, much traditional and local knowledge is
actually being lost or discounted under an avalanche of new data. Fourth, that con-
temporary unreformed higher education can restore what we have lost. Unfortunately,
progress in developing trans-disciplinarity has been slow, uneven but nonetheless
discernible (Blewitt and Cullingford, 2004; Jones
et al
. 2010; Sterling
et al
., 2013)
and, despite the positive and growing actions of staff and students alike, higher
education sector impacts have been modest (Bartlett and Chase, 2004; Corcoran and
Wals, 2004). Fifth, the purpose of education is to provide its students with the means
for upward mobility and economic success, however defined. What the planet really
needs, however, are 'more peace-makers, healers, restorers, storytellers and lovers
of every kind' (Orr, 1994: 12). Finally, the arrogant and misinformed myth that
Western culture is the highest achievement of humanity. Learning to live well and
sustainably is not a once-and-for-all activity. Orr, like Sterling (2001), considers that
education's response ought to be a major rethink, a paradigm shift, offering a
combination of humility and reflexivity, creativity and renewal. To this end, Orr
identifies six possible principles to guide such a rethink:
•
All education should in effect be environmental education.
•
The goal of education should be self-mastery rather than mastery of subject
matter.
