Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjee20

Download by: [Wageningen UR Library] Date: 24 November 2016, At: 10:51

The Journal of Environmental Education

ISSN: 0095-8964 (Print) 1940-1892 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

Ruling relationships in sustainable developmentand education for sustainable development

Tom Berryman & Lucie Sauvé

To cite this article: Tom Berryman & Lucie Sauvé (2016) Ruling relationships in sustainabledevelopment and education for sustainable development, The Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, 47:2, 104-117, DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2015.1092934

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1092934

Published online: 11 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 375

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Ruling relationships in sustainable development and education forsustainable development

Tom Berryman and Lucie Sauv�e

Universit�e du Qu�ebec �a Montr�eal, Montr�eal, Qu�ebec, Canada

ABSTRACTIt is from historical perspectives on more than 40 years of environmentrelated education theories, practices, and policies that we revisit what mightotherwise become a tired conversation about environmental educationand sustainable development. Our contemporary critical analysis of StefanBengtsson’s research about policy making leads us to different interpreta-tions of some key observations and assertions about sustainable develop-ment (SD) and education for sustainable development (ESD). To counter thepersistent weight of the underpinning resourcist and economic view ofthe relationship between people and the environment, we examine otherperspectives about economy, about people and society, and about the envi-ronment. These divergences insist upon diversity in education and in environ-mental education.

KEYWORDSeducational and socialparadigms; environmentaleducation; national andinternational policy;sustainable development

A not-so-tired conversation

Writing this response piece to Stefan Bengtsson’s (2016) “Hegemony and the politics of policy makingfor education for sustainable development” proved more difficult than anticipated. We wished toescape that uncomfortable feeling of returning to the same old discussions that have persisted in envi-ronmental education (EE) for more than 20 years about Sustainable Development (SD) and Educationfor Sustainable Development (ESD), including our own (Berryman, 1999, 2006–2007, 2008, 2011; Ber-ryman & Sauv�e, 2013; Sauv�e, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2013a; Sauv�e & Berryman,2001, 2009; Sauv�e, Berryman & Brunelle, 2007). In this latest context, Bengtsson rightly introduces hisresearch account with the acknowledgment that both SD and ESD have an “antagonising effect on thefield of environmental educational theory and research” (p. 77).

Indeed, the time, spaces, circumstances, and contexts of such antagonisms in any field of inquiry,like EE and ESD, and its critique, do change. The terms of debate are not static or stable. There areample theoretical and empirical insights to update this conversation, as exemplified in this Special Issuededicated precisely to that purpose. And perhaps, more than ever, there is a compelling need to reen-gage critically with an evolving range of contemporary assumptions and knowledge interests in thisfield because SD is now deeply installed in various discourses as a faith (Rist, 2007), and since ESD con-stantly pursues its colonization or proselytization mission all over the world’s cultures as illustrated bythe recently completed United Nations’ Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD).

Stefan Bengtsson (2016) seeks to demonstrate that SD and ESD policies are not hegemonic prescrip-tions since they leave room for contestation, dissensus and various interpretations as they are adaptedin diverse contexts and since they do not necessarily oppose the subjects’ agency through individualaction. In this view, instead of criticizing the so-called hegemonic character of SD, Bengtsson invites

CONTACT Tom Berryman berryman.thomas@uqam.ca Universit�e du Qu�ebec �a Montr�eal (UQAM), D�epartement de didac-tique, C.P. 8888, succ. Centre-ville, Montr�eal, Qu�ebec, H3C 3P8, Canada; or Lucie Sauv�e sauve.lucie@uqam.ca Universit�e duQu�ebec �a Montr�eal (UQAM), D�epartement de didactique, C.P. 8888, succ. Centre-ville, Montr�eal, Qu�ebec, H3C 3P8, Canada.© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION2016, VOL. 47, NO. 2, 104–117http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1092934

analysts and critics to explore and value the diversity of SD appropriation schemes in order to promotethe adoption of this supposedly uniting and universal framework. At this point, we acknowledgeBengtsson’s courageous contribution to what otherwise might have been a tired, perhaps exhausted,conversation in EE about ESD that he duly acknowledges and references.

Bengtsson’s (2016) arguments are founded on a certain reasoning that can, and should be disputed.We note that Bengtsson’s analysis and critique appears to preclude other approaches to understandingand representing the world outside the SD framework. Indeed, Bengtsson’s analysis reductively posi-tions EE as a strategy for “environmental protection” (p. 79)

only, while expansively conceiving ESD policy as a holistic and malleable project, and a free zone foragency, provided that the ultimate universal goal of SD remains; in other words, you may think and actin your own way, as long as you go ahead with SD. Finally, Bengtsson’s analysis and critique avoidstreatment of the core or basic meaning of education itself, and the relation between individual and col-lective or social agency.

So, rather than (re)tire from the 20 years long debate, we explicate our critique through offeringdiverging interpretations of ESD. We then propose other perspectives about economy, about peopleand society, and about environment. Finally, we highlight the historical importance of fostering diver-sity in education and environmental education in order to explore or inspire education focusing onrelationships with the lifeworld. Our critique is based not only on our past contributions to this debatebut on more recent empirical work mainly in the fields of food and water security and sovereignty edu-cation (Sauv�e, Naoufal, & Auzou, 2013; Sauv�e & Orellana, 2014a) as well as theoretical presumptionsemerging from our immersion in current socio-ecological issues and controversies (for example, Sauv�e,2013b, 2014, 2015; Sauv�e & Girault, 2014). Of course, our critical project is also nourished by the theo-retical and empirical research efforts of other researchers challenging the appropriateness and theeffects of strong economic appeals to foster social and environmental changes.

Diverging interpretations

Five assertions about SD and ESD made by Stefan Bengtsson (2016) are challenged.

1: SD and ESD are not hegemonic prescriptions since there is “the possibility of resistance to a predominant econo-mist or neo-liberal discourse” (p. 82).

As Bengtsson acknowledges in his account of the “paradox” (p. 77) created by ESD, many contribu-tors to the two-decade long debate challenge or display manifest resistance toward SD prescriptionsbecause there already is a strong perception and associated critical responses to the binding power ofESD over ways of thinking and acting in education, and in environmental education. When power isdisputed, be it about a policy, or curriculum, or pedagogy, it is a manifestation of its own existence. Itmirrors its prescriptive nature that some, or many, critique and resist. Although the possibility of dis-cussion, dissent, and resistance do exist, it is certainly not the goal of policy documents to invite inter-pretations that risk contestation or contradiction. Policy documents strive for application, adhesion,and reformulation in national strategies, laws, and curricula. They foster and illustrate ruling relationsdefined by Dorothy Smith (2005, p. 227) as “translocal forms of social organizations and social rela-tions mediated by texts.”

The SD model is strongly driven in many diverse contexts. International, national, and local institu-tions are mobilized and created to convert policies into action, for example, UN DESD, Learning for aSustainable Future (LSF) in Canada, �Etablissements Verts Brundtland (EVB) in Qu�ebec. How thesepolicy formulations and prescriptions then “trickle down” and enact ESD is a different interpretivequestion that demands empirical insight and qualification, be it in Vietnam as case studied by Bengts-son, or elsewhere as we have studied (Sauv�e et al., 2007; see also for example, Zwang & Girault, 2012).

Once again, even though there is room for resistance and some adaptation at different levels of pol-icy formulation and its implementation, the policy aims for adoption of the reified SD model at differ-ent levels or layers of implementation. The underlying worldviews of SD and ESD are advanced atvarious scales through a discourse that typically presumes that long-term social development rests on

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 105

better and fairer economic exploitation of resources from the environment while taking care to notexceed ecological system support capacities that would compromise economic development (as in theBrundtland Report, WCED, 1987).

At the heart of SD (and ESD) lies a cosmology built on economic terms. In this vision of the world,based on three pillars, economy becomes an autonomous entity, somehow existing outside of society,and imposing its rules over the relations between society (producers and consumers) and the environ-ment (a set of resources). SD is a resourcist construction and promotes anthropocentrism as an ulti-mate value system. According to Neil Evernden (1985 p. 23), “resourcism is a kind of modern religionwhich casts all of creation into categories of utility. By treating everything as homogeneous matter insearch of a use, it devalues all.” Evernden presciently warned against a perverse effect, it being resour-cism’s “most dangerous aspect is its apparent good intention. By describing something as a resourcewe seem to have reason to protect. But all we really have is a license to exploit it.”

So, even though there is some room for debate about values and resources, and their sustainability,the cards are already anthropocentrically loaded and the field’s discourses, policies, and practices areclearly bounded, or constrained. Berger and Luckmann (1966) help clarify this confusion or contradic-tion by highlighting how “ruling relations” help foster processes of objectification through institution-alization, legitimation, and reification where “the world of institutions appears to merge with the worldof nature. It becomes a necessity and fate and is lived through as such, happily or unhappily as the casemay be” (pp. 90–91). Following SD, the world is positioned as a reservoir of resources for humanitythat we need to exploit in a fairer and more sustainable (and sustained) manner. Institutions, includingthe educational ones in a range of contexts, must act accordingly. Unfortunately, in Bengtsson’s study,we find no trace of analysis of the inherent trends or deep cosmology of SD controlling, or framing,the spectrum of acceptable “resistances”—as Berger and Luckmann shrewdly evoke “legitimation as aprocess” entailing “conceptual machineries of universe-maintenance” and “social organizations foruniverse-maintenance” (p. 92–115).

2: SD and ESD “hegemony is limited by the existence of alternate meanings put forward by other policy actors withinor among national contexts” (p. 82).

Once again, this is a side effect, or unintended consequence of policy power and not a desired out-come. And the existing debate in the Vietnamese case as documented by Bengtsson can be interpretednot so much as creating alternate meanings but as a clear indication of an underpinning economic,resourcist worldview that is hegemonic and dominant. What Bengtsson identifies as “antagonismbetween socialists and economists demands” (p. 88)

can be seen as mere variations about resourcism and economic worldviews. Socialism is historicallyhardwired in economic thinking. Karl Marx proposed another arrangement in the ownership of themeans of production and in production relations. The debate is thus about economy and how it serves,or not, society in a just manner. With a “socialist-oriented market economy,” (Cling, Razafindrakoto,& Roubaud, 2013; Gabriele, 2006) the inclusion of the social in the field of economy is clearlyexpressed. The point here is not that these socioeconomic issues are of no importance. They are vital.However, they cannot define or contain the diversity of our social and environmental experiences andrealities, more so in education. Once again, the margin of proposed “alternate meanings” is quite smallsince SD is bounded in resourcist, economic, and anthropocentric terms, a concern highlighted byothers contributing to this SI.

3: SD and ESD are not hegemonic because of the “emptiness of the consensus that these concepts stand in for suggeststhat it is the particular interests put forward by different groups in attempts to give meaning to these concepts”(p. 82).

The seemingly emptiness or ubiquity of the SD consensus (Sauv�e, 2003) does not mean there are noruling relations and hegemony. Once again, on close examination, the domination of an economic andresourcist outlook generally emerges. The apparent emptiness could be seen as a sort of black holedrawing everything in. To understand the attractiveness of a broad and totalizing model, we turn forinsight to Italo Calvino’s (1985) character in “Mr Palomar,” as he reflects on and struggles with “the

106 T. BERRYMAN AND L. SAUV�E

model of models” he dreams of. After searching for an ideal model for the good of people, Palomarrealizes “what the models seek to model is basically always a system of power.” Palomar concedes, “butif the efficacy of the system is measured by its invulnerability and capacity to last, the model becomes akind of fortress whose thick walls conceal what is outside” (Calvino, 1985, p. 110–111).

Palomar helps us see that our imagination in “education” (or ESD) is already colonized by theresourcist and economic models underpinning the SD discourse, however empty or ubiquitous it canseem to be. The Vietnamese case does not contradict such an understanding. To the contrary, thedebates about a “socialist discourse,” an “economist discourse,” a “nationalist discourse,” and “globalistdiscourse” are variations on a seemingly mandatory and centralized theme.

The dominant culture of SD interprets cultural diversity as a challenge or an obstacle, and invites allcultures to adapt and adopt a certain Western worldview. As an example of this globalized form ofcolonialism, much research—to the tiring point of seeming saturation—focuses on the conceptions orrepresentations of SD and ESD, recognizing and exploring the plurality of understandings (for exam-ple, Cl�ement & Caravita, 2011; Lange, 2008; Summers & Childs, 2007). However, it seems that theunderpinning motive of this form of policy colonialism is generally to better understand barriers andresistance in order to overcome them. The goal is to drive in the concept, so as to better respond to, ormirror, recent educational ESD policies and practices/implementations/trickle downs, that is, “concep-tual machineries of universe-maintenance” in the words of Berger and Luckmann (1966).

4: The paradox of SD and ESD policies being seen at the same time as powerful and only symbolic: “Policy is, there-fore, seen as having influence and being limited in its capacities to govern agency and action. If so, the power of pol-icy partially remains a symbolic gesture” (p. 78).

Beyond its symbolic value, the SD international prescription is, indeed, heavily influential as thehardening of globalization keeps retriggering the critique of ESD (Berryman, 2011; Berryman & Sauv�e,2013, Jickling & Wals, 2008; Sauv�e, 2011; Sauv�e, Brunelle & Berryman, 2005). In the wake of theWCED (1987), facing the necessity to counter the depletion of resources and halt the acceleration ofenvironmental problems so as to ensure a sustained development that satisfied actual and future popu-lations’ needs, the UN urged all countries in the world, no matter the culture of peoples, to have a pol-icy and SD strategies. These countries turned mainly to their environment and education departmentswith this colossal task of transforming the economy, despite the heaviness of their own specific mis-sions and their lack of resources, and did not immediately or significantly confront their economic sec-tors and services (finance, industry and trade, labor, natural resources) to which SD was neverthelessmainly intended. However, because SD is now mandated through national policies, any environmentaleducation or socioecological projects, be they “development” oriented or not, must now be framed inthe SD language and logic in order to remain legitimate so as to access financial resources.

Whereas the vocabulary of “sustainability” in English, of “viabilit�e” in French, and of “sostenibili-dad”, and even more of “sustentabilidad” in Spanish, intend to put socio-ecological concerns beforethose of “development,” the core and undisputed value of duration, or long lasting (of what?), still per-meates the use of those languages. They try mimicking SD, thus avoiding complete rupture with rulingpolicies, while dissociating with them in some or many aspects (Gonz�alez-Gaudiano, 2015, p. 46). Thespace of language, and therefore of thought, remains constrained in a certain predetermined and prop-ositional framework, reshaping the significance of agency. In line with the above, if the actions under-taken in the name of SD in the political-economic sphere have remained superficial and timid, asnoted by Bengtsson, we have to recognize that these actors have not been the primary targets of SD pol-icies, but have mainly turned to more vulnerable sectors, in terms of limited budget or huge mission,such as environment and education. Hegemony is thus exercised culturally through education (sup-ported by the UNESCO ESD program), while not directly or firmly confronting the concerned or rele-vant authorities, thus further legitimizing the priority of economic development as remainingsomehow sacred and, therefore, not to be disturbed.

The role of education is crucial here as a process, or not, of examining our lives in light of diverseways of understanding and acting in the world (Morin, 1999, p. 8). Morin’s “blinding paradigms” isapt: a paradigm selects and determines conceptualization and logical operations. It designates the

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 107

fundamental categories of intelligibility and controls their use. Individuals know, think, and act accord-ing to interiorized culturally inscribed paradigms. Now, paradigmatic SD policy, language, and modelslike ESD become the ultimate predetermined globalizing goal of education, as rejected very early in thedebate within EE by Jickling (1992, and this SI), how, indeed, do we contribute critically to broader, todeeper and simply to other educational goals about the environment and society?

In Bengtsson’s study, we find no examination of the reasons explaining the paradox he points at,nor of the deep and long-term influence of a societal paradigm promoted and prescribed by politicalauthorities, as symbolic it might appear at first.

5: There is a contradiction in critics of SD and ESD since “the paradox exists in the dual claim of structural domi-nance and the possibility of critical reflection.” (p. 78).

Bengtsson probably misunderstands our contributions to EE and ESD. In the articles of ours he cites(Berryman & Sauv�e, 2013; Sauv�e, 1999; Sauv�e, Berryman, & Brunelle, 2000; Sauv�e et al., 2005), wenever advanced the view that the dominance of sustainable development meant the extinction of criti-cal reflections. We defend the necessity to not foreclose critical thinking in the SD vision of the worldand it’s so-called consensus. About the “limits of power in policy,” we reiterate those limits should notbe confused between decisive influence, striving for power, powerful positions, and absolute power, asBengtsson appears to do.

Having questioned and clarified five problematic assertions in Bengtsson’s study, we now highlightsome perspectives about economy, about people and society, and about the environment, still remain-ing in the shadow of SD and ESD. We insist on diversity in education and in environmental education,as has been the historical case. These perspectives, sometimes newer, are needed to revitalize what, atfirst glance, might be a tiring rehearsal of an otherwise exhausted conversation.

Other perspectives on economy

In order to address our globalized socio-ecological problems while taking into account the currentdominant neoliberal contexts in which education occurs (Laval & Weber, 2002Ziegler, 2013), webelieve the SD proposal had, and still has, some relevance. It may alert and even persuade actorsoperating in the politico-economic sphere that the economy will benefit from taking into accountenvironmental and social aspects of their development projects. Thus, constraints, issues, and risksmay turn into opportunities for them, mainly a sustained development. So the language of SDmight well be adapted to certain types of social actors, for certain objectives and contexts, so as topromote new green ways of producing and consuming, without compromising the basis of marketeconomy (UNEP, 2011). Also, it can be observed that the essentially pragmatic SD discourse (withindicators, without criteria) has improved through the countless discussions and debates about therelevance of such a proposal, and the necessity to work toward a “strong sustainability” (Huckle,1996). In any case, however, we have to keep in mind, theoretical and empirical research drawingattention to the environmentally negative effects of focusing primarily on economic advantages(Chilton, Crompton, Kasser, Maio, & Nolan, 2012; Crompton & Kasser, 2009; Sheldon, Nichols, &Kasser, 2011).

But still, we consider that SD, with its faith in “development” (Rist, 2007) and its universal valoriza-tion and privileging of sustainability, is much too narrow as a worldview to be promoted as a holisticsocietal project and even less as a geo-culturally sensitive global education program, as highlighted byEdgar Gonz�alez-Gaudiano, in addition to Kelly Teamey and Udi Mandel in this SI. A sound politicaland social project would be based on a rigorous critical consideration of the different ways of conceiv-ing economy so as to make contextually relevant choices, without being trapped in any hegemonicexogenous influence, especially as it becomes reified, as is the case. The purpose here is not to examinein this text the whole spectrum of alternative proposals on economy in relation to the demands of ecol-ogy (as in Gendron, 2014), but to underline the necessity for a basic environmental and ecocitizenshipeducation to invite all of us to analzse the current economic issues in light of different possible ways ofconceiving and acting the economic dimension of our society and our lives.

108 T. BERRYMAN AND L. SAUV�E

Among these possible alternative avenues, we draw attention to four proposals relevant to our ownresearch, in which the pillars are clearly different from the “three pillars” of SD. Two of these proposalsare related to some older traditions: the first one, ecodevelopment, emerged from international cooper-ation experiences, and the other, Vivir bien, from Southern indigenous cultures. The two other alterna-tives to mainstream notions of economy are “ecological transition” and the “degrowth movement.”They are based on a strong critique of current Western economies and suggest deep social transforma-tions. As such, following Teamey and Mandel’s account of their “enlivened learning” globally ethno-graphic project in this Special Issue, it would be reductive to assimilate these pillars to the mainstream“strong sustainability” movement: their roots, finalities, references, and languages should not betrapped in SD cooptation, so as not to blindly erase cosmopolitical diversity (Stengers, 1996).

While still resourcist, ecodevelopment specifies the type of development that should be promoted.This proposal, inspired by existing territorial and local practices and ways of living (Sachs, 2007, p.247–277) is nourished by the theoretical fields of ecology and cultural anthropology. Since the firstinternational UN Conference on Human Environment in 1972, Ignacy Sachs (1981, 2007, 2013) hasstructured the concept of ecodevelopment, which is anti-liberal and opposed to “growth,” as the ulti-mate objective of development. Explicitly recognizing the symbiotic relation between society andnature, ecodevelopment is based on three pillars: (1) autonomy of decisions and search for endogenousmodels that are appropriate to each historical, cultural and ecological context; the notion of ecoregionis fundamental here, as well as the values of participation and solidarity; (2) equitable response to theneeds of all human and every human : material and immaterial needs, starting with the striving for orthe achievement of a meaningful life; (3) ecological prudence as a search for development in harmonywith nature (beyond risk management). Gutierrez and Gaudiano (2010, p. 79–84) recall how ecodevel-opment lost ground with the emergence of the less demanding proposal of “sustainable development”(see also, Gaudiano, this Special Issue)

Acknowledging the important contribution of ecodevelopment, some authors (Berr, 2013, p. 17)recommend consideration be given to its principles as the basis of a new political economy for a“strong” sustainable development. Here, we can simply ask: why not recognize the rupture betweenthese two different proposals, and invite us to “look elsewhere and do otherwise” than SD, as doesIgnacy Sachs (2013, p. 6)?

With the rising wave of ecosocialism in Latin America, the concept of Vivir bien or Buen vivir haspermeated the political sphere. It became a pillar of Bolivian and Ecuadorian national constitutions(Rep�ublica del Bolivia, 2009; Rep�ublica del Ecuador, 2008). Rooted in indigenous cosmovisions, itmeans to live in peace, in harmony among us, human beings, and with nature. Vivir bien differs fromthe “live better” economy based on capital accumulation and inequality. It is defined as an alternativeto “development.” This political and more endogenous project goes beyond the traditional socialistLeft and offers a way of being and living together, humans and non-humans, in the shared living sys-tems. In place of the three spheres of sustainable development (economy, society, environment), thecontemporary appropriation of Vivir bien considers three interrelated spheres of the world: social, spir-itual, and material (Delgado, Rist, & Escobar, 2010; Huanacuni, 2010).

The idea of a life community is the main pillar of this proposal, with that of communitarian social-ism and community democracy. Community includes humans and nature, humans being part ofnature, and the legal rights of nature being recognized. The rights of nature are indeed stated in theEcuadorian Constitution since 2008 and are the subject of a fundamental law in Bolivia: the Law of theRights of Mother Earth considers Mother Earth as “…the dynamic living system formed by the indivis-ible community of all life systems and living beings whom are interrelated, interdependent, and com-plementary, which share a common destiny” (Asemblea Legislativa Plurinacional, 2012). In the Northor Western cultural part of the world, this philosophy resonates with Aldo Leopold’s project for a bioticcommunity and a land ethic (Leopold, 1949).

More recently, also from the Western world, the ecological transition movement, rooted in socialtheory and technology systems studies, also focuses on the ecological and social dimensions of theneeded transformative changes (not “development” or growth) through local, small, autonomous,diverse, flexible, resilient, and connected community projects (Hopkins, 2008). Beyond pragmatic

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 109

accommodation and adaptation, “it starts operating according to new assumptions, rules and practices”and “entails profound alterations in structures, institutions and social relations and as a result, society”(Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2012).

Sustainability implies that we are trying to design a steady-state system with less inputs and less outputs than wehave at the moment, which can carry on indefinitely. Whereas actually what we need to be designing for is theability to withstand shock. But a lot of the literature about resilience talks about it meaning that a system can takeshock and then reform into its previous state. Whereas increasingly, the way people are starting to look at it, it’sabout seeing that shock as an opportunity to change. (Hopkins, 2010, p. 22)

Finally degrowth is another perspective on economy that more seriously challenges traditional eco-nomical doctrines focusing on growth and development. Degrowth “has nothing to do with a simplegreening of existing techniques nor the ‘democratization’ to make them accessible to all,” “or merelywith the collective self-management of capitalist techniques” (D’Alisa, Demaria, & Kallis, 2014, p. 3). Itstrives to debunk what it identifies as the fallacies of the dominant discourses on economy. “Sharing,simplicity, conviviality, care and the ‘commons’ are primary significations of what this [transformed]society might look like.” (Idem). In educational contexts, examining degrowth can help understandand debate about economy and especially about some often unexamined assumptions in the dominanteconomic discourses (Bayon, Flipo, & Schneider, 2012).

These four proposals challenge education as a necessary condition and as a crucible for deep socialtransformation, free from the “paradigmatic” a priori of the “blinding” ESD framework and its limitedfinality. For example, Sachs (2007, p. 385–386) insists on the necessity of promoting a political peda-gogy, including learning about the history of development, the diversity of ecological natural and cul-tural ecologies; education needs to promote creativity, inspire responsible voluntary involvement andvalue participation. Of course ESD also reassuringly defines itself as a process of critical thinking andcollaborative learning, and values the different approaches of a progressive education. However, overstrategies, SD & ESD are fundamentally grounded in a cosmology and a cosmopolitics of economicgrowth, irrespective of political/national histories. The a priori of an education grounded in a globaleconomy-centered and managerial view of the world must be deconstructed in a critical environmentaleducation process (Berryman, 1999; Robottom, 2005; Sauv�e & Orellana, 2008).

Other perspectives on people and society

In SD and ESD, the social world can all too easily appear as an arena where people essentially struggleto access or share products of a sustained economy, taking care though not to surpass the proposed orregulated/ruled “sustainability” limits of these processes. The key social and ecological issues can be, or‘are’ reduced to the modes of production and distribution of wealth. Other insightful and persuasiveperspectives about people and society and how they relate to the world exist. We already pointedtoward ecodevelopment, Vivir bien, ecological transition and degrowth as providing alternative per-spectives of economy and about people and society. Thus, diverse alternatives are defended, created,and explored in various contexts and circumstances (Manier, 2012). They deserve attention and theyrisk being neglected if we focus solely on the social and political worlds as arenas for production anddistribution under an economic rationale. The point here is not to identify an ideal but to indicateother prospects to foster inventiveness and creativity in environmental education and research. Thereare thus important and needed explorations to be pursued of social and political arrangements ororganizations supporting healthy people, communities, and places.

Inspiring theoretical and empirical researches document how focusing on economy in environmen-tal discourses can be counterproductive or produce the equivalent of iatrogenic effect (“adverse condi-tions that are inadvertently induced by the activity of a doctor—that is, the patient becomes sicker as aresult of the treatment”, in Crompton & Kasser, 2009, p. 23). Many of these researches are built aroundShalom Schwartz’s (1992) circular model of values in which self-enhancing values of power (authority,influential) and achievement (ambitious, wealth) are opposed to self-transcendent values of universal-ism (protecting the environment, equality) and benevolence (forgiving, helpful) (see Maio, Pakizeh,

110 T. BERRYMAN AND L. SAUV�E

Cheung, & Rees, 2009). According to researchers in this field, “intrinsic and extrinsic values are liketwo balloons connected to each other—as one expands, the other contracts.” (Blackmore et al., 2013, p.24). This is certainly relevant in education. It invites EE researchers and practitioners to be vigilantwith regard to our discourses and practices so as to avoid the iatrogenic effects of hasty framings ofresearch, policy, and pedagogies in trendy economic terms. In fact, the activations of some values couldin part explain these effects and the associated rebound effect.

Such critical and normatively aware “micro/subjective” reflexivities invite us to revisit with moreconfidence and renewed support, other frames, discourses, and practices on people and society in thehistory of environmental education and, more broadly, in education. Thus, for example, Hart (2003),Noddings (2003), O’Sullivan (1999), Orr (1990, 1994), Payne (1999, 2006), Postman (1995), Thoma-show (1996), and others, are built on such alternative perspectives. At a more “macro”-level, the self-transcendent appeal can play out in various contexts. Denmark is a strong social democracy with solidinstitutions, supporting singularity or individuation, which in return supports the institutions becausepeople know their singularity was institutionally supported (Rydahl, 2014). This may seem a contradic-tion to many but it still exists. And many of the socially democratic values shared “educationally” inDenmark (for example, Laessoe & Ohman, 2010) have nothing to do with purely economic rationales:trusting others, valuing and supporting free education, autonomy, solidarity, realistic dreams, “hygge”moments, family and work equilibrium, modesty, and others (Rydahl, 2014). Nonetheless, Denmark’ssocial democracy is currently encountering various pressures from neoliberalism and globalization.

Other perspectives on the environment

Strangely, it seems to be the environment that is the most reduced or shrinked component in SD andESD discourses even though it is precisely environmental issues and constraints that gave rise to theidea of SD. This is important because Bengtsson’s study reduces and limits environmental education toenvironmental protection only, which is in line with the resourcist perspective that permeates SD. Basi-cally, in SD, as already cautioned previously, the environment is limited to resources and to problemsstemming from the exploitation of resources. All the other ways of envisioning the surrounding worldare radically downplayed or made invisible/non present. This more recently culminated in the assess-ment of ecosystem services as a new fashionable resourcist twist or buzz in some circles. The prevailingview is that if we can figure out the monetary equivalent of services provided by nature, we will protectnature or carefully manage ecosystems. Put differently in terms of the “not so tired” critique of ESD,nature is objectified, reified, measured, quantified, instrumentalized, and commodified as a technology“designing” a technics of its human, social, and ecological experience (Payne, 2003/2006).

We have already drawn attention to the possible iatrogenic effect of this avenue (Crompton &Kasser, 2009). The notion of relatedness or kinship with the environment, forwarded by psychiatristHarold Searles as early as in 1960, does not fare well with purely economic prospects. And even in thefield of economy, the idea of the rationale and calculating individual is challenged. Reciprocity and adeep sense of connectedness, of dynamic and vital exchanges with the surrounding world, appear as amore solid ground to envision preservation, conservation, remediation, and wise use.

Historically, it became more difficult to value such understanding of connectedness with the rise ofimportant monotheist religions and their institutions, generally denying or downplaying the impor-tance of the flesh and the world, the life-world, and rather valuing the Word, and the afterlife (Berry-man, 2008, 2011). A deep sense of connectedness also remained difficult with the rise of positivismand its institutions, denying “interiority” or “subjectivity” to all but the humans and seeing the worldthrough the lens of human subjects acting upon a world of objects. Such positivist emancipation fromreligious beliefs came with its own set of beliefs and drawbacks (Descola, 2005, 2014; Schumacher,1977). Interestingly, the Catholic Church and other religions seem to be changing and becoming moreattentive to the life-world as shown by the recent Encyclical Letter by Pope Francis (2015), including:“Bring healing to our lives, that we may protect the world and not prey on it, that we may sow beauty,not pollution and destruction. Touch the hearts of those who look only for gain at the expense of thepoor and the earth.”

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 111

In these alternative economic, social/political, and environmental contexts (as can be carefully/stra-tegically used to either reinterpret Bengtssons’ analysis/critique, or more fundamentally de/reconstructhis reading), and in the field of education and more so in environmental education, it is important notto foreclose other perspectives. Once again, it is important to consider we have only flagged a few ofthese alternatives.

Diversity in education and environmental education: What next for EE?

Education has always been solicited as a main strategy to promote macro-political programs (Petrella,2000; Popkewitz, 2004), whether they be explicit or implicit. International—and thus national—instan-ces prescribe and/or support different “educations for …” As an example, UNESCO’s problem-solvingoriented program for environmental education (1975–1995), then for ESD (1995–2015) and now forGlobal Citizenship Education (GCE) highlights these transitions. This new GCE framework alreadymakes untested claims on integrating and surpassing the objectives of previous programs:

Within UNESCO, elements of GCE have been promoted through education for peace & human rights, interculturaleducation and education for sustainable development as well as health education and the Organization’s work onyouth engagement and a culture of peace (…) Building on the experience of these programmes and the growingglobal call for more and better global citizenship education, UNESCO is taking the technical leadership and overallcoordination of initiatives related to global citizenship education, especially in the context of the Global EducationFirst Initiative.

Of course, promoting transversal integration of core dimensions of contemporary education such aspeace, human rights, health, and citizenship, has a crucial epistemological, ethical, and pedagogical rel-evance. However, it can be observed here that there is no explicit mention of environmental educationas it seems to melt into the thin air of ESD. And the ideas of “technical leadership” and “overall coordi-nation of initiatives” from the GCE remind us of the earlier problematic case of ESD during the pastdecades, where all socioecological initiatives (including schoolyard gardening or museums’ biodiversityexhibitions) were simply reframed, reinterpreted, and renamed as ESD. This raises a new risk of a-cul-turation of education within a global macro-culture. After the self congratulations by UN on DESD,researchers in EE must carefully appraise the issues and effects of such a worldwide program, beforelaunching a new hegemonic policy (with an explicit “global” perspective) that will frame the verymeaning of education and of being a human and a citizen, without real consideration of historical, cul-tural and ecological contexts.

Fernando Huanacuni (2010) points at the colonization of spirits, as an insidious epistemic, ethical,and cultural alienation, and invites us to escape exogenous educational programs. This Bolivian educa-tor identifies the main characteristics of an indigenous/endogenous education, rooted in contextualand cultural realities, where authority is replaced by a community responsibility to enhance learning tolive well together (vivir bien), humans and other living beings, in an organic, holistic manner (Sauv�e &Orellana, 2014b). The idea of “development” generally does not exist in indigenous cosmologies. Thesevisions of the world are rooted in an ecology of time where future, present, and past are closely related.The instrumental value of sustainability has no meaning here.

Education is about learning to relate to our individual and collective self, constructing identity,learning to live alterity with human and other life forms, and to relate to our O€ıkos, our shared houseof life (Payne, 2009; Sauv�e, 2009). It is about the meaning of our individual and collective being-in-the-world. It is about ecosophy, ethics, esthetics, politics, and economics (eco-nomein). The huge philo-sophical, theoretical, and practical heritage of environmental education (environment related educa-tion), focusing on our human relationship with and within O€ıkos, can contribute to inspire such aholistic pedagogical project, as an important transversal part of it.

Diversity is an important feature of EE, which is grounded in different interrelated aspects of ourrelationship with the environment: as nature, as problems, as resources, as ecological systems, as a ter-ritory to belong to, care and share, as a place to inhabit, as a community socioecological project, as thewhole biosphere—our common world, and others. It weaves different complementary modes of

112 T. BERRYMAN AND L. SAUV�E

relation with this multifaceted environment: cognitive, affective, ethical, cultural, artistic, praxic, politi-cal, and spiritual approaches. Nearly 20 pedagogical currents of environmental education (generalways of conceiving and enacting education, combining countless different models, approaches andstrategies), were developed and are still evolving (Sauv�e, 2005). This diversity is closely related to adiversity of ethical postures, including biocentric, ecocentric, cosmocentric (Brenner, 2010). In this per-spective, ESD, with its conception of environment as resources for the State to manage and share andreductively protect, its anthropocentric ethics and its most often pragmatic and instrumentalist curric-ulum (Girault, Zwang, & Jeziorski, 2013; Selby, 2015, p. 32–33), cannot be considered as a globalframework enclosing the diverse possibility or relating to the environment. This explains why manyeducators caring for the socioecological dimension of our relation to the world, do not wish to belocked in ESD, and prefer to breathe elsewhere (Girault & Sauv�e, 2008).

As explained earlier, Bengtsson (2016, p. 79) presents environmental education as centered on“environmental protection” only or primarily. The spectrum of EE purposes, goals, and achievements,as well as expectations, is much larger. One of these is to construct the very meaning of our relationwith the living world. While ESD intrinsically indicates SD as the ultimate predetermined goal of edu-cation (whatever definition you give), EE invites us to explore and experiment with diverse modes ofrelating to our natural and socio-ecological world, and to create a personal and collective project ofbeing and enacting in our collective o€ıkos.

What next for the politics of policy formation in ESD?

Stephen Bengtsson (2016) rightly calls for the recognition of diversity within SD and ESD. Such anexploration is important as we seek to understand the unproblematic worldwide spread of the SD andESD prescriptions, and to get the best possible picture of their influences around the globe and modesof penetration into the different lifeworlds of everyday life. Accordingly, in our response to Bengstton’sinvitation, we warn against the loss of diversity in socioecological thinking under a ruling SD discourse,we emphasize the various explorations of more holistic perspectives or types, taking into considerationthe whole spectrum of economic, social, environmental, and educational currents—without reducingthem as variations of “strong” or “weak” sustainability. The “black hole” of SD and ESD, we stronglybelieve after two decades of our own critical research in various circumstances and contexts, still gener-ates erosion of critical thinking and praxis, which needs to escape the limits of any specific proposal.

Partly inspired from Gilbert Rist (2007), the following avenues open up for further consideration,deliberation, and debate some of the reflexive spaces now urgently needed:

� Maintain the critical vigil about the ongoing or evolving proposals and modes of implementationof SD and ESD;

� Ceaselessly stimulate economic and political imaginary of our societies (Leff, 2014);� At local and regional levels, continue exploring alternative cosmologies and document emerging

initiatives that relate to what Gustavo Esteva and Magdu Prakash (1998) named “beyonddevelopment”;

� Contribute to the “regeneration”, the reconstruction of the existing, here and now, rather thanrushing ahead with “development” and escaping in the future (Aga Khan, 2005);

� At international levels, considering multiscale interdependencies, support and encourageimproved international organizations policies; at best, contribute to the making of such policies.

Education, in the fullest sense of that term, must be part of such a critical and creative project. Morespecifically, different EE proposals, centered on the close relationship between personal, social, andecological realities, can make important contributions: environmental justice education (in relationwith ecological equity), ecocitizenship education or/and environmental health education.

Some of the early currents in the history of EE and more recent ones (Sauv�e, 2005) call for funda-mental transformations and they cannot be amalgamated and subsumed in ESD, where economyimposes its rules to the relation between society and environment. The SD model should mainly target

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 113

certain actors of the current politico-economic sphere, who may value this language and arguments, asa first path toward a deeper socio-ecological ethics all the while keeping in mind the potential iatro-genic effects of the values possibly highlighted in such language and arguments. However, the issue foreducators is to pursue the exploration and experimentation of holistic and coherent education theoriesand practices articulating personal and social vision of the world and of our being and acting in thisworld. Such proposals are based on deep consciousness of the ontological, ethical and political charac-ter of education. (Re)invigorating “tired” discussions, conversations, and debates about SD and ESDcan be part of such a clarification process.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Jean-Marc Heneman, a graduate student in UQAM’s environmental education program, forbringing to their attention the work of Tim Kasser and his colleagues.

References

Agha Khan, S. (2005). D�eveloppement durable, une notion pervertie. Mani�ere de voir—Le monde diplomatique, 81, 68–71.

Asamblea legislativa plurinacional—Bolivia. (2012). Ley Marco de la Madre Tierra y Desarrollo Integral para Vivir Bien.Retrieved from: http://www.icees.org.bo/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ley-marco-de-la-madre-tierra-y-desarrollo-integral-para-vivir-bien-aprobado-en-senado-2012.pdf

Bayon, D., Flipo, F. & Schneider, F. (2012). La d�ecroissance: Dix questions pour comprendre et d�ebattre. Paris, France: LaD�ecouverte.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York,NY: Doubleday & Anchor.

Berr, E. (2013). L’�ecod�eveloppement comme fondement d’une �economie politique du d�eveloppement durable? RevueFrancophone du D�eveloppement Durable, 2, 8–21.

Bengtsson, S. (2016). Hegemony and the politics of policy-making for education for sustainable development : A casestudy in Vietnam. The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(2), 77–90.

Berryman, T. (1999). Relieving modern day atlas of an illusory burden: Abandoning the hypermodern fantasy of an edu-cation to manage the globe. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 50–68.

Berryman, T. (2006–2007). Des pistes pour institutionnaliser l’�education relative �a l’environnement dans la trajectoireobligatoire de la formation initiale �a l’enseignement primaire. �Education relative �a l’environnement: Regards—Recherches—R�eflexions, 6, 137–158.

Berryman, T. (2008). �Education, syst�emes de formation et d�eveloppement durable : histoires, textes et actions. Pour, 198,54–61.

Berryman, T. (2011). S’�emanciper du maıtre m�etre, de l’Homme qui mesure et manipule. In B. Bader & L. Sauv�e (Eds.),�Education, environnement et d�eveloppement durable: vers une �ecocitoyennet�e critique (pp. 45–101). Qu�ebec: Presses del’Universit�e Laval.

Berryman, T. & Sauv�e, L. (2013). Languages and discourses of education, environment and sustainable development. InR. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon & A. Wals (Eds,), International handbook of research on environmental education(pp. 133–147). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association/Routledge.

Blackmore, E., Underhill, R., McQuilkin, J., Leach, R. & Holmes, T. (2013). Common cause for nature: A practical guide tovalues and frames in conservation. UK: Public Interest Research Centre.

Brenner, A. (2010).Manuel d’�ethique de l’environnement. De la th�eorie �a la pratique. Fribourg, France: Academic Press ofFribourg.

Calvino, I. (1985).Mr Palomar. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.Chilton, P., Crompton, T., Kasser, T., Maio, G. & Nolan. A. (2012). Communicating bigger-than-self problems to extrin-

sically-oriented audiences. Common Cause Foundation. Report Published in partnership by Climate Outreach andInformation Network, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, WWF. Retrieved fromhttp://valuesandframes.org/downloads/

Cl�ement, P., Caravita, S. (2011). �Education pour le D�eveloppement Durable (EDD) et comp�etences des �el�eves dans l’en-seignement secondaire. Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01026073/document.

Cling, J.-P., Razafindrakoto, M. & Roubaud, F. (2013). Is the World Bank compatible with the “Socialist-oriented marketeconomy”? A political economy approach applied to the case of Vietnam. Revue de la r�egulation, 13. Retrieved fromhttps://regulation.revues.org/10081

Crompton, T. & Kasser, T. (2009). Meeting environmental challenges: The role of human identity. WWF-UK. Surrey:Greenbooks.

114 T. BERRYMAN AND L. SAUV�E

D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. & Kallis, G. (2014). Introduction. In G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, & G. Kallis (Eds.), Degrowth: Avocabulary for a new era (pp. XXIII–XXVI). New York, NY: Routledge.

Delgado, F., Rist, S. & Escobar, C. (2010), El desarrollo end�ogeno sustentable como interfaz para implementar en vivir bienen la gesti�on p�ublica boliviana. La Paz, Bolivia: Plural Editores.

Descola P. (2005). Par-del�a nature et culture [Beyond nature and culture]. Paris: nrf Gallimard.Descola, P. (2014). La composition des mondes : Entretiens avec Pierre Charbonnier. Paris, France: Flammarion.Evernden, N. (1985). The natural alien: Humankind and environment. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Fischer-Kowalski, M., Haas, W., Wiedenhofer, D., Weisz, U., Pallua, I., Possanner, N.,…Weis, E. (2012). Socio-ecological

transitions: Definition, dynamics and related global scenarios. Brussels, Belgium: NEUJOBS, Institute for Social Ecol-ogy, AAu, Austria/Centre for European Policy Studies. Retrieved from http://www.neujobs.eu

Francis I. (2015). Laudato Si’. [Encyclical Letter on Care for our Common Home]. Accessed January 19, 2016. http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf

Gabriele, A. (2006). Social services policies in a developing market economy oriented towards socialism: The case ofhealth system reforms in Vietnam. Review of International Political Economy, 13(2), 258–289.

Gendron, C. (2014). Beyond environmental and ecological economics: Proposal for an economic sociology of the envi-ronment. Ecological Economics, 105, 240–253.

Girault, Y., & Sauv�e, L. (2008). L’�education �a l’environnement ou au d�eveloppement durable: Quels enjeux pourl’�education scientifique? Aster, 46, 7–30.

Girault, Y., Zwang, A., & Jeziorski, A. (2013). Finalit�es et valeurs de diff�erentes politiques d’�education �a la soutenabilit�e.�Education relative �a l’environnement—Regards, Recherches, R�eflexions, 11, 61–80.

Gonz�alez-Gaudiano, E. (2015). Education : A road to nowhere or a path for a more sustainable future? A southern per-spective. In D. Selby, & F. Kagawa (Eds.), Sustainability frontiers—critical and transformative voices from the border-lands of sustainability education (pp. 43–58). Toronto, Canada: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

Gutierrez G. E. & Gonz�alez-Gaudiano, E. (2010). De las teor�ıas del desarrollo al desarrollo sustentable. Mexico: Siglo Vein-tiuno Editores.

Hart, P. (2003). Teachers’ thinking in environmental education: Consciousness and responsibility. New York, NY: PeterLang.

Hopkins, R. (2008). The transition handbook : From oil dependency to local resilience. White River Junction, VT, USA:Chelsea Green Publishing.

Hopkins, R. (2010). Why resilience beats sustainability—Rob Hopkins on transition in the city. Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/why-resilience-beats-sustainability-rob-hopkins-on-transition-in-the-city-video.html.

Huanacuni, F. (2010). Buen Vivir/Vivir Bien. Filosof�ıa, pol�ıticas, estrategias y experiencias regionales andinas, La Paz,Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Ind�ıgenas.

Huckle, J. (1996). Realizing sustainability in changing times. In J. Huckle & S. Sterling (Eds.), Education for sustainability(pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Jickling, B. (1992). Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development: Sustainable belief. TheJournal of Environmental Education, 23(4), 5–8.

Jickling, B., & Wals, A. (2008). Globalization and environmental education: Looking beyond sustainable development.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 1–21.

Laessoe, J., & Ohman, J. (Eds). (2010). Special issue: Democracy and values in environmental and sustainabilityeducation: Research contributions–from Denmark and Sweden. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 1–171.

Lange, J.M. (2008). L’�Education au d�eveloppement durable au regard des sp�ecialit�es enseignantes. Aster, 46. 123–154.Laval, C., & Weber, L. (2002). Le nouvel ordre �educatif mondial. Paris, France: �Editions Nouveaux Regards & �Editions

Syllepse.Leff, E. (2014). La apuesta por la vida—Imaginaci�on sociol�ogica e imaginarios sociales en los territorios ambientales del sur.

Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Maio G., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W.-Y., & Rees, K. J. (2009). Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects via motiva-

tional relations in a circular model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (4), 699–715.Manier, B. (2012). Un million de r�evolutions tranquilles. Paris: Les liens qui lib�erent.Morin, E. (1999). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris, France: Unesco.Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.O’Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century. Toronto, Canada: University of

Toronto Press.OECD and World Bank. (2012). Incorporating green growth and sustainable development policies into structural reform

agendas. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/eco/greeneco/G20_report_on_GG_and_SD_final.pdfOrr, D. (1990). The virtue of conservation education. Conservation Biology, 4(3), 219–220.Orr, D. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press.Payne, P. (1999). Postmodern challenges and modern horizons: Education ‘for being for the environment.’ Environmen-

tal Education Research, 5(1), 5–34.

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 115

Payne, P. (2003/2006). The technics of environmental education. In A. Reid & W. Scott (Eds.), Researching education andthe environment: Retrospect and prospects (pp. 241–256). London, England: Routledge.

Payne, P. (2006). Environmental education and curriculum theory. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(2), 25–35.Petrella, R. (2000). L’�education, victime de cinq pi�eges : �A propos de la soci�et�e de la connaissance. Montr�eal, Canada: Fides.Popkewitz, T. (2004). Une perspective comparative des partenariats, du contrat social et des syst�emes rationnels

�emergents. Dans M. Tardif & C. Lessard (Eds.) La profession d’enseignant aujourd’hui : �evolutions, perspectives etenjeux internationaux (pp. 243–264). Saint-Nicolas: Presses de l’Universit�e Laval.

Postman, N. (1995). The end of education : Redefining the value of school. New York, NY: Vintage Press.Rep�ublica del Bolivia. (2009). Nueva Constituci�on politica del Estado de Bolivia. Retrieved from http://libresdelsur.org.ar/

archivo/IMG/pdf/NUEVA.pdf.Rep�ublica del Ecuador. (2008). Republic of Ecuador Constitution of 2008. Retrieved from http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Con

stitutions/Ecuador/english08.htmlRist, G. (2007). Le d�eveloppement—Histoire d’une croyance occidentale [The History of Development : FromWestern Ori-

gins to Global Faith]. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques.Robottom, I. (2005). Critical environmental education research: Re-engaging the debate. Canadian Journal of Environ-

mental Education, 10, 62–78.Rydahl, M. (2014). Heureux comme un Danois: les 10 cl�es du bonheur. Paris, France: Grasset.Sachs, I. (1981). Initiation �a l’�ecod�eveloppement. Toulouse, France: Privat.Sachs, I. (2007). La troisi�eme rive. Paris, France: Editions Bourin.Sachs, I. (2013). Plaidoyer pour l’�ecod�eveloppement. Revue Francophone du d�eveloppement durable, 2, 5–7.Sauv�e, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: Further appraisal. Canadian Journal of Environ-

mental Education, 1(1), 1–30.Sauv�e, L. (1999). Environmental education between modernity and postmodernity: Searching for an integrating educa-

tional framework. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4(1), 9–35.Sauv�e, L. (2000). Environmental education, between modernity and postmodernity—Searching for an integrative frame-

work. In A. Jarnet, B. Jickling, L. Sauv�e, A. Wals & P. Clarkin. (Eds.), The future of environmental education in a post-modern world? (pp. 44–56). Whitehorse, Alaska: Yukon College.

Sauv�e, L. (2003). Sustainable development in education: Consensus as an ethical issue. In W. Scott & S. R. Gough (Eds.),Key issues in sustainable development and learning: A critical review (pp. 145–147). London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.

Sauv�e, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education—Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. The Cana-dian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 11–37. Retrieved from http://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/index.php/cjee/article/view/175/9.

Sauv�e, L. (2006). L’organisation et la structuration du secteur de l’�education en r�eponse au programme onusien dud�eveloppement durable. Liaison �Energie-Francophonie, 72, 33–41.

Sauv�e, L. (2007). La d�erive et l’impasse du d�eveloppement durable. In S. Mongeau, (Ed.), Objecteurs de croissance (pp. 33–57). Montr�eal, Canada: �Editions �Ecosoci�et�e.

Sauv�e, L. (2009). Being here together. In M. McKenzie, P. Hart, B. Heesoon, & B. Jickling (Eds.), Fields of green : Restory-ing culture, environment, and education (pp. 325–335). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sauv�e, L. (2011). La prescription du d�eveloppement durable en �education: la troublante histoire d’une invasion barbare.In B. Bader & L. Sauv�e (Eds.), �Education, environnement et d�eveloppement durable: Vers une �ecocitoyennet�e critique(pp. 17–43). Qu�ebec: Les Presses de l’Universit�e Laval.

Sauv�e, L. (2013a). �A la recherche de fondements pour une �ecocitoyennet�e: le passage oblig�e du d�eveloppement durable?Revue Francophone du d�eveloppement durable, 1, 16–29.

Sauv�e, L. (2013b). Au coeur des questions socio-�ecologiques: Des savoirs �a construire, des comp�etences �a d�evelopper.�Education relative �a l’environnement—Regards, Recherches, R�eflexions, 11, 19–40.

Sauv�e, L. (2014). Quels fondements pour une �education �ecocitoyenne? D�eveloppement durable et Vivir Bien : des propo-sitions contrast�ees. In A. Diemer & C. Marquat (Eds.), �Education au d�eveloppement durable—Enjeux et controverses(pp. 119–137). Bruxelle, Belgium: De Boeck.

Sauv�e, L. (2015). The political dimension of environmental education edge and vertigo. In D. Selby & F. Kagawa (Eds.),Sustainability frontiers: Essays from the edges of Sustainability Education (pp. 99–112). Farmington Hills, MI: BarbaraBudrich Publishers.

Sauv�e, L., & Berryman, T. (2001). Contre de nouvelles ali�enations. Politis, 34, 18Sauv�e, L., & Berryman, T. (2009). Challenging a «Closing circle»: Alternative research agendas for the ESD decade. In B.

Chalkley, M. Haig, & D. Higgitt (Eds.), Education for sustainable development—Papers in honour of the UnitedNations decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014) (pp. 229–232). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sauv�e, L., Berryman, T., & Brunelle, R. (2000). International proposals for environmental education: Analysing a rulingdiscourse. In V. Papadimitriou (Ed.), Proceedings: International Conference in Environmental Education in the Con-text of Education for the 21st Century—Prospects and Possibilities (pp. 42–63). Larisa, Greece: Ministry of Educationand Religious Affairs, Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works.

Sauv�e, L., Berryman, T. & Brunelle, R. (2007). Three decades of international guidelines for environment related educa-tion: A critical hermeneutic of the UN Discourse. The Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 33–54.

116 T. BERRYMAN AND L. SAUV�E

Sauv�e, L., Brunelle, R., & Berryman, T. (2005). Influence of the globalized ang globalizing sustainable development frame-work on national policies related to environmental education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(3), 271–283. Retrievedfrom http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pfie/content/pdfs/3/issue3_3.asp

Sauv�e, L., & Girault, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Les enjeux �ethiques des politiques publiques en mati�ere d’environnement. The-matic issue of �Ethique publique, 16(1), 268. Retrieved from http://ethiquepublique.revues.org/1308

Sauv�e, L., Naoufal, N. & Auzou, E. (2013). Pour une �eco-alimentation—Dix belles histoires. Qu�ebec: Les Presses del’Universit�e du Qu�ebec.

Sauv�e, L., & Orellana, I. (2008). Conjuguer rigueur, �equit�e, cr�eativit�e et amour: L’exigence de la criticit�e en �education rela-tive �a l’environnement. �Education relative �a l’environnement—Regards, Recherches, R�eflexions, 7, 7–20.

Sauv�e, L., & Orellana, I. (2014a). Programa de formaci�on de l�ıderes comunitarios en ecodesarrollo y salud ambiental—Ecominga amaz�onica. En el marco del proyecto de cooperaci�on interuniversitaria Ecodesarrollo comunitario y saludambiental en Bolivia (ACDI/AuCC). Retrieved from http://www.ecominga.uqam.ca/WEB/fr/PFE.pdf.

Sauv�e, L., & Orellana, I. (2014b). Entre d�eveloppement durable et vivir bien : Rep�eres pour un projet politico-p�edagogique, �Ethique Publique, 16(1), 2a39–258.

Schumacher, E. F. (1977). A guide for the perplexed. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20

countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.Searles, H. (1960). The nonhuman environment: In normal development and in schizophrenia. New York, NY: Interna-

tional Universities Press. Monograph Series on Schizophrenia No. 5.Selby, D. (2015). Thoughts from a darkened corner: Transformative learning for the gathering storm. In D. Selby & F.

Kagawa (Eds.), Sustainability frontiers—Critical and transformative voices from the borderlands of sustainability edu-cation (pp. 21–42). Toronto, Canada: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

Sheldon, K., Nichols, C. & Kasser, T. (2011). Americans recommend smaller ecological footprints when reminded ofintrinsic American values of self-expression, family, and generosity. Ecopsychology, 3(2), 97–104.

Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Stengers, I. (1996). Cosmopolitiques. Paris, France: La d�ecouverte.Summers, M., & Childs, A. (2007). Student science teachers’ conceptions of sustainable development: An empirical study

of three postgraduate training cohorts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 307–327.Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge: MIT Press.UNEP. (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. Retrieved from

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport.UNESCO. (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-first century. Paris:

Unesco. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002277/227729E.pdf.World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED]. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.Ziegler, J. (2013). Les nouveaux maıtres du monde et ceux qui leur r�esistent. Paris, France: Points.Zwang. A., & Girault, Y. (2012). Quelle(s) sp�ecificit�e(s) pour l’�education au d�eveloppement durable?, Spirale 50, 181–195.

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 117