Educating for and through nature: A Merleau-Pontian Approach (original) (raw)
Related papers
Anthropocentrism and the Care of the Environment20190430 119103 1avet1b
Anthropocentrism and the Environment Humans and our ethical principles make us brilliant being compare to other realities, and this centrality of humans in the created cosmos is the very essence of anthropocentrism. Only humans have personalities, emotions and can communicate on a high level who are not controlled by instincts (Miklós, 2014). Our rationality enabled us to know what is right or wrong and made us greater over other existence. It is an undeniable fact that the capacity of humans made us flourished in the area of medicine and technology. The developments and discoveries in Science, which contributed to the body of knowledge, are all product of the rationality of humans. Anthropocentrism came from the Greek word, "Anthropos" that means "human", highlighting the centrality of human in the created cosmos originated in Western philosophy and religion. However, this claim of centrality destroys the social dependency of all existence and imbibes the supremacy one entity. Our inevitability to be connected with other realities seems now to be non-existent, thus, giving more value on humans. The creation of pyramidal structure among existent beings and putting humans on the top of it is a great perplexity. Our claim of being at the top of hierarchy of species led to the destruction of all those that are below us, an inevitable result of our egoistic claim. This taxonomic or biological privilege is used as an ideology, which supports the domination of nature. In the modern period, the humanistic view that human being is the center of all things enters the picture. In fact, this period is characterized as anthropocentric because it is the human who is the source of truth and not mythologies or religion or the Bible. The rise of rationalism considering humans as greater entities because of their rational faculty is the prevailing philosophy. In addition, the rise of scientific discoveries fuels the claim that human and the power of mind can define anything. There is a great detachment from the belief with gods and nature, from religion and just focuses on humans as the prime center. The dilemma is, if the measure of all things is human and his rational capacity, how about the other beings which do not have this faculty? Thus, anthropocentrism is an exclusionary view system whether or not it linked to any specific ideologies (Miklós, 2014). Furthermore, anthropocentrism intrinsically value humanity but intrinsically value nonhumanity [nature] (Burchett, 2018). This leads to the pure socioeconomic intention of looking at the nature as an instrument for monetary gain. This objectification of the earth is an ecological predicament caused by selfishness of people. This does not give an avenue of concern but purely economical intention. In addition, the rise of capitalism as a social system gave license to those who simply made profit from the nature. The technological prowess of human societies has enabled [us] to rapidly extract and exchange vast amounts of natural resources with one another in a feverish, never-ending stream (Varner, 2006). Social ecologists argues that the exploitation of nature just for self-interest is denial of inherent value of the nature. Our existential claim over the nature resulted not only its destruction but also extinction of other species and global climate change. "God said. 'Let's make man in our image, after our likeness.' Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in his own image" (Gen 1:26). This Bible passages elevates the role of human creating a hierarchy among creations. It highlights dominance and Godlike of human. Furthermore, this is a classical way of justifying the superiority of everything including animals, plants and the nature at large. The words "dominion" and "subdue" is a hermeneutical display of the positioning of human on the top of the levels of creation. Actually, man was even responsible of the naming of animals and plants (Gen. 2:20). Thus, the authority was vested to human uplifting him from brute animals and plants. This classical claim of
In Defence of Environmental Anthropocentrism
Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae, 2024
The critique of anthropocentrism has accompanied environmental thinking since its inception. However, we lack a deeper analysis of anthropocentrism and its forms. The authors of this study concentrate on analysing selected forms of anthropocentrism that were prominent in different periods of the history of European culture. They offer a basic typology of anthropocentrism and characterize philosophical, religious, philosophical-theological and philosophical-scientific anthropocentrism. They also include a fifth form of anthropocentrism, which they call environmental anthropocentrism. The authors consider changes that are important from a philosophical, ethical and axiological perspective and analyse the potential of anthropocentrism in comparison with some of environmental anthropocentrism its alternative forms, such as biocentrism and cosmocentrism. They also attempt to assess the significance of environmental anthropocentrism and the potential for its implementation in human-environmental relations. The environmental anthropocentrism proposed here is a potential solution with applicability to the search for a moderate, humble, non-arrogant, respectful and responsible human approach to relations with nature.
Anthropocentrism and Nature - An Attempt at Reconciliation
Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially growing human populations and their collective interactions with Earth’s various ecosystems, many environmentalists have lamented that nature is being destroyed by humanity. The theoretical framework which presumably accounts for our species’ destructiveness is pejoratively referred to as anthropocentrism, the view that humans are the sole bearers of intrinsic value on our planet, whereas all nonhuman aspects of the biosphere, whether biotic or abiotic, are of merely instrumental value to the satisfaction of human interests. I argue, however, that environmental thinkers’ critiques of anthropocentrism are ultimately misplaced. Humanity’s ecological predicament is not the result of overvaluing humanity as such but of permitting institutionalized forms of ethical egoism to underlie policies that narrowly focus on the short-term, frivolous interests of current individuals at the expense of the vital interests of future generations.
Environmental education and philosophy in the Anthropocene
Australian Journal of Environmental Education
We stand on the cusp of a new era, called the 'Anthropocene'. Some date the beginnings of the Anthropocene back to the industrial revolution in the United Kingdom and elsewhere at the end of the 18th century (e.g., Tsing, 2015). Others place it alongside the great acceleration that has occurred after the end of the World War II, and 1945 (Steffen, Broadgate, Deutsch, Gaffney, & Ludwig, 2015). Others still look to the basic drives of humans, and how humans have used their social intelligence to understand, transform and ultimately dominate nature (Ellis, 2015). The disruption that the naming of the Anthropocene has administered in environmental educationand will continue to administerhas provided a massive jolt to our collective imagination. As an unsettling ontology that disrupts a persistent 'humanist' paradigm, the concept of the Anthropocene has allowed new conversations around human-dominated global change, human exceptionalism and the nature-culture divide. It has been employed as a heuristic device for gaining a greater understanding of the role of human societies and the part they have played in changing the planet. Therefore, the starting point of and for the Anthropocene is less important to this special edition than two fundamental questions that the naming of the new era produces: (1) What does the Anthropocene mean for the future of human civilisation (and, for example, education)? (2) What can and should be done with respect to the Anthropocene? This special edition takes on one small aspect of the possible responses to these questions entailed by 'Environmental education and its philosophy'. It is the contention of this special edition that the naming of the Anthropocene marks an awakening and a significant moment for environmental education. The significance and overwhelming reality of the Anthropocene, and its connections to, for example, the sixth great extinction event (e.g., Kolbert, 2014), making learning about, in, and how to deal with the environment more important than ever. Philosophy, as the fundamental mode of human speculation about life, is a fitting companion to an expanded and centralised environmental education and acts as a basic driver for education in the Anthropocene. Philosophy does not discriminate between subject disciplines and can work to galvanise all the resources available to respond to the problematics of the Anthropocene if applied evenly. Philosophically, the Anthropocene is a concept that works both for us and on us. In its unsettlement of the entrenched binaries of modernity (human-nature, nature-culture, objectsubject) and its provocative alienation of familiar anthropocentric scales and times opens up possibilities for exploring new theoretical approaches such as posthumanism and new materialism. In this special issue, many of the articles have an underlying focus on fleshing out what it means to be human in a world where being human is being disrupted, interrogated; exploring the precarity and promise of a human being in a constant and dynamic state of ontological becoming as (merely) part of the material world and subject to the same physical processes. Vital materiality, agential
Learning for the natural environment: The case against anthropocentrism
The world (Africa in particular) is in a progressive state of environmental crisis, caused by global warming, loss of biodiversity, human overpopulation, pollution, massive deforestation and desertification, urbanization and many other environmental problems and risk factors. For several commentators and theorists, part of the solution resides in the provision of pertinent and adequate education, including environmental education. The present paper briefly examines the history of environmental education, internationally and in South Africa, and some of its most prominent current trends and issues, before critiquing its general orientation. Arguing against what appears to lie at the heart of environmental education and literacy, namely anthropocentrism (ideas like "education for sustainable development"), the paper urges a radical rethinking of its central concerns and modus operandi, in terms of facilitating learning for the natural environment. In other words, in order to...
From anthropocentrism to ecocentrism in teaching science and social studies
Inovacije u nastavi, 2018
Summary: The aim of the paper is to present the ways in which the attitudes of science, technology, and society towards nature and the place of mankind in it have been reflected in the Science and Social Studies curricula from the mid-20th century up to this day. We wanted to explore the manner in which the relationship between mankind and nature (man as a master of nature or a part of it) and our role in its preservation (instrumental reasons or intrinsic value of nature) was presented in the Science and Social Studies curricula over a longer period of time. Content analysis method was implemented in our research. According to the analysis, the timeline of the Science and Social Studies curricula goes from marked anthropocentrism and antagonism between man and nature (the 50s and 60s of the 20th century), through moderate anthropocentrism with hints of ecocentrism (from the 70s up to the end of the 20th century), to the dominant ecocentrism (in the contemporary 21st century curricula). This process was slow and often out of sync with the development of scientific thought and social circumstances caused by the global environmental crisis. On the other hand, although environmental protection has been included in the analyzed curricula, the reasons for its inclusion are either vague or of instrumental nature. Environmental protection arising from intrinsic values of natural entities, and not (only) serving human interests, has not found its place in the Science and Social Studies curricula yet. The opportunities for improvement of the curricula in this context have been problematized in this paper. Кeywords: аnthropocentrism, ecocentrism, environmental protection, curricula, teaching Science and Social Studies.
Journal of The History of The Behavioral Sciences, 1983
Darwin's theory of evolution encompasses both nonanthropocentric and biocentric elements. T. H. Huxley, Peter Kropotkin, and Patrick Geddes accepted the general theory and attempted to make use of it in writing about social and political questions.
Getting Right with Nature: Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism, and Theocentrism
Organization & Environment, 2005
We are uneasy with nature. The past century has witnessed unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. It has witnessed also unprecedented depredations upon nature. Today there is debate between two moral postures to reconcile these developments. One takes a human-centered, or anthropocentric, view of our relationship to nature, to emphasize the value of securing the resources we need for further development. The other takes an environmentcentered, or ecocentric, view of our relationship to nature, to emphasize the value of conserving her integrity and beauty. This paper explores tensions underling these two views and finds that neither view adequately reconciles us to nature. This paper offers an alternative, theocentric, view of our relationship to nature that reconciles in God our value for resources and our value for nature. This alternative view is founded upon the Catholic Christianity that preceded the Protestant Reformation and the Cartesian metaphysic; one which establishes a divine order of man and nature apart from human egoism and intentions. This paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this theocentric view for environmental policy and practice.
Educational philosophy, ecology and the Anthropocene
Educational Philosophy and Theory
The Anthropocene is a much talked about epoch in the geological history of planet Earth. The impact that ‘advanced’ civilisation has had on the planet has led many scientists to argue that planet Earth has now left the stable climate of the Holocene epoch and entered into a more uncertain future. Evidence for our uncertain future has been collected across a range of planetary boundaries, including climate change, ocean acidification and biodiversity loss (mass extinction) (Steffen, Grinevald, Crutzen, & McNeill, 2011; Steffen et al., 2015; Zalasiewicz, Williams, Steffen, & Crutzen, 2010). While in a narrow technical sense the Anthropocene marks a geological transition, it is also being used by critical thinkers to reconceptualise the relationship between human society and the planet (see for example Hamilton, Gemenne, & Bonneuil, 2015). From this critical perspective the Anthropocene is, as much as anything, a crisis in the individualistic and anthropocentric assumptions underpinning our economic and social structures (see also Brown & Timmerman, 2015). In more straight forward terms, the Anthropocene is a crisis in the way we think. Linked to this idea is the emerging realisation that humanity has much more responsibility for the health of the planet than it has traditionally assumed. Somewhat ironically, just as we are realising that we are facing a more uncertain future, one in which we cannot easily predict, manage or control, it is also clear that we need to improve the quality of our stewardship (Affifi, Blenkinsop, Humphreys, & Joldersma, 2017; Laird, 2017). And in the process of more carefully considering our interconnected natural, social and intellectual systems, it seems likely that new approaches to education need to be part of this process.