EER has finally published its much awaited special issue [SI] on environmental education in the age of neo-liberalism".
Arjen Wals, a contributor, says this about it in his blog:
Environmental Education Research has just published a special issue on environmental education in the age of neo-liberalism. It is a fascinating collection of papers! Here's what SI editors Joe Henderson, David Hursch and David Greenwood write in their opening paper:
This introduction to a special issue of Environmental Education Research explores how environmental education is shaped by the political, cultural, and economic logic of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism, we suggest, has become the dominant social imaginary, making particular ways of thinking and acting possible while simultaneously discouraging the possibility and pursuit of others. Consequently, neoliberal ideals promoting economic growth and using markets to solve environmental and economic problems constrain how we conceptualize and implement environmental education. However, while neoliberalism is a dominant social imaginary, there is not one form of neoliberalism, but patterns of neoliberalization that differ by place and time. In addition, while neoliberal policies and discourses are often portrayed as inevitable, the collection shows how these exist as an outcome of ongoing political projects in which particular neoliberalized social and economic structures are put in place. Together, the editorial and contributions to the special issue problematize and contest neoliberalism and neoliberalization, while also promoting alternative social imaginaries that privilege the environment and community over neoliberal conceptions of economic growth and hyper-individualism.
This will, no doubt be welcomed to all those who think neo-liberalism is real and meaningful; the rest may well just be bemused. In the introduction to the special issue (above), the words neoliberal/ism/ization/etc are used 11 times, but are never defined. This does not bode well for the rest of the volume, so good luck with this.
Stephen Gough, in a discussion of markets, says this (pps. 6 & 7) in his most recent book:
"When academics, politicians and activists define themselves, wholly or partly, by opposition to neo-liberalism they may subsequently find that they have abandoned, without sufficient reflection, intellectual tools that might very well serve their purpose. The conservationist who opposes the prioritisation of efficiency, for example, should reflect that an efficient way of doing something minimises waste.
... the term is rarely used by anyone who is positive about it and is sometimes employed very loosely almost as a place-holder for anything bad, or even inconvenient."
Just so.
Responses
Bill, I'd love to know what you think after you read the whole issue and not just the abstract of the editorial. I think you'll find that both the introduction and many of the papers are much more nuanced than the mischaracterization you've offered here. Until then, you might find this helpful in conversation with the Gough excerpt:
http://grist.org/article/2009-05-04-efficiency-vs-economics/
If one reads between the lines, it seems like you're not upset that neoloberalism isn't defined (which it is). You're upset that it's not defined as "efficiency."
Although I could understand why you might feel reluctant to make this position explicit. It is, after all, quite an embarrassing position to take as late as 2015.
It's David Hursh, not David Hursch. Sorry, i'll fix it in transformativelearning.nl
Neoliberal is really a metaphore for a maladaptively resilient growth based capitalist market driven system that leads to the commodification of basically everything and global systemic dysfunction that is almost beyond repair.
Indeed it is no surprise only opponents use the term...