In his con brio deliberative chapter (with Ken Webster) in Learning for Sustainability, Paul Vare writes ...
"ESD, if we remove the label, is education that addresses the inter-relatedness of social justice, ecological integrity and economic viability. We may focus on one or two of those aspects but we should be aware that one without the others cannot last; ... ."
Just so; but might we go further? The following is a slight paraphrase from a 2012 New Economics Foundation [ nef] report titled The Wisdom of Prevention:
Sustainable development means building an economy that serves the interests of people and the planet, by promoting well-being and sustainable social justice for all, and so we have to understand why things go wrong, and tackle the underlying causes of harm – for example:
- cutting greenhouse gas emissions, safeguarding natural resources, enhancing biodiversity and stopping pollution of air, land and water.
This is core environmental education and educational for sustainable development fare. But, to be comprehensive, we need to add the following, as nef did …
- tackling the underlying causes of poverty, unemployment, ill-health, illiteracy and homelessness, reducing crime and social conflict, insecurity and distrust.
- regulating financial institutions to prevent speculation, investing in good jobs and renewable energy, taxing polluters and discouraging carbon-intensive production
Not all of the points made in the last bullet are core EE / ESD ideas, but nef would likely say all this is indivisible: that much of what we are interested in comes down to economics and politics, and would assume that we cannot address one without at least thinking about the others – a view that has the merit of considerable coherence. nef also say that these underlying causes of harm can be mutually reinforcing, and so adopting a preventative approach can bring multiple benefits.
The report talks in terms of downstream and upstream measures – real-world problems themselves, and the causes of the problems. Or the causes of the causes, perhaps? The difference here is between making a difference at the margins, or easing systemic change. They are not mutually exclusive. The report argues for prevention, and says that bottom-up prevention is best, with people and organisations becoming more resilient: building up their own immune systems, both literally and metaphorically, so that they become less susceptible to harm – changing attitudes and capabilities so that they are better able to take positive actions themselves.
So this upstream / downstream idea can apply to communities as well as government. But the nef report says action at this level needs strong support to tackle the political, economic and cultural factors that have helped to cause the problems in the first place. People need information, education, advocacy and strong leadership to understand and act. These, nef says, are formidable barriers. Well, up to a point they are, but don’t we see such action all around us already; and might nef have looked more widely for its examples?
So, where should [we educators] focus? Is it in relation to problems, or to the causes of problems, and should interventions be addressed to individuals and families, or to social groups? The point here is that the choice implies a different way of thinking about outcomes, a different approach to pedagogy, and different modes of evaluation. It certainly seems the case that, if we focus on prevention, then we need a strategy that takes society, economics and environment into account – as nef argues. And the more we work with individuals on remedial matters, the less we (or they) need to think about this wider picture, and the less the focus will be on sustainability per se. This is a problem which the developers of action competence approaches (Jensen & Schnack, 1997) were fully aware of.
Respond