Eco-democracy in environmental education could contribute to mutually beneficial flourishingThis conceptual research synthesized several academic literatures to outline how environmental education might contribute to eco-democracy to address environmental, social, and democratic crises. The argument hinges on a distinction between liberal democracy and eco-democracy. In their definition of eco-democracy, all members—human and more-than-human—have rights, agency, and gifts that might change, understand, and reshape the worlds we share. Contending that liberal, deliberative democracies are poorly equipped to change the status quo or to address planetary crises, the authors instead advocate for a shift toward eco-democracy and Wild Pedagogies in environmental education. That is, the focus of environmental education should shift from just humans (anthropocentrism) to all beings—ecocentrism; from particular voices in deliberative processes to all voices in active participation—plurality and multicentrism; and from living sustainably together to mutually beneficial flourishing.
To build their theoretical argument, the authors draw from several academic literatures to compare and contrast critiques of liberal democracy and eco-democracy. They then characterize a continuum of eco-democratic approaches in environmental education to make the politics and assumptions of different forms of environmental education more explicit. Next, they highlight important overlaps between eco-democracy and some forms of environmental education—namely, Wild Pedagogies—that offer starting points to reimagine what education might become if it were situated in and responsible to and for an eco-democracy. Finally, they walk through four commitments that could ground the eco-social-cultural change that an eco-democracy demands.
The main argument is that some forms of environmental education are already thinking and practicing in more eco-democratic ways, but this is often more implicit than explicit. Therefore, the paper calls out five “seedlings” of eco-democracy that operate in environmental education, particularly in Wild Pedagogies: change, uncertainty, voice and consent, participation and self-determination, and the intrinsic value/rights/agency of the more-than-human world. These areas of overlap between environmental education and eco-democracy might be nurtured to shift environmental education toward more eco-centric ethics and practices.
To translate between theory and practice, the paper proposes four explicit eco-democratic commitments for environmental education: voice, consent, self-determination, and kindness. Going beyond liberal humanist notions of lifting up others’ voices, eco-democratic education would develop humans’ capacities to hear the more-than-human (e.g. Nature as Co-teacher) and create space for more-than-human “voices” to be heard and to influence human conduct. Similarly, consent extends to the more-than-human world. For example, what might it mean to engage with a tree in a schoolyard in a way that all involved felt they had been adequately consulted about the learning activities scheduled in a green schoolyard, including the tree being content that it was represented in the learning and able to say no to any nature engagement that didn’t benefit it? Self-determination refers to the right to become what one seeks while also having the rights and responsibilities of belonging to a community. Finally, kindness is a governing frame to push environmental education towards ways of thinking and working in an eco-democracy in more cooperative and less individualist, competitive ways. The goal here is to shift education, especially environmental education, towards becoming a more active partner in eco-social-cultural change for mutually beneficial flourishing.
The Bottom Line