Conference Agenda

The symposium centers on how Young people imagine the future and what it implies for their present dealing with contemporary life in an age of environmental disaster. Through taking outset in students’ perspectives, the symposium seeks to nuance the understanding of student’s relation and imagination of themselves in relation to or as part of a sustainable future. Further it deals with what can be done educationally to support cultivation of young people’s future expectations in constructive ways, for instance through playful classrooms and/or other kinds of research and educational playspaces (Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2022) and/or more flourishing in our schools and the use of outdoor spaces. Central questions are: To what extend and how is it possible and desirable to support young people to foster hope and/or positive imaginations about the future? To what extend and how is it possible and desirable so educate young people of today to become eco-democratic citizens and creators of a life-friendly society of tomorrow? To what extend is such aims and democratic education in need of becoming rethought in connection with eco-democracy? (Lundmark, 1998; Pickering et. al, 2020). Thus, prepare the young generation to support and achieve diverse, democratic social, and ecologically just sustainable societies – living within the Earth's carrying capacity – eco-democracy might be an important perspective helpful to think of and understanding educational change, but also enacting change in educational practice supporting living and learning democracy, young people's contemporary and imaginary future. The papers present different angles on this. The aim of the symposium is therefore to bring the papers into a shared conversation about educational research that focuses on young people, their perspectives, and how to respond educationally to the challanges of growing up on a damaged planet, in an ecologically unsustainable society, where many, not least young people dream of something better, yet risk becoming depressed, apathetic or anxious about the future, in the Anthropocene age we now live in (Paulsen, et. al. 2022).

Defining love from an ecological rather than anthropocentric perspective may facilitate the interspecies collaborations and relational epistemologies needed to face and address the Anthropocene. Definitions of love in the fields of psychology, sociology, cultural studies, philosophy, science, and theology almost always centralize human experiences of love. In doing so, they reinforce environmentally-problematic assumptions of human exceptionalism and isolation. In Western countries, scholars note that younger generations increasingly experience love as a selfish, anxiety-ridden, depressive, narcissistic, cynical, and consumeristic phenomena. Along with increased human suffering, contemporary experiences of love are linked to unecological behaviour, such as heightened consumerism, reduced empathy, and potentially reduced morality. This crisis in love and belonging walks hand-in-hand with critical environmental crises. Hope for both could be found, in part, by enabling young people to understand and begin to experience, what I call, eco-love. Eco-love, as a perspective, takes the stance that the world is fundamentally loving, that despite danger, suffering, evil, and other contrasts to love, a radiance of light and love runs through everything, whether newts, aspen trees, stars, or starfish. Eco-love may result in actions that can be viewed as loving, such as communities of trees that feed and protect their young, but it is not defined by actions. From an eco-love perspective, water, trees, insects, soil, and sunlight are oriented toward supporting planetary wellbeing, including human wellbeing. The Beech Trees near my home, for example, offer neighbouring humans care, commitment, protection, and promote physical and mental wellbeing, while also attracting humans with beauty, comfort, and sensual pleasure. The park itself is evidence of complex, enduring, and mutual bonds between humans and trees. Eco-love overlaps with but is broader than the gift worldview articulated by Robin Wall Kimmerer and others. Educational experiences that work to foster bonding, intimacy, companionship, and other elements of love between humans and their more-than-human kin have potential to ease the crises of both. Furthermore, interspecies eco-love appears to expand ways of knowing in intriguing and provocative ways. For example, the growing practice of intuitive interspecies communication appears to be enabled by eco-love and is now being used to collaborate with more-than-humans in veterinary clinics, on farms, in wildlife sanctuaries, and in developing government land practices. Comprehending eco-love enables epistemologies, collaborations, and healing that may be otherwise inaccessible.

Gerhardt, S. (2010). The selfish society. London: Simon & Schuster. Han, B-C. (2017). The agony of Eros. MIT. Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions. Kuchta, E. C. (2022). The epistemological possibilities of love: Relearning the love of land. Pedagogy in the Anthropocene. Eds. M. Paulsen, J. Jagodzinski, & S. H. Mackenzie, S. H. Palgrave. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-90980-2 Kuchta, E. C. (2023). Knowing the unknowable; Visions of troubled lands. Journal of Contemplative and Holistic Education: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 6. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.25035/jche.01.01.06 Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2015): 1093, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093. Kuokunannen, R. (2008). Reshaping the university: Responsibility, Indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. UBC Press. https://www.ubcpress.ca/reshaping-the-university Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A General Theory of Love. Vintage. Martin, A. M. (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy (1st edition.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315645209 Narvaez, D. (2024). Returning to evolved nestedness, wellbeing, and mature human nature, an ecological imperative. Review of General Psychology. Jan. 2024 Vol. 0(0) pp. 1-23. DOI: 10.1177/10892680231224035 Oord, J. T. (2010). Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement. Brazos Press.

The aim of this presentation is to explore how Forest School (FS), as experienced by the staff of one Irish primary school, offers a pedagogical path to move from policy framework to pedagogical practice, towards flourishing for all. Irish education policy (Department of Education, 2023) sets out a vision of flourishing school communities, predicated upon progressive pedagogy and democratic, inclusive, playful classrooms. This vision is embedded within our Education for Sustainable development strategy (ESD to 2030) (Government of Ireland, 2022), the goal of which is to build a more just and sustainable world through five priority actions across the education system. However, enacting this vision in our classrooms remains a challenge. In Ireland, nature as a learning environment remains peripheral and undervalued (Kilkelly et al., 2016), despite compelling international evidence of the benefits of spending time with(in) nature as part of formal education (Kuo et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2015) and the knowledge that human flourishing is inextricably linked with the Earth’s living systems (The Care Collective, 2020; UNESCO, 2015). Successful implementation of the policy framework requires a review the primacy of the indoor classroom, as the normative site of learning in our schools (Waite, 2013) towards a view local nature as an equally valued learning environment and co-teaching partner (Blenkinsop & Beeman, 2010; Jickling et al., 2018). FS, a progressive nature-based pedagogy premised on the idea that flourishing must comprise mutually reciprocal benefit for all sentient beings offers possibilities toward meeting this challenge, based on the findings of a study of seven staff who participated in FS in one Dublin school. FS is about a group of learners and teachers spending one day a week across the seasons in a local woodland or park, during formal schooling. Learning is integrated with curriculum requirements and protocols to ensure safe experiential learning with(in) nature are provided. (IFSA, n.d.; Harding, 2021). Data comprised focus groups, staff review meetings, and reflection sheets, collected over 22 FS sessions during 2019-2020. Inductive thematic analysis sets out how FS promoted connection to nature; offered a distinctive space for social and emotional development, employed novel pedagogical routines and enabled a broader expression of teacher identity. These findings were facilitated by being with(in) nature and a collaborative culture that included the FSL. FS offers a novel and accessible pedagogy which enables public policy to be enacted, towards flourishing in our schools.

Blenkinsop, S., & Beeman, C. (2010). The world as co-teacher: Learning to work with a peerless colleague. Trumpeter, 26(3), 26–39. Department of Education (2023) Primary Curriculum Framework . 2023-Primary-Framework-ENG-screen.pdf (curriculumonline.ie) Government of Ireland (2022) ESD to 2030. gov.ie - National Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development in Ireland (www.gov.ie) Harding, N. (Ed.). (2021). Growing a Forest School. Carlisle: Forest School Association. IFSA. (n.d.). www.irishforestschoolassociation.ie (accessed 16 January 2021). Jickling, B., Blenkinsop, S., Timmerman, N., & Sitka-Sage, M. (2018). (Eds.). Wild pedagogies. Palgrave Studies in Educational Futures. Kilkelly, U., Lynch, H., Moore, A., O'Connell, A., & Field, S. (2016). Children and the outdoors: Contact with the outdoors and natural heritage among children aged 5 to 12: current trends, benefits, barriers and research requirements. The Heritage Council. Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 305.1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305 The Care Collective. (2020). The care manifesto. Verso. UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? UNESCO Publishing. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/news/rethinking-education-towards-global-common-good Waite, S. (2013). Knowing your place in the world: how place and culture support and obstruct educational aims. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 413-433. https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.792787

The ecological and social crises we face, and a need for Eco-Social-Cultural-change toward living in an ecologically and socially just society are intriguing questions for education (Blenkinsop and Fettes, 2023). In this paper, I set up a discussion about if, then what, and how the concept and meaning of eco-democracy might contribute for, in and through education, and implications that it might have for future research. If the purpose of education is to prepare the younger generation to support diverse, democratic, social, and ecologically just and sustainable societies then eco-democracy might be an important conversation for educational change, including questions of change in educational practices supporting uncertain tomorrows, young people's contemporary and imaginary future. The question is: What could eco-democracy mean for how to think about and enact public education whilst working towards an ecologically sustainable and just society where all living beings can flourish? The discussion builds on assumptions that to enact change education needs to be transformed (Jickling, et al, 2018; Paulsen, 2022). If considering the well-being of the whole community, more-than-humans included, and the right of mutually beneficial flourishing, the question that democracy seeks to answer -- how we should live together? - has to be re-thought. Accepting an ecocentric worldview has implications for democratic values such as participating, having a voice, liberty (freedom), and equality (Lundmark, 1998). The idea of a space for change and adaptation to new problem situations, the need for stabilizing forces, and rules necessary in democratic processes, as well as tools that make it possible to evaluate (Petersson, 1999) must then also include the more- than-human. To elucidate and explore eco-democracy for, in, and with education I draw on philosophical and theoretical work such as Bateson, 2000; Shiva, 2005; Macy, 2021; Martusewicz, 2020; Pickering et. al 2020; and put them in conversation with how (eco) democracy emerges in educational research focusing on environmental crises. Preliminary findings through a literature review are that democracy is mentioned in the context of more ecocentric worldviews but seems to be loosely defined. Eco-democratic education as such is seldom explicitly mentioned, nor is fostering eco-democratic citizens or enacting eco-democracy in teaching practice.There appears to be work to be done to re-think axiological, ontological, and epistemological assumptions that educational that will push the boundaries of education in search of an eco-democracy (Orr, 2020; Payne and Hart, 2020).

Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. University of Chicago Press. Fettes, M & Blenkinsop, S. (2023). Education as the Practice of Eco-Social-Cultural Change. Palgrave Macmillan Cham. Jickling, B., Blenkinsop, S., Timmerman, N., & Sitka-Sage, M. (2018). (Eds.). Wild pedagogies.Palgrave Studies in Educational Futures. Lundmark, C. (1998). Eco-democracy: A green challenge to democratic theory and practice (thesis). Umeå: Umeå University. Martusewicz, R.A., Edmundson, J. & Lupinacci, J. (2020). Ecojustice education: toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities. (Third edition.) London: Routledge. Macy, J. (2021). World as lover, world as self. Parallax Press. Orr, D.W.(2020) Democracy and the (missing) politics in environmental education, The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 270-279, Payne, P. G. & Hart, P. (2020) Environmental education, democracy, Thunberg, and XR, The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 263-269, Paulsen, M., jagodzinski, J. & Hawke, S. (2022) (red.), Pedagogy in the Anthropocene: Re-Wilding Education for a New Earth. Palgrave Macmillan. Petersson, O. (1999). Samhällskonsten. Stockholm: SNS Förlag Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K. & Schlosberg, D. (2020) Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy environment nexus, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 1-15, Shiva, V. (2005). Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. South End Press.