Youth Uses of Actor-Network Theory for Undermining Societal Consumerism

Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 16)

Abstract

School science and fields of professional science and technology appear to be cooperatively-enmeshed in a global economic system prioritizing enrichment of few capitalists while compromising wellbeing of many individuals, societies and environments. Governments and extra-national entities like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development promote strategic (non-)intervention in markets aimed at maximizing private profit, partly facilitated by externalization of personal, social and environmental costs. A major mechanism of this system appears to be creation of elastic and enthusiastic consumer desires – particularly among the minority with few needs and who may repeatedly ignore problems associated with commodities. School science (including through Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics education) appears to be contributing to such consumerism. Fields of science are, for example, portrayed as overly systematic, efficient, unbiased – and unproblematic regarding harms to individuals, societies and environments. Learners also may become alienated from opportunities to self-determine perspectives and practices important to them and their communities. Drawing, in part, from liberatory pedagogy, this chapter features the case of a radical science teacher whose uses of actor-network theory to promote student-led research-informed and negotiated actions to address critical socio-scientific problems seem to counter tendencies towards consumerism and associated potential personal, social and environmental harms.

Keywords

Socioscientific issues Neoliberalism Consumerism Student-directedness Activism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this article was published in the Brazilian Journal of Research in Science Education (volume 14, issue 2, pages 39–56). We are grateful for permission from the editors of the BJRSE for use of this article here. Research for the project reported here was funded by a generous grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) – support that is greatly appreciated.

References

  1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve Inc. doi: 10.17226/18290.
  2. Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7470.862.Google Scholar
  3. Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Toronto: Viking. doi: 10.1108/17465680610706355.Google Scholar
  4. Bakan, J. (2011). Childhood under siege: How big business targets children. Toronto: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge. doi: 10.1002/berj.3096.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, B. R. (2007). Consumed: How markets corrupt children, infantilize adults, and swallow citizens whole. New York: Norton. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00211.x.Google Scholar
  7. Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, R. L. (2006). Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 427–446). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2672-2.Google Scholar
  9. Bencze, J. L. (Ed.). (2017). Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bencze, J. L., & Alsop, S. (2009). A critical and creative inquiry into school science inquiry. In W.-M. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), The world of science education: North America (pp. 27–47). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  11. Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669. doi: 10.1002/tea.20419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bencze, J. L., & Carter, L. (2015). Capitalists’ profitable virtual worlds: Roles for science & technology education. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), International handbook of semiotics, vol. 1 & 2 (pp. 1197–1212). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of theory: Research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  14. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Claxton, G. (1991). Educating the inquiring mind: The challenge for school science. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  17. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226028811.001.0001.Google Scholar
  18. Gabbard, D. (2008). Knowledge & power in the global economy: The effects of school reform in a neoliberal/neoconservative age (2nd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2006). Challenging neoliberalism’s new world order: The promise of critical pedagogy. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 6, 21–32. doi: 10.4135/9781483385686.n9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10, 445–458. doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9590-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital, and the crises of capitalism. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hileman, B. (1998). Industry’s privacy rights: Is science shortchanged? Chemical & Engineering News, 76, 36. doi: 10.1021/cen-v076n033.p036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  24. Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6091-472-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418. doi: 10.1002/tea.20137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kincheloe, J. L. (2010). Consuming the All-American corporate burger: McDonalds “does it all for you”. In J. A. Sandlin & P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogies of consumption: Living and learning in the shadow of the “Shopocalypse” (pp. 137–147). New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203866269.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism and the climate. Toronto: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  28. Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  29. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. doi: 10.1109/MTAS.2006.1607717.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Leonard, A. (2010). The story of stuff: How our obsession with stuff is trashing the planet, our communities, and our health – and a vision for change. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119. doi: 10.1080/03057260903562433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of the revolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  35. McMurtry, J. (2013). The cancer stage of capitalism: From crisis to cure. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  36. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  37. Oxfam. (2017). https://www.oxfam.ca/.
  38. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95, 601–626. doi: 10.1002/sce.20435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for a flat world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137027832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.4159/9780674369542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reich, R. B. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  42. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.Google Scholar
  43. Sadler, T. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and trends. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4.Google Scholar
  44. Santos, W. L. P. d. (2009). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science education. Science Education, 93, 361–382. doi: 10.1002/sce.20301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). The OECD and global governance in education. Journal of Education Policy, 28, 710–725. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.779791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 13–31). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315730660.Google Scholar
  48. Steinberg, S. R. (2010). Barbie: The bitch can buy anything. In J. A. Sandlin & P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogies of consumption: Living and learning in the shadow of the “Shopocalypse” (pp. 148–156). New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203866269.Google Scholar
  49. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511803932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wood, G. H. (1998). Democracy and the curriculum. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 177–198). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic UniversityEast MelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Peel District School BoardMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations