Youth Uses of Actor-Network Theory for Undermining Societal Consumerism
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.
KeywordsSocioscientific issues Neoliberalism Consumerism Student-directedness Activism
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.
- Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve Inc. doi: 10.17226/18290.
- Bakan, J. (2011). Childhood under siege: How big business targets children. Toronto: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
- Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- Bencze, J. L. (Ed.). (2017). Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Claxton, G. (1991). Educating the inquiring mind: The challenge for school science. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital, and the crises of capitalism. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
- 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
- Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism and the climate. Toronto: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of the revolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- McMurtry, J. (2013). The cancer stage of capitalism: From crisis to cure. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
- Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
- Oxfam. (2017). https://www.oxfam.ca/.
- Reich, R. B. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
- Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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