Advertisement

Free-Range Children

  • Malin Ideland
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education and the Environment book series (PSEE)

Abstract

The chapter problematizes how a neoliberal ideology organizes Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) and the figuration of the eco-certified child. The chapter illuminates how the individual choice is elevated in the sustainability discourse, and how individuals become accountable for solving global problems. The focus of individual choices is understood from Foucault’s theories on pastoral power: how ESE operates through describing humankind as in need of salvation. This is done through pointing out the individual as responsible for not only oneself, but also the “flock.” As well, the use of numbers is problematized: how tables, footprints, and numerical comparisons make different ways of handling sustainability problems possible respectively impossible. The chapter ends with emphasizing the need for politicizing the individualism in ESE.

Keywords

Pastoral power Neoliberalism Sustainability discourse 

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2004). Affective economies. Social Text, 22(2), 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmed, S. (2014a). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ahmed, S. (2014b). The politics of good feeling. Critical Race and Whiteness Studies, 10(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Brooklyn: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  7. Andrée, M., Hansson, L., & Ideland, M. (2018). Political agendas and actors in science teaching: An analysis of teaching materials from NGOs and private companies. In A. Arvola-Orlander, K. Othrell-Cass, & M. K. Sillasen (Eds.), Cultural, social, and political perspectives in science education (pp. 75–92). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bengtsson, S., & Östman, L. (2013). Globalisation and education for sustainable development: Emancipation from context and meaning. Environmental Education Research, 19(4), 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett, J. (2001). The enchantment of modern life: Attachments, crossings, and ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernstein, B. (2001). From pedagogies to knowledge. In A. Morals, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.), Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 81–93). Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Bowden, R. (2005). Hållbar utveckling: Hotet mot miljön. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  13. Cachelin, A., Rose, J., & Paisley, K. (2015). Disrupting neoliberal discourse in critical sustainability education: A qualitative analysis of intentional language framing. Environmental Education Research, 21(8), 1127–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Child, L. (2008). Hjälp vår jord. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.Google Scholar
  15. Cooke, A. N., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2016). Environmentally active people: The role of autonomy, relatedness, competence and self-determined motivation. Environmental Education Research, 22(5), 631–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowen, R. (2014). With the exception of Switzerland … thoughts about the nation and educational research. IJHE Bildungsgeschichte 4(2), 216–228.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M., Ewald, F., & Fontana, A. (2010). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 19781979 (M. Senellart, Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth. Paramount Pictures.Google Scholar
  20. Gorur, R. (2014). Towards a sociology of measurement in education policy. European Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gottlieb, D., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Haim, A. (2013). Encouraging ecological behaviors among students by using the ecological footprint as an educational tool: A quasi-experimental design in a public high school in the city of Haifa. Environmental Education Research, 19(6), 844–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenpeace. (2014). LEGO: Everything is NOT awesome. Retrieved April 7, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhbliUq0_r4.
  23. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hasslöf, H. (2015). The educational challenge in “education for sustainable development”: Qualification, social change and the political. Malmö: Malmö University. Diss.Google Scholar
  26. Hertzberg, F. (2015). Double gestures of inclusion and exclusion: Notions of learning outcomes, autonomy, and informed choices in Swedish educational and vocational guidance. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(10), 1203–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heyck, H. (2012). Producing reason. In M. Solovey & H. Cravens (Eds.), Cold war social science: Knowledge production, liberal democracy, and human nature (pp. 99–116). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillbur, P., Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2016). Response and responsibility: Fabrication of the eco-certified citizen in Swedish curricula 1962–2011. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmberg, T., & Ideland, M. (2016). Imagination laboratory: Making sense of bio-objects in contemporary genetic art. Sociological Review, 64(3), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Höhler, S. (2015). Spaceship earth in the environmental age, 1960–1990. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
  31. Hursh, D., Henderson, J., & Greenwood, D. (2015). Environmental education in a neoliberal climate. Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ideland, M. (2014). How PISA becomes transformed into a Nationalistic Project: Reflections upon a Swedish ‘school crisis’. IJHE Bildungsgeschichte, 4(2), 243–245.Google Scholar
  33. Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2015). Governing ‘eco-certified children’ through pastoral power: Critical perspectives on education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 21(2), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kampmann, J. (2004a). Det selv-i-agt-tagelige barn. Psyke & Logos, 25(2), 21.Google Scholar
  35. Kampmann, J. (2004b). Societalization of childhood: New opportunities? New demands? In H. Brembeck, B. Johansson, & J. Kampmann (Eds.), Beyond the competent child: Exploring contemporary childhoods in the Nordic welfare societies (pp. 127–152). Fredriksberg: Roskilde University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Klein, N. (2015). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  37. Knutsson, B. (2013). Swedish environmental and sustainability education research in the era of post-politics? Utbildning & Demokrati 22(2), 105–122.Google Scholar
  38. Kopnina, H. (2012). Education for sustainable development (ESD): The turn away from ‘environment’in environmental education? Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lazzarato, M. (2010). Pastoral power: Beyond public and private. Open, 19, 18–32.Google Scholar
  40. Lin, S. M. (2016). Reducing students’ carbon footprints using personal carbon footprint management system based on environmental behavioural theory and persuasive technology. Environmental Education Research, 22(5), 658–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKenzie, M. (2012). Education for y’all: Global neoliberalism and the case for a politics of scale in sustainability education policy. Policy Futures in Education, 10(2), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, P. (2004). Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter. In A. Amin & N. Thrift (Eds.), The Blackwell cultural economy reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mouffe, C. (2011). On the political. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Persson, M., Sjöström, B., & Johnsson, P. (2007). Klimatsmart: Din guide till en miljövänligare vardag. Stockholm: Alfabeta.Google Scholar
  46. Popkewitz, T. (2011). PISA. In M. A. Pereyra, H. G. Kotthoff, & R. Cowen (Eds.), PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Rose, N. (1991). Governing by numbers: Figuring out democracy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 673–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, N. (1998). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (2010). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 61, 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sellar, S. (2015). A feel for numbers: Affect, data and education policy. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2008). The governmentalization of learning and the assemblage of a learning apparatus. Educational Theory, 58(4), 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Soneryd, L., & Uggla, Y. (2015). Green governmentality and responsibilization: New forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility’. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 913–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sund, l., & Öhman, J. (2014). On the need to repoliticise environmental and sustainability education: Rethinking the postpolitical consensus. Environmental Education Research, 20, 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Svenskt näringsliv. (2010). Miljö – så funkar det. Stockholm: Svenskt näringsliv.Google Scholar
  56. Typhina, E. (2017). Urban park design + love for nature: Interventions for visitor experiences and social networking. Environmental Education Research, 23(8), 1169–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Poeck, K., Goeminne, G., & Vandenabeele, J. (2016). Revisiting the democratic paradox of environmental and sustainability education: Sustainability issues as matters of concern. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 806–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2017). Creating space for ‘the political’ in environmental and sustainability education practice: A political move analysis of educators’ actions. Environmental Education Research, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1306835.
  59. Weber, M. (2009). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Witoszek, N. (2018). Teaching sustainability in Norway, China and Ghana: Challenges to the UN programme. Environmental Education Research, 24(6), 831–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malin Ideland
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Education and SocietyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations