Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:46:21.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where is the Love in Environmental Education Research? A Diffractive Analysis of Steiner, Ecosomaesthetics and Biophilia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

Simone M. Blom Open the ORCID record for Simone M. Blom [Opens in a new window] ,
Claudio Aguayo  and
Teresa Carapeto
Simone M. Blom*
Affiliation:
School of Education, Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia
Claudio Aguayo
Affiliation:
Centre for Learning and Teaching, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Teresa Carapeto
Affiliation:
School of Education, Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Email: simone.blom@scu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In environmental education research (EER), love is revered as a way to heal or mend the human relationship with nature. However, this interpretation of love rests in a humanist paradigm that considers nonhuman nature as external to the human being. To this end, love has generally been considered as an outward emotion, towards nature, and is less considered an inner movement, towards the human as nature. We were interested in exploring this conceptualisation of nature and love of/as nature and question: Is there potential to locate the concept of love in EER through different theoretical positions to explore the possibilities for its (re)conceptualisation? We aim to stretch academic thinking to (re)consider love through identifying where our own research in environmental education has involved love through the intersection of our journeys at the Australian Association of Environmental Education Research Symposium workshop. In response to the context of this workshop, which explored the concept of diffraction as described by Barad, we have chosen to adopt a diffractive analysis as the methodology to analyse our theoretical perspectives of love in EER. We explore the word love in this article using diffraction to understand the relationality of human and nonhuman nature through our research interests in Steiner, ecosomaesthetics and biophilia. This process cracked our theoretical silos to more openly consider: Where is the love in EER?

Keywords

Environmental education researchloveBaraddiffractionSteinerbiophiliaecosomaesthetics
Type
Article
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 36 , Special Issue 3: Making connections: Creating relationships with nonhuman nature, place and community , November 2020 , pp. 200 - 218
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguayo, C. (2015). La cuestión ambiental: De la razón a las cosas del corazón. TED: Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis, 38, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguayo, C. (2019, July). Autopoiesis in digital learning design: Theoretical implications in education. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings (pp. 495–496). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aguayo, C., Dañobeitia, C., Cochrane, T., Aiello, S., Cook, S., & Cuevas, A. (2018). Embodied reports in paramedicine mixed reality learning. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 2150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akama, Y., Hagen, P., & Whaanga-Schollum, D. (2019). Problematizing replicable design to practice respectful, reciprocal, and relational co-designing with indigenous people. Design and Culture, 11, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allaby, M., & Knight, C. (1971). The eco-activist youth fights for a human environment. London, UK: Knight and Co.Google Scholar
Bai, H., Elza, D., Kovacs, P., & Romanycia, S. (2010). Re-searching and re-storying the complex and complicated relationship of biophilia and bibliophilia. Environmental Education Research, 16, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway. Durham & London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20, 168–187,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, C. (1991). Tikanga whakaaro: Key concepts in Maori culture. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blom, S.M. (2016). Parent(ing) ChildhoodNature: Perceptions with/as nature (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia.Google Scholar
Blom, S.M. (2018). Conceptualizing parent(ing) Childhoodnature through significant life experience. In Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Malone, K., & Barratt Hacking, E. (Eds.), Research Handbook on Childhoodnature (pp. 1–18). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Blom, S., Brown, S., & Siegel, L. (2018, October). Entanglements of matter and meaning — the importance of the philosophy of Karen Barad for environmental education. Workshop presented at the Australian Association for Environmental Education (AAEE) Research Symposium, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast.Google Scholar
Blom, S.M., & Crinall, S. (2020). Growing communities in a garden undone: Worldly justice, withinness and women. Genealogy, 4, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bristow, C. (1979). Why conservation? Adelaide, Australia: Investigator Press.Google Scholar
Brown, S.L. (2019). A patterning approach to complexity thinking and understanding for students: A case study. Northeast Journal of Complex Systems, 1, Article 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S.L., Siegel, L., & Blom, S.M. (2020). Entanglements of matter and meaning: The importance of the philosophy of Karen Barad for environmental education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2019.29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachelin, A.K.A., Paisley, K., & Blanchard, A. (2009). Using the Significant Life Experience Framework to inform program evaluation: The Nature Conservancy’s Wings & Water Wetlands Education Program. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cajete, G. (1999). Reclaiming biophilia: Lessons from Indigenous peoples. In Smith, G.A. & Williams, D.R. (Eds.), Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and the environment (pp. 189–207). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Capra, F. (1994). From the parts to the whole: Systems thinking in ecology and education. Elmwood Quarterly, 3, 31–37.Google Scholar
Carapeto, T. (2018). A journey in embedding environmental education in the history classroom: an autoethnographical interpretation (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Southern Cross University, Australia.Google Scholar
Carson, R. (1965). Sense of wonder. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Carvalho, I.C.D.M., & Steil, C.A. (2013). Nature and ecological imagination: the god of ecology within the imaginative horizon of environmentalism. Ambiente & Sociedade, 16, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cepeda, H.J. (2017). The problem of being in Latin America: Approaching the Latin American ontological sentipensar. Journal of World Philosophies, 2, 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, G. (1991). Steiner education in theory and practice. Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.Google Scholar
Cho, Y., & Lee, D. (2017). ‘Love honey, hate honey bees’: reviving biophilia of elementary school students through environmental education program. Environmental Education Research, 24, 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, A.E., & Snarey, J. (2011). James-Lange theory of emotion. In Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 844–846). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crabb, P.B., & Stern, S.E. (2010). Technology traps: Who is responsible. Ethical Impact of Technological Advancements and Applications in Society, 1, 39–46.Google Scholar
Crutzen, P.J., & Stoermer, E.F. (2000). The ‘Anthropocene’. International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Newsletter, 41, 17-18.Google Scholar
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Edwards, S., Moore, D., & Boyd, W. (2014). Young children’s play and environmental education in Early Childhood Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A., Brown, S., Osborn, M., Blom, S., Brown, A., Wijesinghe, T. (in press). Staying-with the traces: Posthuman and Aboriginal theory knots in environmental education research. Australian Journal of Environmental Education.Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2014). Reading anger in early childhood intra-actions: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 734–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, E. (2013). The misdiagnosis: Rethinking ‘nature-deficit disorder’. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 7, 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyment, J., Hill, A., & Emery, S. (2015). Sustainability as a cross-curricular priority in the Australian curriculum: A Tasmanian investigation. Environmental Education Research, 21, 1105–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. (2015). Socially-critical environmental education in primary classrooms: The dance of structure and agency. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions, Cognition & Emotion, 6, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, S. (2019). Kindred spirits: Learning to love nature the posthuman way. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 53, 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R. (2017). Connection with nature is an oxymoron: A political ecology of ‘nature-deficit disorder’. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48, 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gough, N., & Gough, A. (2010). Environmental education. In Kridel, C. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of curriculum studies (vol. 1, pp. 339–343). New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
Griffiths, M., & Murray, R. (2017). Love and social justice in learning for sustainability. Ethics and Education, 12, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: a regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., & Treichler, P. (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 295–337). Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Hart, P., Hart, C., Aguayo, C., & Thiemann, F.T. (2018). Theoretical and methodological trends in environmental education research. Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental, 13, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensley, N. (2015). Cultivating biophilia: Utilizing direct experience to promote environmental sustainability. The Journal of Sustainability Education, 9, 278–286.Google Scholar
Hodgson, N., Vlieghe, J., & Zamojski, P. (2017). Post-critique. A conservation between Naomi Hodgson, Joris Vlieghe, and Piotr Zamojski. In Hodgson, N., Vlieghe, J., and Zamojski, P. (Eds.), Manifesto for a post-critical pedagogy (pp. 15–19). Punctum Books.Google Scholar
Huambachano, M. (2016). Through an Indigenous lens food security is food sovereignty: Case studies of Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand and Andeans people of Peru (Vol. 1994). University of Auckland. http://hdl.handle.net/2292/33307 Google Scholar
Judson, G. (2016). What is imaginative ecological education? (Interview with Gillian Judson). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?=1bnkjofMUjo Google Scholar
Kalvaitis, D., & Monhardt, R. (2015). Children voice biophilia: The phenomenology of being in love with nature. The Journal of Sustainability Education, 9, 1–17.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. (2016). Biophilia and biomimicry: evolutionary adaptation of human versus nonhuman nature. Intelligent Buildings International, 8, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, E. (2013). How forests think: toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreibig, S.D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review. Biological Psychology, 84, 394–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Louv, R. (2006). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. London, UK: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
Lovat, M., Fletcher, E., Follers, J., & McGrath, J. (2006). Studies of religion. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.Google Scholar
Maiese, M. (2017). Transformative learning, enactivism, and affectivity. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luisi, P.L. (2016). The Santiago School: Autopoiesis and the biologics of life. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from https://wsimag.com/science-and-technology/19657-the-santiago-school Google Scholar
Malone, K. (2007). The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled gardens. Environmental Education Research, 13, 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, K., & Tranter, P.J. (2003). School grounds as sites for learning: Making the most of environmental opportunities. Environmental Education Research, 9, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, A.A. (2008). Pesquisa em educação ambiental e percepção ambiental. Pesquisa em educação ambiental, 3, 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. (1980). Autopoiesis: The organization of the living. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Riedel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H., & Verden-Zöller, R. (1996). Biology of love. https://www.terapiacognitiva.eu/cpc/dwl/PerMul/biology-of-love.pdf Google Scholar
Mazzei, L.A. (2014). Beyond an easy sense: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative inquiry, 20, 742–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, M., Hart, P., Bai, H., & Jickling, B. (2009). Fields of green: Restorying culture, environment, and education . Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Mead, H.M. (2016). Tikanga Maori: Living by Maori values (rev. ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Huia Publishers.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible: Followed by working notes. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Murris, K., & Haynes, J. (2018). Literacies, literature and learning: Reading classrooms differently. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, M.M. (2015). Young children and screen time: Creating a mindful approach to digital technology. Australian Educational Computing, 30, 1–15.Google Scholar
Orr, D.W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Orr, D.W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Ortony, A., & Turner, T.J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological Review, 97, 315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osborn, M., Blom, S., Quinton, H.W., & Aguayo, C. (2020). De-imagining and reinvigorating learning with/in/as/for community, through self, other and place. In Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A., Lasczik, A., Wilks, J., Logan, M., Turner, A., Boyd, W. (Eds.), Touchstones for deterritorializing socioecological learning (pp. 189–230). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, J.A. (2002). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M., White, P., & Wooltorton, S. (2018). Embodying our future through collaboration: The change is in the doing. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, P.G. (2013). (Un)timely ecophenomenological framings of environmental education research. In Stevenson, R.B., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Wals, A.E.J. (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 424–437). Routledge.Google Scholar
Payne, P., Rodrigues, C., Carvalho, I., Freire, L., Aguayo, C., & Iared, V. (2018). Affectivity in Environmental Education Research. Pesquisa em Educação Ambiental, 13, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sipos Randor, Y. (2005). Transformative sustainability learning: A united pedagogy of head, hands and heart (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of British Columbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0058484Google Scholar
Sagarin, S. (2015, May). What makes Waldorf, Waldorf? Separating myths from essentials and making the future bright. Paper presented to the Annual Governance, Leadership and Management (GlaM) Conference, Steiner Education Australia (SEA), Shearwater, the Mullumbimby Steiner School, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., & Ward, B.P. (2015). Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, K., Anderson, D.M., & Barcelona, B. (2015). Parental perceptions of constraints to family participation in nature-based, outdoor experiences. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership, 7, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simaika, J.P., & Samways, M.J. (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24, 903–906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singleton, J. (2015). Head, heart and hands model for transformative learning: Place as context for changing sustainability values. Journal of Sustainability Education, 9, 23–39.Google Scholar
Snell, T., & Simmonds, J. (2012). Being in that environment can be very therapeutic: Spiritual experiences in nature. Ecopsychology, 4, 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snively, G., & Williams, L. (2018). Knowing home: Braiding Indigenous science with Western science. Victoria, Canada: Pressbooks.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond ecophobia. reclaiming the heart in nature education. Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. (2008). Childhood and nature: Design principles for educators. Portland, ME: Sternhouse Publishers.Google Scholar
Steiner, R. (1998). Love and its meaning in the world. New York, NY: Anthroposophic Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, R. (1999). The philosophy of freedom. East Sussex, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, R. (2016). Nature spirits: Selected lectures. Forest Row, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, R.B., Ferreira, J.-A., & Emery, S. (2016). Environmental and sustainability education research, past and future: Three perspectives from late, mid, and early career researchers. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C.A. (2013). Objects, bodies and space: Gender and embodied practices of mattering in the classroom. Gender and Education, 25, 688–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. (1986). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woodard, J. (2005). Head, heart and hands: Waldorf Education. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 2, 84–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Goodale, E., & Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biological Conservation, 177, 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar