Etymologically, a disaster is a kind of misfortune, and so it is one of the great ironies and sorrows of the present age that disasters have become prime fodder for the sort of laissez-faire economic development that aims mainly at the creation of private fortunes for well-connected corporations and individuals (Klein, 2007). Of course if such fortunes were only epiphenomena of more peaceful, just, and balanced societies – in short, ecological societies – then perhaps critical tempers could be mollified to some degree. However, as numerous studies have revealed, ongoing economic reconstruction programs that seek to integrate regional economies into the global neoliberal framework appear not only to have generally failed to improve most people’s lives, but have disastrously grown the gaps between the rich and poor (Scott, 2001; Reuter, 2007; Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2003). Hence, alter-globalization movements have arisen that seek to challenge the hegemony of this agenda (Kahn and Kellner, 2007), and indeed, philosophies that have stressed cultural empowerment for “less developed” nations, instead of their capital improvement, can now be traced back nearly fifty years. In educational circles, for instance, theories opposing the instrumental extension of global capital into the Third World date to at least the early texts of radical theorists such as Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich, who promoted “cultural action for freedom” (Freire, 2000) and a founding form of post-development theory (Rahnema and Bawtree, 1997), respectively. There is also the political and economic global Third Way of so-called liberal centrists like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, whom the New York Times has referred to as the “Impresario of Philanthropy” (Dugger, 2006) because of his Clinton Global Initiative and his work on behalf of disaster relief related to the recent Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. The rhetoric of this approach champions sustainable development as a win-win-win for people, business, and the environment, in which the following policy goals are upheld: 1) development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987) and 2) development improves “the quality of human life while living within
{"title":"From Education for Sustainable Development to Ecopedagogy: Sustaining Capitalism or Sustaining Life?","authors":"R. Kahn","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2008.1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2008.1.2","url":null,"abstract":"Etymologically, a disaster is a kind of misfortune, and so it is one of the great ironies and sorrows of the present age that disasters have become prime fodder for the sort of laissez-faire economic development that aims mainly at the creation of private fortunes for well-connected corporations and individuals (Klein, 2007). Of course if such fortunes were only epiphenomena of more peaceful, just, and balanced societies – in short, ecological societies – then perhaps critical tempers could be mollified to some degree. However, as numerous studies have revealed, ongoing economic reconstruction programs that seek to integrate regional economies into the global neoliberal framework appear not only to have generally failed to improve most people’s lives, but have disastrously grown the gaps between the rich and poor (Scott, 2001; Reuter, 2007; Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2003). Hence, alter-globalization movements have arisen that seek to challenge the hegemony of this agenda (Kahn and Kellner, 2007), and indeed, philosophies that have stressed cultural empowerment for “less developed” nations, instead of their capital improvement, can now be traced back nearly fifty years. In educational circles, for instance, theories opposing the instrumental extension of global capital into the Third World date to at least the early texts of radical theorists such as Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich, who promoted “cultural action for freedom” (Freire, 2000) and a founding form of post-development theory (Rahnema and Bawtree, 1997), respectively. There is also the political and economic global Third Way of so-called liberal centrists like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, whom the New York Times has referred to as the “Impresario of Philanthropy” (Dugger, 2006) because of his Clinton Global Initiative and his work on behalf of disaster relief related to the recent Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. The rhetoric of this approach champions sustainable development as a win-win-win for people, business, and the environment, in which the following policy goals are upheld: 1) development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987) and 2) development improves “the quality of human life while living within","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"354 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131811570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Developing a Bioregional Pedagogy for Transregional Students: Practices and Experiences from the Composition Classroom","authors":"Kyhl D. Lyndgaard","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2008.1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2008.1.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128881194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Education for sustainability - A critical contribution to the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development","authors":"M. Gadotti","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2008.1.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2008.1.3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133877417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review: Trying Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Case That Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature by D. Graham Burnett, 2007, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-12950-1, 304 Pages (with illustrations)","authors":"Elizabeth Dickinson","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2008.1.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2008.1.8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130365084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Science, Eloquence, and the Asymmetry of Trust: What’s at Stake in Climate Change Fiction","authors":"S. Slovic","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2008.1.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2008.1.6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132571268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Moving Toward a Liberatory Pedagogy for all Species: Mapping the Need for Dialogue Between Humane and Anti-Oppressive Education","authors":"Brandy Humes","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2008.1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2008.1.4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121062176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This interview with Julian Agyeman, a key originator of the concept of just sustainability, engages Agyeman in discussion of how just sustainability evolved, and how its theoretical and practical dimensions relate to the principles of ecopedagogy.
{"title":"An Interview with Julian Agyeman: Just Sustainability and Ecopedagogy","authors":"Salma Monani","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2009.1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2009.1.5","url":null,"abstract":"This interview with Julian Agyeman, a key originator of the concept of just sustainability, engages Agyeman in discussion of how just sustainability evolved, and how its theoretical and practical dimensions relate to the principles of ecopedagogy.","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132156833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Walter F. Baber and Robert V. Bartlett begin their book Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality with a review of the scathing indictments that have been made by environmentalists against a view of democracy typically described as “interest-group liberalism.” Charged with using language that is “stunted and shallow” (p. 1) and being “virtually obsolete” for the environmental movement (p. 2), how can democracy be rehabilitated from its less than stellar performance in handling the world’s most pressing problems? In other words, is green democracy theoretically possible? For Baber and Bartlett, the answer is yes. Trained in the fields of Public Policy Studies and Political Science, respectively, Baber and Bartlett attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice that has plagued environmental politics for so long. For these authors, democracy must take a deliberative turn if it is to avoid being relegated to the trash bin of useless ideas. In chapters one and two, Baber and Bartlett follow others in their respective fields who believe a deliberative approach is “the only way to overcome the failings of interest-group liberalism,” contending deliberative democracy has the potential to produce better environmental policy decisions (p. 6). Although Baber and Bartlett acknowledge that “deliberative democracy” is difficult to define, they argue it is a school of political thought that presumes the essence of democracy is “deliberation rather than voting, interest aggregation, or rights” (p. 6). For deliberation to work, participants must also be politically equal and engage one another in the “weighing, acceptance, or rejection of reasons” (p. 6). Of course, the authors also attempt to argue that Horkheimer and Adorno’s observations about instrumental reason in The Dialectic of Enlightenment can be addressed by deliberative democracy scholars. In chapter three, realizing different conceptions of deliberative democracy have drastically divergent assumptions, Baber and Bartlett wisely take three models of deliberative democracy as their “points of departure.” In chapters four, five and six, Baber and Bartlett explore the ideas of deliberative democracy as it has been articulated by John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, and thinkers such as Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson, and James Bohman. Rawls represents the “public reason” approach to deliberative democracy, Habermas the “ideal discourse” perspective, and Gutmann, Thompson, and Bohman the “full liberalism” version. It is in these chapters that the authors are at their best. Baber and Bartlett tackle complicated material and make it accessible to readers
Walter F. Baber和Robert V. Bartlett在他们的书《商议环境政治:民主与生态理性》的开头，回顾了环保主义者对民主观点的严厉指控，这种观点通常被描述为“利益集团自由主义”。在处理世界上最紧迫的问题时，民主的表现并不出色，但被指责使用“发育不良和肤浅”的语言(第1页)，对环境运动来说“实际上已经过时”(第2页)，如何才能恢复民主?换句话说，绿色民主在理论上可行吗?对巴伯和巴特利特来说，答案是肯定的。巴伯和巴特利特分别接受过公共政策研究和政治学领域的培训，他们试图弥合长期以来困扰环境政治的理论与实践之间的差距。对于这些作者来说，如果民主要避免被扔进无用思想的垃圾箱，就必须进行审议。在第一章和第二章中，巴伯和巴特利特跟随各自领域的其他人，他们认为协商方法是“克服利益集团自由主义失败的唯一途径”。尽管巴伯和巴特利特承认“协商民主”很难定义，但他们认为这是一种政治思想流派，它假定民主的本质是“审议而不是投票、利益聚集或权利”(第6页)。为了使审议发挥作用，参与者还必须在政治上平等，并在“权衡、接受、或拒绝理性”(第6页)。当然，作者也试图论证霍克海默和阿多诺在《启蒙辩证法》中对工具理性的观察可以由协商民主学者来解决。在第三章中，由于不同的协商民主概念有着截然不同的假设，巴伯和巴特利特明智地将三种协商民主模式作为他们的“出发点”。在第四章、第五章和第六章中，巴伯和巴特利特探讨了约翰·罗尔斯、尤尔根·哈贝马斯以及艾米·古特曼、丹尼斯·汤普森和詹姆斯·博曼等思想家所阐述的协商民主思想。罗尔斯代表了协商民主的“公共理性”途径，哈贝马斯代表了“理想话语”视角，古特曼、汤普森和波曼代表了“完全自由主义”版本。正是在这些章节中，作者们表现得淋漓尽致。巴伯和巴特利特处理复杂的材料，并使其易于读者理解
{"title":"Book Review: Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality by Walter F. Baber and Robert V. Bartlett","authors":"Richard D. Besel","doi":"10.3903/GTP.2008.2.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3903/GTP.2008.2.14","url":null,"abstract":"Walter F. Baber and Robert V. Bartlett begin their book Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality with a review of the scathing indictments that have been made by environmentalists against a view of democracy typically described as “interest-group liberalism.” Charged with using language that is “stunted and shallow” (p. 1) and being “virtually obsolete” for the environmental movement (p. 2), how can democracy be rehabilitated from its less than stellar performance in handling the world’s most pressing problems? In other words, is green democracy theoretically possible? For Baber and Bartlett, the answer is yes. Trained in the fields of Public Policy Studies and Political Science, respectively, Baber and Bartlett attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice that has plagued environmental politics for so long. For these authors, democracy must take a deliberative turn if it is to avoid being relegated to the trash bin of useless ideas. In chapters one and two, Baber and Bartlett follow others in their respective fields who believe a deliberative approach is “the only way to overcome the failings of interest-group liberalism,” contending deliberative democracy has the potential to produce better environmental policy decisions (p. 6). Although Baber and Bartlett acknowledge that “deliberative democracy” is difficult to define, they argue it is a school of political thought that presumes the essence of democracy is “deliberation rather than voting, interest aggregation, or rights” (p. 6). For deliberation to work, participants must also be politically equal and engage one another in the “weighing, acceptance, or rejection of reasons” (p. 6). Of course, the authors also attempt to argue that Horkheimer and Adorno’s observations about instrumental reason in The Dialectic of Enlightenment can be addressed by deliberative democracy scholars. In chapter three, realizing different conceptions of deliberative democracy have drastically divergent assumptions, Baber and Bartlett wisely take three models of deliberative democracy as their “points of departure.” In chapters four, five and six, Baber and Bartlett explore the ideas of deliberative democracy as it has been articulated by John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, and thinkers such as Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson, and James Bohman. Rawls represents the “public reason” approach to deliberative democracy, Habermas the “ideal discourse” perspective, and Gutmann, Thompson, and Bohman the “full liberalism” version. It is in these chapters that the authors are at their best. Baber and Bartlett tackle complicated material and make it accessible to readers","PeriodicalId":267346,"journal":{"name":"Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115992624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：