Transformative Pedagogies for Sustainable Development
Transformative pedagogies for sustainable development encourage learners to change the direction of development that seems to be inevitable by enhancing their awareness, understanding of complexities, empathy, compassion and empowerment.
New Ideal of the Good Life Is Needed
In a new geologic epoch – the Anthropocene epoch – humankind is the biggest individual determiner of the future of planet Earth, which means that the future is in the hands of humans more than ever before (Crutzen 2002). In other words, the effect of humans on the atmosphere, oceans, and nature is great enough to leave permanent impacts (Rocktström et al. 2009). The species Homo sapiens is destroying the natural systems that maintain all life (Ripple et al. 2018).
Our children will live in a world where wild areas are reduced, where there are fewer animal and plant species, where fewer areas are available for food production, and where natural resources are declining and the climate is more volatile (Marsh 1965; Ward and Dubos 1972; Budowski 1984; Ehrlich et al. 2012; Wiedmann et al. 2015; United Nations 2015; Ripple et al. 2018). Thus, holistic societal change is needed to create safe and fair operating space for humanity. These changes are among the biggest learning challenges facing humankind (Åhlberg et al. 2014).
In the history of mankind, a fatalistic way of thinking has been replaced with a new understanding. People have started to understand that they can be creators of their common future. Therefore, two kinds of future strategies have been developed. Political strategy emphasizes innovation and technological progress that is regulated by decision-makers. Pedagogical strategy is based on the relevance of identities, values, and ethical frameworks. This strategy is emphasized, for example, by behavioral economics, behavioral sciences, and education sciences (Hämäläinen 2015, 1023).
The World Commission on Environment and Development presented sustainable development as a model of holistic social change (WCED 1987, 46). Fundamentally sustainable development is about the transformation of basic aspects of the present ideal of material well-being to protect the natural systems that maintain human and nonhuman life (Baker 2006). In its deepest sense, this means that the main goal of learning is seeing things differently instead of doing things better or even doing better things (Bateson 1972; Sterling 2010).
Later, quality of social change is described by the Agenda 2030 action plan. It came into effect in the beginning of 2016. The 17 universally accepted goals and 169 targets at its core apply equally to all countries (United Nations 2016). The main purpose of the Agenda 2030 is noble: “We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources” (United Nations 2015).
Transformative pedagogies for sustainable development ask how we human beings could, as decision-makers and citizens, change the direction of development that seems to be inevitable. How does learning transform humans and human-environment relationships? How could students integrate personal transformation pathways in attempts to shape material and social changes? Which social factors could drive humanity to move away from unsustainability? How can societal transformations be accelerated toward sustainable development goals?
Implementation of Agenda 2030: From Behavioral Changes to Social Change
Even if humankind face great challenges, we are able to overcome them. Societies are becoming more affluent. People are more prosperous than ever, and the amount of available information is enormous. Freeing citizens from extreme poverty is no longer the main object of national governments. Therefore, broader examination of well-being enables recognizing the heart of progress. Education as a social process and function is in vain until we define the ideal of society we have in mind (Dewey 1916).
There is a common vision concerning the notions of what is good life and progress in society. People from different background agree that peace is better than war and equal rights are better than discrimination. We also think that happiness is better than misery and opportunities to enjoy family, friends, culture, and nature are crucial in life (Pinker 2018). In other words, progress and a better future are clearly defined as a shared vision in Agenda 2030 (United Nations 2015). It pursues a peaceful, sustainable society, comprised of more personally fulfilled people, making full use of their potential (Fadel et al. 2015, 7). The challenge is how to make it happen. How do we reach these common goals?
The present socially constructed beliefs and assumptions about the good life consist of anthropocentrism, individualism, unlimited growth, and technological progress (Glasser 2018). Traditional Western logic is based on linear thinking, where systemic views are not common. A common assumption is that the future can be predicted by examining the past and present and identifying the cause-to-effect relationships between them. This is manifested by a reductionist and simplifying discourse, in which there is no attempt to recognize the interconnection of different parts (Ackoff and Rovin 2003). A need for simplification is easy to understand because current life is more complex than before and people want to have the feeling of good life management in their everyday lives.
It is necessary to question the present socially constructed beliefs and assumptions about the good life because it reproduces society and culture with the harmful metanarrative (Fadel et al. 2015, 98–99). From the systems thinking point of view, there are three basic dimensions of progress, and a hierarchy exists between these dimensions. The sustainability promoting metanarrative is based on the fact that without well-functioning nature, there can be no society because humankind is dependent on thriving ecosystems and the sustainable use of natural resources such as fertile soil, crop pollination, water purification, disease control, and climate control. Without a society, there can be no societal functions, including an economy. The solid base of society is built on human rights, social justice, and dignity. The good life on the finite planet Earth is not possible without an efficient economy, which is necessary to fulfil the basic needs of people (Giddings et al. 2002; Hediger 1999; Ott 2003; Salonen and Konkka 2015).
Principles of change to achieve a sustainable future in the Anthropocene epoch. A path toward full humanness and planetary responsibility by expanding humans’ worldview, way of thinking, well-being paradigm, life orientation, and moral circle from left to right. (Adapted from Salonen and Ålhberg (2012, 22))
Self-centered Human-centered Life-centered Ecosystem-centered
Way of thinking
Atomistic thinking Systems thinking
Accumulation of material goods Harmony, coherence, consciousness
Individual Collective Planetary
Friends and relatives
Human beings and animals
Human beings, animals, and plants
An example from the late fifteenth century helps us to identify what kind of social change is needed in practice. The principles of sustainable development were a reality among sheep herders in Iceland then. They noticed that overcrowding led to soil depletion and erosion. The Icelandic sheep herders had recognized the value of fertile soil as an indispensable prerequisite for their business. For this reason, they decided to unite and estimate the limit to growth in their business and found that the speed of recovery of the pastureland determined the limit of their activity. In practical terms, this was the number of sheep on the slope of a mountain and the fair sharing of sheep between the herders. Subsequently, the sheep herder community safeguarded the vitality of nature in order to ensure the material wealth of the community. The sheep herders adopted a more holistic way of thinking. They gradually changed their life orientation from individual to collective. They also decided to include in their moral circle the whole community and the whole ecosystems on the island, more than only herders’ families. This was a concrete path toward full humanness and planetary responsibility in the late fifteenth century in Iceland.
Equal prospects for health, education, and employment
Equal opportunities for all citizens to influence their own lives and common issues
Improving the productivity, profitability, and quality of work
Supporting an active civil society
A carbon-neutral society by the year 2050
A resource-wise economy and socially responsible business operations
Lifestyles based on nonmaterial consumption and services
Decision-making that respects nature
SCSD serves as a long-term framework and instrument of policy coherence for the strategy and program work of different administrative sectors. Every single Finn can make a public commitment on a digital platform. Moreover, hundreds of measurable and public commitments are already made by companies, municipalities, educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations (Lepuschitz 2014). These commitments transform the whole society toward a more sustainable future (https://sitoumus2050.fi/). However, transformative pedagogies are needed in mainstreaming of sustainable development, and this requires adjustment of the values and attitudes of citizens (Commission on Sustainable Development 2016).
Toward Transformative Pedagogies for Sustainable Development
Pedagogical strategy for human development refers to human growth and education in theory and practice (Hämäläinen 2012, 4). Paul Natorp claimed that all pedagogy should be social (Natorp 1920). This kind of society-oriented pedagogy can be identified as social pedagogy, which is based on the large-scale and holistic theory of human development. A human being is considered as a member of society and of different kinds of communities – a group of people with responsibilities for each other (Hämäläinen 2003, 73).
Social pedagogy emphasizes holism. It asks what the full potential of the human being is in the context of society and how the relationship between individuals and society should be organized. It focuses specifically on the social preconditions for individual development and to opportunities to promote people’s growth into active citizenship and social responsibility while still fulfilling personal interests and opportunities (Hämäläinen 2015, 1028). Thus, social pedagogy is about a general rather than special theory of education. It addresses opportunities to contribute to social life, welfare, and human development (Hämäläinen 1989, 128; 2003, 71; 2012, 12–13).
Social pedagogy is an example of a pedagogy that focuses on changing society (Hämäläinen 2012, 9). It deals with fundamental questions of societal order, human development, and citizenship education, and it promotes understanding ourselves as human beings (the human domain) and moral actors (the ethical domain). In the Anthropocene epoch, however, it is also important to understand human beings as a part of nature. Transformative pedagogies for a sustainable development transform understanding and conceptions about the interdependence of humans and nature (Laininen 2018). These three overlapping domains together – human, ethics, and nature – can promote human flourishing and a sustainable future when they are addressed simultaneously (Ehrenfeld 2008, 58–59). Therefore, truly transformative pedagogies not only focus on human self-awareness but also on deep social-ecological transformations in which people define themselves as a part of the surrounding social-ecological reality in harmony (Åhlberg et al. 2014; Salonen and Bardy 2015; Salonen and Konkka 2015).
The cognitive dimension relates to knowledge and rational thinking.
The affective dimension relates to a combination of emotions and knowledge.
The existential dimension means that learners question their own values and ways of life and begin to rebuild perceptions of themselves.
Empowerment refers to responsibility, engaging and redirecting life.
Action includes making new choices on a personal, communal, and political level.
Transformative pedagogies lead to a holistic worldview (Laininen 2018) because they are based on the epistemic approach to learning (Bateson 1972; Sterling 2010). A holistic worldview together with systems thinking and ethics can be a key driver of sustainability in society. The ethical domain of transformative pedagogies is about extending the moral circle to include the entire social-ecological reality. The eco-social approach to education crystallizes into the adoption of a systemic worldview – the extension of the moral circle to cover all human beings, animals, plants, and abiotic parts of nature as presented in Table 1. I could start to ask, for example, what chain of people, raw materials, and power plants I have connected myself to by turning on the lights in a room. Each everyday choice maintains the system to which it connects citizens (Åhlberg et al. 2014).
Human freedoms and responsibilities are, subsequently, based on the dependence on nature and on other people. To achieve this, the moral circle should, firstly, cover ecological issues on which human beings are dependent and, secondly, social issues to secure the prerequisites for human rights and dignity. Under these conditions, it is possible to create a sustainable economy that fulfils the basic needs of all people on Earth. When living on a finite planet, it can be asked whether the best measure for our generation’s progress is to ensure as much freedom for future generations as we currently enjoy (Sen 2009, 250–252). In order to achieve this, it is important to understand that without an ecological foundation, no human community can exist and, without the human community, there can be no economy. Therefore, all the challenges related to humanity boil down to ecological and social origins, as the economy is an eco-social process (Lehtonen et al. 2018; Åhlberg et al. 2014; Salonen and Konkka 2015).
Way of learning
Goal of learning
Doing things better
Doing better things
Seeing things differently
Transformative pedagogies include possibilities for a dramatic change in thinking and behavior. Epistemic learning does not demand learners to do things better or even doing better things. It asks people to see the world around them differently. It can permanently reform learners’ consciousness and change their way of being in the world. A possible shift “involves our understanding of relations of power in interlocking structures of class, race, and gender; our body-awarenesses, our visions of alternative approaches to living; and our sense of possibilities for social justice and peace and personal joy” (O’Sullivan et al. 2002, xvii).
These fundamental changes start with individuals and their change of attitudes, behavior, and lifestyle. The reflection on transformative action points to the importance of community. In a physically, virtually, socially, politically, or culturally defined community, learners find causes that concern them both individually and collectively. It evokes the lifelong learning perspective recognizing nonformal and informal learning throughout the life of an individual. Therefore, transformative actions for sustainability can also be seen as an example of active citizenship (UNESCO 2019, 4–5).
A sustainable future is possible. In the Anthropocene epoch, humankind needs transformative pedagogies with full humanness as a goal. Then human beings can start becoming a part of a bigger story – metanarrative – that is a universal and equal story of a future consisting of peace and dignity (Siirilä et al. 2018). In order to reach this noble goal, transformative pedagogies for sustainable development should be embedded in all subjects in all curricula (Stough et al. 2017).
- Ackoff R, Rovin S (2003) Redesigning society. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- Åhlberg M, Aineslahti M, Alppi A, Houtsonen L, Nuutinen A-M, Salonen AO (2014) Education for sustainable development in Finland. In: Jucker R, Mathar R (eds) Schooling for sustainable development: concepts, policies and educational experiences at the end of the UN decade of education for sustainable development. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 231–233Google Scholar
- Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. Chandler, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Berger P, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penquin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory, foundations, development, applications. George Braziller, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Budowski G (1984) Sustainable use of species and ecosystems. In: Thibodeau FR, Field HH (eds) Sustaining tomorrow – a strategy for world conservation and development. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 56–69Google Scholar
- Commission on Sustainable Development (2016) The Finland we want by 2050 – society’s commitment to sustainable developmentGoogle Scholar
- Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. The Floating Press, AucklandGoogle Scholar
- Ehrenfeld J (2008) Sustainability by design. A subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Fadel C, Bialik M, Trilling B (2015) Four-dimensional education. The competencies learners need to succeed. Center for Curriculum Redesign, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Folke C, Biggs R, Norström AV, Reyers B, Rockström J (2016) Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3):41Google Scholar
- Glasser H (2018) Toward robust foundations for sustainable well-being societies: Learning to change by changing how we learn. In J. Cook (ed.) Sustainability, Human Well-Being and the Future of Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
- Hacking I (2000) The Social Construction of What? London: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
- Hämäläinen J (2012) Social pedagogical eyes of the midst of diverse understandings, conceptualisations and activities. Int J Soc Pedagog 1(1):3–16Google Scholar
- Laininen E (2018) Transforming our worldview towards a sustainable future. In: Cook JW (ed) Sustainability, human well-being and the future of education. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
- Lepuschitz K (2014) Sustainability transition in Finland: society’s commitment to sustainable development. ESDN Case Study N°18. ESDN Office at the Institute for Managing Sustainability, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Lyytimäki J, Lähteenoja S, Sokero M, Korhonen S, Furman E (2016) Agenda 2030 in Finland: key questions and indicators of sustainable development. Prime Minister’s Office, Helsinki. Publications of the Government’s analysis, assessment and research activities 32/2016Google Scholar
- Marsh GP (1965) In: Lowenthal D (ed) Man and nature – or, physical geography as modified by human action. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Natorp P (1920) Sozial-idealismus. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Odlekop JA, Fontana LB, Grugel J, Roughton N, Adu-Ampong EA, Bird GK, Dorgan A, Vera Espinoza MA, Wallin S, Hammett D, Agbarakwe E, Agrawal A, Asylbekova N, Azkoul C, Bardsley C, Bebbington AJ, Carvalho S, Chopra D, Christopoulos S, Crewe E, Dop MC, Fischer J, Gerretsen D, Glennie J, Gois W, Gondwe M, Harrison LA, Hujo K, Keen M, Laserna R, Miggiano L, Mistry S, Morgan RJ, Raftree LL, Rhind D, Rodrigues T, Roschnik S, Senkubuge F, Thornton I, Trace S, Ore T, Valdés RM, Vira B, Yeates N, Sutherland WJ (2016) 100 key research questions for the post-2015 development agenda. Dev Policy Rev 34(1):55–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ott K (2003) The case for strong sustainability. In: Ott K, Thapa P (eds) Greifswald’s environmental ethics. Steinbecker Verlag, GreifswaldGoogle Scholar
- Pinker S (2018) Enlightenment now. The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker BH, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen C, Foley J (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rogers M (1994) Learning about global futures: an exploration of learning processes and changes in adults. DEd thesis, University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
- Salonen A, Bardy M (2015) Ekososiaalinen sivistys herättää luottamusta tulevaisuuteen. Aikuiskasvatus 35(1):4–15Google Scholar
- Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Siirilä J, Salonen A, Laininen E, Pantsar T, Tikkanen J (2018) Transformatiivinen oppiminen antroposeenin ajassa. Ammattikasvatuksen Aikakauskirja 20(5):39–56Google Scholar
- Sterling S (2003) Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education: explorations in the context of sustainability. University of Bath, BathGoogle Scholar
- Sterling S (2010) Transformative Learning and Sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 11(5):17–33Google Scholar
- UNESCO (2019) Education for Sustainable Development Beyond 2019. Report 206 EX/6.II. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationGoogle Scholar
- United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1Google Scholar
- United Nations (2016) Sustainable development goals. United Nations. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
- Ward B, Dubos R (1972) Only one earth: the care and maintenance of a small planet. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
- WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar