Mid Sweden University

Introduction

Environmentally sensitive pedagogy such as Wild Pedagogies (WP) needs to be understood in the historical context of critical environmentalism. Here, environmentalism is used in a broad sense including the theory and practice of environmental humanities. Critical environmentalism grew out of a sometimes lively debate between so called anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism (Kronlid & Öhman 2012). One unfortunate consequence of this was that critical environmentalism found itself on either side of a binary and dichotomized distinction between an instrumentalist view of nature or an inherentist view of nature.

One side of this distinction was the instrumentalist view, widely associated with a ”business as usual” environmental politics, education and ethics, etc. in which nature is regarded as of merely instrumental value to human wellbeing. Norton (1987) offered a nuanced concept of anthropocentrism distinguishing between nature’s demand value and transformative value (Norton 1987). Norton argues that if we recognize that nature also has transformative value, this may protect nature against shortsighted predatory environmental politics.   

The other side of the distinction argued that regardless of how anthropocentrism tries to blindside the worst practices of an instrumentalist take on nature, the fact still remains that anthropocentrism will always maintain that nature is merely a means to a human end. Accordingly, although transformative and constitutive value is less offensive to a non-anthropocentric position, these are still instrumental values, which effectively undermine notions of nature as a subject, agent or partner (Kronlid, 2003) in the strong sense of these terms. 

The WP idea rests upon the perspective of other relations between humans and nature than dominant, mechanical worldviews. As a methodology it involves a view of teaching and learning in nature or in the classroom, where both teachers and students are given the opportunity to “go wild and “wiggle not without intention but in order to develop a deeper understanding and relation to nature” (Jickling et. al., 2018, p. 65). Although WP comprises the didactical questions of why, what and how in education and teaching it could be developed with a special interest for teaching and learning with theory and concepts about power. 

Research questions 

The research question of interest is how Wild pedagogies, didactics and power and can create space for a relational perspective and more specific theoretical concepts, challenging the problematic binary picture sketched above. Both conceptual tools and empirical studies in different contexts are needed: How can empirical studies in different educational contexts be used to develop a didactic model and conceptual tools in order to understand and handle challenges in education, teaching and in teacher education about the human-nature relationship?  

Theoretical framework

Klafki’s (1997) critical constructive didactics is of interest as it is possible to integrate curriculum theory and a focus on questions of knowledge with questions related to learning theories. Another base is the link to issues of power (cf Eriksson, 2019). Power understood as three dimensions, i.e. formal, informal and hidden phenomena and processes (cf Lukes, 2008). Power is also understood as a dispositional and relational concept, an ableness as a potential, context-dependent ability (Morriss, 2002). 

Conclusion and recommendations

With respect to the binary picture sketched above, WP will be outlined as both the philosophy and practice of a version of critical environmentalism that situates itself as neither purely anthropocentric nor purely non-anthropocentric. Rather, the promise of wild, pedagogies is that it takes its departure in the relational practices in which non-humans and humans are necessarily intertwined, suggesting a neo-environmentalist position that acknowledges nature pedagogical partner. 

References

Eriksson, L. (2019). Elevinflytande i gränslandet mellan didaktik och makt: en studie av undervisningspraktiken i tre grundskolor. [ ] Diss., Mittuniversitetet, Sundsvall.

Jickling, B., Blenkinsop, S., Timmerman, N. & De Danann Sitka-Sage, M. (2018). Wild pedagogies: Touchstones for Re-Negotiating Educcation and the Environment in the Anthropocene: Palgrave Macmillan.   

Klafki, W. (1997). Kritisk-konstruktiv didaktik. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Didaktik [Didactics] (pp. 215-228). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Kronlid, D. (2003). Ecofeminism and environmental ethics: An analysis of ecofeminist ethical theory. PhD diss., Uppsala Studies in Social Ethics 28. Uppsala University.

Kronlid, David O. & Johan Öhman (2013) An environmental ethical conceptual framework for research on sustainability and environmental education, Environmental Education Research, 19:1, 21-44, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2012.687043 

Lukes, S. (2008). Maktens ansikten (H. Gudenäs, övers.). Göteborg: Daidalos.

Morriss, P. (2002). Power: A philosophical analysis (2nd edition). New York, NY: Manchester University Press.

Norton, B.G. (1987). Why preserve natural variety?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.