1          Transitions: Educational Reforms that Promote Ecological Intelligence
                                    or the Assumptions Underlying Modernity?
  
                                                              by
         C. A. Bowers
  2008
2Contents:
Introduction
Chapter 1    Conceptual Steps to Ecologically Sustainable Educational Reforms
 Chapter 2     E. O. Wilson’s Drift into Scientism: The Challenge Facing Science Educators
 Chapter 3     The Environmental Ethic Implicit in Three Theories of Evolution
Chapter 4    Why the Lakoff and Johnson Theory of Metaphor Marginalizes the Cultural
Issues Related to the Ecological Crises
Chapter 5    Revitalizing the Cultural Commons or an Individualized Approach to
Planetary Citizenship: The Choice Before Us
 Chapter  6    The Case Against John Dewey as an Environmental and Eco-Justice Philosopher
Chapter  7     Why a Critical Pedagogy of Place is an Oxymoron
Chapter 8      The Double Bind of Environmentalists Who Identify Themselves as Liberals
Chapter 9      The Real Failure of University Faculty
Chapter 10    Rethinking Social Justice Issues Within an Eco-Justice Conceptual
           and Moral Framework
Chapter 11    Suggestions for a State-Wide Approach to Ecologically Sustainable
 Educational Reforms
Chapter 12    What Should be Included in Teacher Education Programs in an
       Era of Global Warming
3Introduction:
This collection of essays addresses a world that it is in a state of rapid transition—both in
terms of cultural practices and in the viability of the natural systems that all life depends upon.  Even
though there have been earlier periods of rapid transition in cultural ways of knowing and values,
this is the first that involves an awareness that the changes taking place in the Earth’s natural systems
are putting the future of humankind in jeopardy.  These changes are occurring at an increasing rate.
More than a few scientists are finding evidence that we may be entering a new era of mass
extinction.   Even if this prediction seems too alarmist, the changes occurring in natural systems are
already impacting people’s lives.  Throughout the world, fisheries are no longer reliable sources of
protein, potable water is in increasingly short supply, agricultural land is turning into deserts,
weather systems are becoming more extreme and changing in ways that make habitation less
predictable, and the chemistry of the world’s oceans is changing in ways that threaten the food chain
in fundamental and irreversible ways.
The transitions in the viability of natural systems are now beginning to attract the attention of
politicians, religious leaders, educators, and activists in Third World cultures.  Reversing the forces
that are deepening the cultural and ecological crises will require more than the adoption of energy
efficient and less carbon producing technologies, and more than the efforts of some citizens to
recycle what would otherwise end up in the local landfill.  Unfortunately, even these efforts are
limited to a small minority of Americans. The majority of American politicians, religious leaders,
and educators continue to base their lives on the myth of unending progress and the incessant drive
to achieve as much material wealth as possible. That is, they continue to take for granted the cultural
assumptions that continue to give conceptual direction and moral legitimacy to the individualistic,
consumer-dependent lifestyle that is overshooting the sustaining capacity of natural systems.
This mind-set leads to the constant repetition of the word “progress” –progress in science, in
technology, in education, in new consumer markets, and in self-discovery.  As “progress” serves as
the talisman of modern individuals, it makes it unnecessary for them to explore the nature of
ecological thinking and why it is needed.  This failure leads to ignoring that today’s scientists have
transformed the early Greek understanding of oikos into “ecology” which now stands for how
natural systems are to be understood.  The ancient understanding of ecology was more inclusive.
Their understanding of managing the household recognized the inescapable reality that daily life is
4nested in cultural systems and cultural systems are nested in natural systems.  Reviving this more
inclusive understanding led Gregory Bateson to urge us to recognize what the myth of unending
progress denies: namely, that cultural systems cannot survive the destruction of the natural systems
they depend upon.
It is difficult to predict whether Americans will awaken to need for a rapid transition in their
unsustainable cultural traditions, which will require replacing the myths and assumptions upon
which the industrial/consumer-dependent culture is based with an ecological form of intelligence.
The desire for conveniences and material success may prove too powerful, and the uncertainties of
how to engage in ecological thinking too daunting—especially when most Americans remain
unaware of how the vocabulary they rely upon carries forward the misconceptions and assumptions
of earlier thinkers who dealt with the environmental limits of their day by exploiting the bioregions
of other cultures.  Instead of relying upon the myth of progress, we now need to recognize that
“liminality” is the word that best describes where we are in the process of cultural and environmental
transition: that is, the uncertainties that surround our efforts to find technological solutions to
slowing the rate of global warming.  Liminality can also be understood as referring to the
unpredictable changes that may occur in our guiding democratic political ideology as demagogues
seek to exploit the ecological crises for their own interests.  Some cultural groups are already
attempting to escape the uncertainties of the present by seeking to return to what are taken to be the
certainties of the distant past and of the humanly created narratives that have been given sacred
status.  Others are attempting to revitalize the wisdom traditions of how to live in more community-
centered and thus less environmentally disruptive ways.  If the economic system does not totally
collapse, still others will continue their hyper-consumer lifestyle and remain oblivious to the
environmental consequences that their children will be unable to escape. Given the scientific
evidence that global warming and the melting of glaciers are not being reversed, that the rising levels
of acidification in the world’s oceans have peaked and are now in decline, that the world’ fisheries
are now recovering, there seems to be only one certainty that should be taken seriously. Namely, the
certainty that cultures cannot survive the destruction of the ecosystems they depend upon.  This is
the certainty that Jared Diamond documents in his recent book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to
Fail or Succeed.
 The essays in this online book include previous efforts on my part to raise questions about
the well intentioned thinkers who were genuinely concerned about environmental issues as well as
5the future prospects of human kind, but who relied upon many of the cultural assumptions that now
underlie the process of economic and cultural globalization.   Several of my more recent essays
represent an attempt to translate different elements of an ecological form of intelligence that are
often overlooked by those who have adopted a reductionist interpretation of ecology.  The writings
of Edmund Burke, Edward Shils, Gregory Bateson, Wendell Berry, Vandana Shiva, and Third
World activists in Peru and Bolivia have been especially influential in recognizing the multi-
dimensionality of an ecological form of intelligence.
A number of the essays in this collection have appeared earlier in small journals at a time
when the majority of educational reform proposals were focused on social justice rather than
environmental issues, and when environmentalists were largely indifferent to the need to promote
radical reforms in public schools and universities.  Now that there is a growing awareness that
educational and environmental issues are related, the re-publication of these essays may contribute to
the recognition of how leading thinkers in different fields of inquiry are still caught in the double
bind of relying upon ecologically destructive and culturally colonizing assumptions to frame their
analysis of what they understand to be the major problems we now face—and their solutions to
them.  In effect, by focusing on the ideas of E. O. Wilson, George Lakoff,  Mark Johnson, and John
Dewey, as well as a number of educational reformers, it is hoped that readers will ask their own
questions about these and other proponents of progress.  It is also hoped that these essays will
contribute to greater awareness of the differences between various expressions of ecological
intelligence and the expression of the mind-set responsible for our current predicament of
overshooting the sustaining capacity of the Earth’s natural systems.
 As several of the essays were written for audiences unfamiliar with the essays that appeared
in small non-educational journals, it has been necessary to introduce for these different audiences the
basic issues and conceptual framework that may now appear as repetitious to some readers of this
collection.  I hope readers will overlook this problem as an inevitable result of trying to introduce a
similar message to different audiences.  Despite this problem, each of the essays brings new issues
and non-mainstream interpretations into focus.  And each essay represents my first efforts to develop
an ecological pattern of thinking that requires overcoming the artificial separations into different
conceptual categories, such as separating traditions from progress, individualism from culturally
mediated experiences, culture from the environment, the cultural commons from achieving social
justice in a consumer-dependent lifestyle, and the impact of the Western consumer dependent
6lifestyle from the impact on Third World cultures.  What are often understood from a non-ecological
perspective as unrelated issues must now be understood as requiring analyses and solutions that
represent them as part of a common, interdependent world.
Chapter 1   Conceptual Steps to Ecologically Sustainable Educational Reforms
The environmental and social problems we face have increasingly ominous implications for
the future.  In addition to global warming, the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere
is changing the chemistry of the world’s oceans—which further threatens the food chain we depend
upon.  The shortage of potable water and loss of top-soil, which are just two of many environmental
changes taking place, will further add to the misery of an increasing world population.  The social
problems are equally daunting—especially in America where a combination of market-liberal and
Christian fundamentalism has become the dominant political force. Computer-driven automation,
outsourcing of jobs to low-wage regions of the world, and the disappearance of the economic safety
nets that many workers previously took-for–granted, are reducing the ability of many people to meet
their basic needs.  At the same time the local cultural and environmental commons are rapidly being
exploited as new markets by the industrial system of production and consumption. What few people
recognize is that the commons, which include community-based mutual support systems as well as
the intergenerational knowledge, reduce dependence upon a money-based existence.  The increased
use of surveillance technologies, the undermining of democratic institutions and civil safeguards,
and the rise of a friend/enemy approach to politics at the local and national level, add to the list of
daunting challenges faced by environmentalists, social justice advocates, and educational reformers.
One of the reasons for the environmental and political crises we now face is the market
liberalism that gave conceptual and moral legitimacy to the global expansion of the
industrial/consumer-dependent lifestyle.  Market liberalism is now the principal source of
indoctrinating people into believing that the main pathway of human history is now a source of
backwardness and a limitation on individual freedom.  This pathway, which varies from culture to
culture, is better known as the cultural and environmental commons. Most examples of the cultural
and environmental commons encompass those aspects of daily life that had not yet been privatized
7and monetized.   Another feature of the commons, as practiced in many cultures, is the reliance upon
local decision making and an awareness that current practices should not diminish the prospects of
future generations.
As I will explain in future essays, public schools and universities in the West have relegated
knowledge of the cultural and environmental commons to low status by omitting it from the
curriculum.  The result is that many people lack the language for naming those aspects of the
commons they participate in. In not being able to identify what they depend upon and experience at a
taken-for-granted level of awareness, they are unable to resist the further enclosure of the commons
that makes them more dependent upon consumerism. I shall also examine the nature of the linguistic
double binds that lead current educational reformers to promote, in the name of individual freedom,
the further emancipation from the commons sustaining intergenerational knowledge and mutual
support systems.  How the cultural assumptions reinforced by American professors in many
disciplines contribute to large numbers of university graduates becoming die-hard supporters of
President George W. Bush’s market liberal domestic and foreign policies will also be examined.
Perhaps the most difficult challenge will be to convince professors across the disciplines to take
seriously reforms that contribute to the revitalization of the local cultural and environmental
commons, and to learn how to build support within the community for living less monetized and
environmentally destructive lives.
Revitalizing the Cultural and Environmental Commons as Sites of Resistance to Economic
Globalization
In order to understand the criticisms I am making of our educational institutions, as well as
recommendations for reform, it is necessary to clarify further the nature of the cultural and
environmental commons—as well as the many ways they are being enclosed. I will also explain their
importance to reducing the human impact on natural systems, and how participation in the cultural
commons reduces dependence upon a money economy.
The key features of the cultural and environmental commons that need to be identified if we
are to counter the criticism that “we cannot go back to a simpler past” and “any discussion of the
commons is the expression of romantic and wishful thinking” include the following: (1) the cultural
and environmental commons began with the beginning of human history; (2) they still exist in all of
the world’s cultures—including both rural and urban areas in the West; (3) access to the cultural
commons varies with the culture’s status systems and other forms of exclusion and  privilege; (4) the
8cultural and environmental commons in many cultures were (and still are) managed through local
democracy; (5) the first acts of enclosure of the commons can be traced to introduction of private
property, a money-based economy, socially stratifying religious beliefs, and, more recently, to a
variety of cultural forces that range from public education, the nexus of science and technology, and
the globalization of market liberal ideology.
The environmental commons, which are now being heavily impacted (enclosed) by the
West’s industrial culture, includes the soil, water, plants, animals, air, forests, oceans, rocks, gene
lines, and so forth. Even the microorganisms being destroyed by pesticides (which is a form of
enclosure) are part of the environmental commons.  The enclosure of the different aspects of the
environmental commons, that is, transforming what was freely available to all to what requires
participating in a money economy, can be seen in such recent developments as the corporate
ownership of aquifers, the patenting of gene lines, and the privatizing of public lands and minerals.
The cultural commons are difficult to recognize, as our participation in them is largely part of
the taken for granted experience of everyday life.  Awareness of their loss too often occurs after they
have been enclosed --when it is too late to resist. For example, individual privacy was part of our
taken for granted commons until we learned in the media that surveillance technologies are being
used by the government and corporations.   Examples of the cultural commons that still exist include
the languaging processes that are learned when born into a culture.  As the moral templates of the
culture are encoded in the language they become part of the taken for granted commons—until they
are challenged as wrongly constituted or enclosed by market-oriented values.  In addition to the
languaging processes, which include the spoken and written word, narratives, patterns of
metacommunication, and the creative arts, the cultural commons also includes the intergenerational
knowledge and skills related to the growing, preparation, and sharing of a meal, craft knowledge,
healing practices, games, knowledge of how to greet a guest, civic traditions of rights and
responsibilities—among others.  In other words, the cultural commons includes all the non-
monetized and non-privately owned knowledge, skills, and forms of relationships that are
intergenerationally passed along.  While there are many examples of the cultural commons that
strengthen community interdependence and have a smaller ecological impact, there also are
examples of the cultural commons that are unjust, based on ignorance, and that further degrade the
natural systems that life depends upon.
9Enclosure may be driven by an ideology, such as market liberalism which has as its goal the
transformation of what remains of the cultural and environmental commons into markets.  Enclosure
may also take other forms—ranging from the use of seeds genetically engineered to resist the use of
Round Up, and which encloses a wide range of the farmer’s knowledge of local planting conditions,
to the many forms of enclosure that result from relying upon computer mediated thinking and
communication.  Some forms of enclosure represent genuine contributions to improving the quality
of daily life, while many others, such as the World Trade Organization’s legal right to override
(enclose) local decision making about a variety of health, work, and environmental issues,
undermine further the self-sufficiency of the community. Enclosure can also result from the loss of
the collective memory of the community.  When schools and universities fail to introduce students to
the stories of the religious wars in Europe that led the framers of the American Constitution to
provide for the separation of church and state, and when the stories of the labor, feminist, and civil
rights movements are no longer part of the curriculum, these silences leave students without the
language and historical perspective necessary for recognizing how the social justice gains of the past
are currently being undermined.
Revitalizing the local cultural commons will not in itself reverse economic globalization. It
may, however, contribute to slowing the process of environmental degradation and dependence upon
a money economy that is failing millions of peoples around the world.  As students become aware of
the nature and importance of the cultural and environmental commons, as well as the different forms
of dependencies that result from the enclosure of what was previously freely available, perhaps they
will become more critically aware of what needs to conserved and what needs to be reformed or
changed entirely.
Participation in the cultural commons--from preparing a meal from a traditional recipe,
learning to play an instrument, writing poetry, using local materials and craft skills in constructing a
building, to organizing local resistance to the forces enclosing their civil rights-- fosters a values-
based educational experience.  When students go beyond classroom learning about the local cultural
commons as well as their cultural diversity, including the different forms of enclosure, to
participating in mentoring relationships they are discovering and developing personal interests and
talents. They are also learning to be more self-confident in skill areas, to be mutually supportive of
others, and to support the patterns of moral reciprocity within the community.
How Universities Contribute to the Enclosure of the Cultural and Environmental Commons
10
The same double bind that characterizes Enlightenment values and modern development is
also present in Western universities.  Universities are the source of many genuine achievements that
have improved the quality of people’s lives.  However, when we weigh some of the achievements
against the backdrop of global warming and recent changes in the chemistry of the oceans, as well as
the ethnocentrism of Western foreign policies and the globalization of an industrial/consumer-
dependent lifestyle, we are likely to wonder whether many of these achievements have put our
collective future in greater jeopardy.  The double bind of how some forms of success can have
destructive consequences can be seen, especially in the United States, in how so many university
graduates move from the classroom to becoming supporters of the market liberal domestic and
foreign policy agenda of President George W. Bush.
At a later time, I will explain how the market liberal orientation of American students who
mistakenly refer to themselves as conservatives is reinforced by the silences in their education, as
well as by their social justice-oriented professors who share many of the same cultural assumptions
that gave conceptual direction and moral legitimacy to the industrial culture that has entered its
digital phase of development.  But here I will focus on how the distinction between high and low
status forms of knowledge (with the latter being largely left out of the university curriculum)
contributes to the enclosure of what remains of the cultural and environmental commons.   Several
key points made in the previous discussion of the cultural and environmental commons include:
communities that sustain their cultural and environmental commons rely upon the intergenerational
renewal of knowledge, skills and relationships that reduce dependence upon participating in the
money economy; participation in the commons often involves local decision making that takes
account of the prospects of future generations, as well as social and ecojustice issues; a vital cultural
and environmental commons reduces dependence upon the industrial/consumer oriented lifestyle
that is contributing to global warming.   Because not all cultural commons are free of oppressive
relationships, the traditions of our civil liberties and critical reflection need to be renewed.
Today it is difficult to identify any aspect of the cultural commons that is entirely free of
dependence upon a money economy, or any aspect of the market system that is entirely free of traditions
that are part of the cultural commons.  The differences are marked by degree of emphasis and
dependence.  This also holds for universities.  Yet the case can be made that most of what is now learned
in university classrooms contributes to the expansion of the market forces that are further enclosing what
remains of the local cultural and environmental commons—as well as integrating what remains of the
11
commons of other cultures into the global economy.  The evidence can be found in what universities have
designated as high status knowledge—and in the prejudices and silences reinforced in philosophy,
political science, and economics classes, as well as in such professional courses as business and
education.,
High status knowledge is based on a number of cultural assumptions that go largely unexamined
in most university classrooms.  They include: (1) that the individual is the basic social unit, and thus
source of ideas and values; (2) that change is a progressive force and thus is to be promoted; (3) that this
is an anthropocentric world and the environment is an economic resource; (4) that print and other abstract
systems of representation are more reliable than oral traditions; (5) that science represents the highest and
most useful approach to knowledge; (6) that language is a conduit in a sender/receiver process of
communication that enables “objective” facts and information to be sent to others; (7) that technology is
both culturally neutral and the expression of progress; (8) that competition in the market place, on the
playing field, and among academics separates the winners from the losers; and (9) that Western forms of
knowledge and values are the most culturally advanced.
These assumptions are seldom made explicit and discussed in classes.  Rather, they are reinforced
as part of the interpretative frameworks that are taken for granted.  Thus, they contribute to the silence
that surrounds low status forms of knowledge and relationships—which in turn leave students without the
language that will enable them to recognize and renew the cultural practices that strengthen the non-
monetized traditions of community that have a smaller adverse ecological impact.  One of the chief
sources of the silence about the nature and importance of the local commons, as well as their cultural
diversity, can be traced to the ethnocentrism that frames what is learned in many disciplines.  If this
ethnocentrism were not present, students might learn that the Western ideal of becoming an autonomous
individual is based on a number of myths that have been carried forward in the metaphorical language
taken-for-granted by the community.  They might also learn that many cultures think of the individual in
terms of intergenerational relationships and interdependencies—as well as being dependent upon the life
sustaining ecosystems.   Learning about the diversity of the cultural and environmental commons,
including the non-monetized traditions within their own communities, would provide an awareness of the
extent they rely upon intergenerational knowledge—such as the growing and preparation of food, the
creative arts, craft knowledge, built environments, and the language of social and ecojustice, If students
lack the language necessary for making explicit how they rely upon different aspects of the cultural and
environmental commons they will be less able to recognize and resist the different forms of enclosure by
12
a market system that has no self-limiting guidelines.  That is, they will be less able to recognize the
transition from the mutual support systems within the community that are ecologically sustainable to
becoming more dependent upon a money economy that is the basis of the industrial/consumer culture
now threatening the sustaining capacity of natural systems.
Students need to develop a more balanced understanding of the importance of face-to-face
communication, as well as the role that narratives play in passing on stories of injustices as well as
advances in moral relationships. This might enable them to recognize how the increasing reliance on
computers contributes to enclosing more of the cultural commons.  Mapping the cultural and
environmental commons of their local communities is also likely to contribute to a more complex
understanding, even appreciation, of intergenerational traditions that lead to the development of personal
interests and talents—as well as an enhanced sense of meaning and purpose that comes from the mutual
support activities within the community.  Through the experience of mentoring relationships, they may
discover a different form of wealth than what is required in consumer relationships.
In effect, the double bind of promoting high status knowledge that supports the further expansion
of the industrial/consumer dependent culture, while leaving students largely uninformed about how the
commons represent alternatives to dependence upon a consumer lifestyle that is ecologically destructive,
has another consequence that needs to be emphasized. Namely, local democracy as well as our civil
liberties, which are essential characteristics of the cultural commons in the West, are being enclosed by
university graduates who have turned the assumptions underlying high-status knowledge into a rigid
ideology—which they mistakenly identify as conservatism.
Rethinking the Deep Conceptual Foundations of Educational Reform
As land conservancy groups, environmental scientists and other activists are already
working to conserve what remains of the environmental commons the following short essays will
identify the misconceptions that currently underlie the modernizing and ecologically unsustainable
agenda of public schools and universities that are undermining the cultural commons.
Currently, there are four main approaches to pre-university education.  These include home
schooling, nationally mandated programs that integrate test-based educational “outcomes” with the
supposed needs of the workplace in a global economy, classrooms where teachers promote the idea
that students should construct their own knowledge (computer mediated learning is seen as
facilitating this approach), and teachers who simply reproduce the way in which they were taught.
At the university level, there are individual faculty in different departments who are addressing
13
environmental issues; but the majority continue to teach and write as though global warming is not
occurring.  As a number of observers have noted, if there is a direction to the reform of higher
education it is the closer integration between research and the interests of the corporate world.  A
criticism that can be made even of environmentally oriented faculty is that there is little evidence
that the university’s role in promoting the high-status knowledge that underlies the continued
expansion of the industrial/consumer culture has changed—or even been seriously questioned.
Ironically, the forms of knowledge left out of the curriculum, and thus relegated to low-status,
happens to be what sustains the cultural commons that have a smaller adverse impact on natural
systems.
The basic question that educational reformers need to ask is: If an increase in the level of
consumerism is not a viable approach to slowing global warming, and if a combination of the
present consumer dependent lifestyle and greater reliance on more efficient sources of energy and
recycling in the home is not an adequate response, then what are the alternatives that will have a
smaller environmental impact?   I have suggested that revitalizing the cultural commons is the only
alternative that reduces the level of consumerism and thus dependence on a money economy that is
increasingly unreliable, and is destructive of human potential and of natural systems.
Educational reforms that reduce dependence upon an economic system driven by the market
liberal ideology that has a global agenda will require more than simply adding ecological
sustainability to the social justice liberal’s long list of priorities.  As I have pointed out in several
books and articles, both the market liberals  (who out of ignorance identify themselves as
conservatives) and social justice liberals share many of the same deep cultural assumptions that the
industrial/consumer culture is based upon.  Thus, it is necessary to recognize that ecologically
sustainable educational reforms both at the public school and university level will require
fundamental changes in long held patterns of thinking, including the deep taken-for-granted cultural
assumptions they are based upon.
Changes in these patterns of thinking will be difficult because the personal identities and the
careers of classroom teachers and professors are based upon them.  That these cultural assumptions
are largely taken-for-granted makes them an even greater impediment to change.  What needs to be
addressed are the silences and prejudices currently reinforced in school and university classrooms.
These include the ethnocentrism that is still present in the current emphasis on multicultural
education and  the combination of silences and prejudices that contribute to the indifference that
14
most students  exhibit toward ecologically sustainable practices within their local communities.  This
indifference toward environmental issues is partly a result of their being captives of media sponsored
hyper-consumerism and the ability of technological innovations to provide instant self-gratification
Any serious approach to reforming education in ways that lead to lifestyles and communities
that reduce our ecological footprint, as well as address social/ecojustice issues, must begin with
questioning such key concepts as tradition, individualism, progress, liberalism, conservatism, and a
human-centered world.  Understanding the historical misconceptions reproduced in how these
concepts are currently understood and used, as well as understanding the implications of such new
concepts as ecology and evolution are critical to whether we can change the Titanic mind-set that is
currently on a collision course with global warming and the other degraded systems we depend
upon.
The starting place for aligning our guiding concepts (which need to be understood as
metaphors within an historically layered system of root and iconic metaphors) is to recognize the
misconceptions about the nature of language still perpetuated in both schools and universities.   The
primary misconception is that language is a conduit in a sender/receiver process of communication.
This view of language is essential to sustaining other myths, such as the widely held idea that the
rational process is uninfluenced by the assumptions of the culture, that there is such a thing as
“objective” knowledge and data (as though knowledge and data at different points in their origin do
not begin with culturally influenced human observation and interpretation), and that the individual
has the potential (if given the right education) of becoming an autonomous thinker and moral agent.
The conduit view of language also contributes to the lack of awareness that such words as tradition,
individualism, progress, democracy, data, etc. have a history and that their current meaning has been
framed by culturally specific root metaphors—or to use a technical phrase, the meta-cognitive
schema that operates largely at the unconscious level thinking.  An example of how a schema (or
interpretative framework) is reproduced in the languaging processes of a culture can be seen in how
such supposedly cutting edge thinkers as Richard Dawkins and E. O. Wilson rely upon the same
mechanistic model of thinking articulated centuries ago by Newton and Kepler.  Other examples
include how the mythopoetic narrative in the Book of Genesis continues to be the basis of thinking
of a human-centered world and, until recently among  segments of society, as justifying male
domination.
15
In the next essay I will discuss the layered nature of metaphorical thinking that both
illuminates and hides aspects of human experience, as well as how language carries forward the
moral templates of the culture. In order to connect this discussion with the argument I am making for
educational reforms that help revitalize the local commons as well as their cultural diversity, I will
focus the discussion of how metaphorical thinking often carries forward the misconceptions of the
past—and that the misconceptions that characterize the current understanding of individualism,
tradition, progress, liberalism, conservatism, and evolution (at least its extension to include cultural
memes) contribute to the current silences and prejudices that inhibit the students’ ability to recognize
the sustainable characteristics of the cultural and environmental commons.
What Al Gore Missed: The Ecological Importance of the Cultural Commons
The recommendations for reducing consumerism that appear at the end of Al Gore’s book,
An Inconvenient Truth, represent how language may contribute to enclosing the cultural commons.
No one can deny that Gore’s list of behaviors for reducing consumerism is sound common sense.
But a list of what thoughtful people are already doing, such as buying things that last, composting,
buying local, and bagging groceries in a reusable tote bag, is no substitute for suggesting a more
radical approach to reducing our dependence upon the consumerism that is contributing to global
warming—which his book documents so well.  
Gore does not mention the diversity of the world’s cultural commons, and how the
intergenerational knowledge, skills, and mentoring relationships that are the basis of many of these
commons represent community-centered alternatives to being dependent upon industrial food,
entertainment, agricultural practices, healing, and other aspects of daily life that have been
monetized.  Gore’s silence about the ecological importance of the cultural commons should not be
taken as a sign of his disagreement with this pre and post-industrial pathway of human history. A
more plausible explanation is that his formal education failed to provide the language necessary for
making explicit the local cultural commons-based experiences that are largely taken-for-granted.  As
most people reading his list of consumer-reducing recommendations are likely to be unaware of the
importance of the cultural commons he overlooks, the question arises about the culpability of our
public schools and universities.  If the educational process does not provide students with the
language necessary for naming and thus making explicit the cultural commons they will otherwise
take-for-granted, they will be less likely to recognize when different aspects of the commons have
16
been enclosed by market forces, and by a government moving closer to equating resistance to the
market liberal agenda of economic globalization with terrorism.
The formal education of most Americans has left them in the double bind where
participation in the daily practices and relationships of their local cultural commons have been
relegated to the area of conceptual silence, while the language that is reinforced in public schools
and universities is the language of the market place, technological innovation, expert systems, and
media hype.  Evidence of how widespread the public’s inability to name the different aspects of the
cultural commons, and to explain why they are important in terms of the narratives that are often
(but not always) sources of moral guidance, traditions of civil liberties, and skills and mutual
supportive relationships that are alternatives to consumerism can be found by asking classroom
teachers and most university professors what they understand about the nature of the cultural
commons.  I have found that most of them respond with blank stares to any attempt to discuss the
cultural commons.  A few books are now being written about the importance of the environmental
commons, as well as many articles that examine how different cultures are managing what remains
of their environmental commons.  This renewed interest in the commons has not influenced what is
being taught in public schools and universities, as they are still in the grip of linguistic traditions that
were either silent about the cultural commons—or were prejudiced toward them. To take the cultural
commons seriously is to identify with what universities continue to designate as low-status and as
the source of superstition and backwardness.
As pointed out in a previous essay, the metaphorical nature of language carries forward over
many generations the analogs that prevailed at an earlier time of metaphorical thinking of how to
understand something new.  An example is the way in which E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins
continue to reproduce in their writings the misconceptions of Newton and Kepler who assumed
wrongly that all aspects of life could be understood as having the same properties as a machine.  Few
professors and even fewer classroom teachers understand how the metaphorical nature of the
language they rely upon carries forward the misconceptions of the past.  Unfortunately, many of
these misconceptions are responsible for the silences and prejudices that characterize many people’s
relationships with their local cultural commons.  In recent months we have witnessed important
aspects of the cultural commons, such as the traditions of habeas corpus and the right to privacy,
being enclosed with little or no reaction from the general public. Narratives of social justice
struggles, as well as ethnic traditions related to the sharing of food and mutual support, are also
17
being enclosed by the increasing reliance on technologically mediated communication and
entertainment (e.g. cell phones, iPods, computer gaming, etc.).
If we examine the ideas, silences, and prejudices of influential thinkers in the West, such as
Plato, Descartes, Locke, Smith, Spencer, and more recent philosophers, we find that they viewed
local knowledge as a source of backwardness.  They shared a prejudice that marginalized the
knowledge systems of other cultures—which also reduced the possibility that we would understand
the ecological importance of their cultural commons.  What Plato, Descartes, and Locke reinforced is
that there is nothing to be learned from traditions; and they, along with Smith, Spencer and recent
philosophers such as Richard Rorty, reinforced the idea that words have universal meanings—quite
separate from their cultural context.  In effect, these early philosophers and political theorists
elevated the use of abstract language over the vernacular languages built up over generations of
place-based experiences.  This legacy of abstract language and thinking is now used to justify the
enclosure of the cultural commons around the world.  This abstract language includes such words as
individualism, private property, free markets, critical inquiry, progress, competition—which is the
vocabulary of market liberalism.  This liberal vocabulary is based on cultural assumptions still
reinforced in most university courses.  What this vocabulary marginalizes are the words essential to
understanding the nature and importance of the cultural commons as representing alternatives to
economic globalization. This alternative vocabulary includes a more culturally informed
understanding of tradition, conserving an intergenerationally connected form of individualism, non-
monetized activities and patterns of mutual support, moral reciprocity between the human and non-
human world. It is, in essence, the vocabulary of connectedness and interdependency that is basic to
how we participate in our local cultural and environmental commons.
Another way in which the language reinforced in our educational institutions contributes to
the silence found in Gore’s list of recommendations is that, contrary to the conduit view of language,
the languaging systems of a culture reproduce its moral templates. Thus, learning the language of the
culture also involves acquiring the moral templates shared by other members of the culture.
Languaging processes are about how relationships should be understood and morally conducted.
Key to this process is how words encode what is understood by members of the culture about the
attributes of the participants in the relationships.  To make this as simple as possible, if the word
“woman” is understood as not having the attributes of intelligence and strength, then the moral code
of the culture allows treating women as inferior to men.  If the words “weed”, “wilderness”, and
18
“desert”  are understood as lacking  positive attributes, then it is morally sound to eradiate the weed,
exploit the wilderness, and to use the desert as a toxic waste site.  The fate of the cultural commons
has similarly been influenced by the moral templates reproduced in the high-status vocabulary
reinforced in our educational institutions. If the phrase “cultural commons” has no discernable
positive attributes, then it has no moral standing—and attention will be focused on the language that
identifies the many manifestations of material progress—even though this form of progress is
undermining the ecosystems that we and future generations rely upon.  Gore’s oversight must not be
viewed as his failure to learn from his professors; his failure is in taking them too seriously and in
reproducing their silences.
The next essay will focus on how the educational uses of computers contribute to
undermining the cultural commons, as well as the ability of teachers/professors to help students
acquire the communicative competence necessary for resisting the forms of enclosure that lead to
further degrading the environment and for reforming the traditions of the cultural commons that are
sources of injustice.
How Public Schools and Universities Can Contribute to Reducing Consumerism
Earlier essays discussed the nature of the cultural and environmental commons as well as how
universities establish what constitutes high-status knowledge—while at the same time relegating to low-
status the face-to-face, intergenerational and largely non-monetized knowledge and relationships that are
part of every local cultural commons. The many environmentally oriented courses now offered in most
universities also deserve comment before I suggest the direction that educational reform needs to take if it is
to rectify the silences in Al Gore’ s thinking about how to reduce consumerism.  Most departments in
universities now offer environmentally oriented courses where students may study the history of
environmental thought, eco-criticism, environmental ethics, environmental sociology, religion and ecology,
and so forth.  These courses, as important as they are, share a common limitation; namely, they are taught
within the conceptual framework of the professor’s academic discipline.
A major limitation of this approach is that none of the academic disciplines have made the cultural
commons the main focus of study. That is, few if any focus on how people can live less consumer
dependent lives, and how conserving the world’s diversity of cultural commons is essential to living in a
sustainable relationship with the natural systems.  There is a similar lack of focus on the different forms of
enclosure that range from the introduction of new technologies, modernizing ideologies, to religious
fundamentalism. The promotion of high-status knowledge, with its emphasis on reinforcing the same
19
cultural assumptions that gave conceptual direction and moral legitimacy to the industrial revolution that is
now being globalized, has resulted in universities being major contributors to the environmental crises.
Unfortunately, many of the professors who are addressing environmental issues within the conceptual
framework of their discipline still promote these deep, taken-for-granted cultural assumptions about
individualism, the progressive nature of change, the ethnocentrism implicit in their view of the rational
process and critical inquiry as the one true approach to knowledge, and the conduit view of language.
These assumptions are also responsible for the misrepresentations that impede the ability of most
students to recognize the ecological importance of the local cultural commons—and the different forms of
non-monetized wealth that accompany the discovery of personal interests and talents, participating in
mentoring relationships, and in becoming more intergenerationally connected and responsible.  Unless they
are part of a religious and ethnic group that values traditions as essential to their identity and sense of
community, most students will leave the university with the idea that traditions are impediments to progress.
And most will take-for-granted the assumptions that underlie both market and social justice
liberalism—with few being aware of the traditions of conservative thinking that underlie the checks and
balances system of government, the Constitution, and that there is a connection between thinking of
Edmund Burke and Wendell Berry.  Indeed, most students will reproduce the formulaic thinking of their
professors that leads to labeling the market liberalism of President George W. Bush and think tanks such as
the American Enterprise Institute as conservative. Nor will they recognize the importance of asking what
these faux conservatives want to conserve
The following is a brief introduction to the educational reforms that need to be undertaken if future
graduates are to avoid the naïve thinking found in Al Gore’s recommendations for reducing consumerism.
As the limited space here allows for only an overview of these reforms; if anyone is interested in a more
extended discussion they should go to http://cabowers.net/ and click on Handbook.  The basic focus of
educational reforms should be to educate students to understand the differences in how the local cultural
commons and the industrial/consumer culture impact natural systems—as well as how they influence
community traditions of self-reliance and mutual support.  That is, educational reforms need to help students
understand how the different aspects of the local cultural commons enable them to live less money
dependent and less environmentally destructive lives.  They also need to learn about why the diversity of the
world’s cultural commons are sites of resistance to the forces of economic globalization that are adding to
global warming.
20
What is critically important at this time is for students to acquire the background knowledge that will
enable them to recognize what is being lost when different traditions of the cultural commons are being
undermined by economic and ideological forces. That most students, as well as adults, participate in their
local cultural commons at a taken-for-granted level of awareness creates a special challenge for classroom
teachers and university professors. In addition to being able to make explicit the largely non-monetized
activities and relationships that are at the center of community life, classroom teachers and professors also
will need the background knowledge necessary for helping students to become explicitly aware of the
differences in their experiences as they move between the non-monetized and monetized sub-cultures. That
is, as mediators they need to help students recognize the differences between food prepared in accordance
with traditional recipes and industrial prepared food, between volunteering in a community project and
working in a highly structured job, between developing their own creative talents and purchasing a
commercially produced artistic creation, between the experience of being free of constant surveillance and
being under constant surveillance, between the experience of being innocent until proven guilty and the
possibility that because of a mistake in identity one might be imprisoned without legal recourse. These are
only a few of the fundamental differences between the cultural commons and market-oriented culture that
need to be clarified.
However, it is not just a matter of recognizing differences. Rather, the teacher/professor’s role as a
mediator also includes encouraging students to make explicit and thus name the differences in how their
experiences in the two sub-cultures influence the development of their personal talents, the nature of their
relations with others, as well how the experiences in the two sub-cultures influence their sense of
empowerment, dependency, and social justice.  Just as feminists became empowered when they began to
name the different expressions of gender bias, being able to name what is otherwise experienced as the
taken-for-granted is the first step to becoming communicative competent and thus to revitalizing local
democracy as a key element in the local cultural commons.
Mediating between the students’ experiences means helping students examine the practices in both
the non-monetized and monetized sub-cultures in terms of what contributes to an ecologically sustainable
future.  Some of the achievements of the industrial culture will be recognized as worth retaining while
others, such the patenting of gene lines  and the creation of “terminator seeds” will be seen as adding to
poverty and as environmentally destructive. Similarly, there will be aspects of the cultural commons that
need to be reformed or rejected entirely.
21
The focus on what is sustainable also requires that the public school teacher and university professor
be able to clarify the historical and ideological forces that underlie the various forms of enclosure that turn
the cultural commons into commodities and expert services that require participating in the money
economy. Learning about the tensions and interdependencies between the two sub-cultures students
participate in on a daily basis is profoundly different from an education that introduces students to the
abstract knowledge that is too often based on the intellectual interests of their professors or designers of
curriculum materials. For example, because few philosophy professors have an interest in the cultural
commons students are unlikely to learn how Western philosophers contributed to privileging a vocabulary
that is largely responsible for the silences about the importance of the cultural commons and for the
ethnocentrism that has prejudiced students to thinking that there is nothing to learn from other cultures about
how to live more ecologically centered lives. Nor are they likely to learn from professors in other disciplines
how other aspects of the cultural commons have been enclosed.  As pointed out earlier, the prejudices
inherent in the different disciplines frame what will be the focus of attention and what is marginalized.  Our
future prospects will depend in part on learning to renew the cultural commons that have been marginalized
by most academic disciplines.
How the Educational Uses of Computers Undermine Learning About
                            the Cultural and Environmental commons
Before explaining why students need to understand the differences between computer mediated
thinking and communication, and the face-to-face, intergenerationally connected relationships that are part
of the process of renewing the cultural commons it is important to explain at the outset why computers
should not be viewed as a culturally neutral technology. Like the use of other technologies, they select for
amplification certain aspects of human experience, while reducing others.  The can store, model, schedule,
retrieve, design, monitor, and communicate information and data over vast differences, as well as perform
many other useful functions.  But they have serious limitations, such being unable to reproduce embodied
experiences, differences in cultural contexts, tacit understandings, the complex messages that are part of oral
communication, the history of the anlogs encoded in the language that appears on the screen, mentoring
relationships. In addition to reinforcing a Cartesian way of thinking that privileges the individual’s
perspective and sense of agency, and its increasing influential role in bringing more of everyday life under
constant surveillance by government and corporations, other limitations of computer mediated learning can
be traced to the cultural assumptions of the people who write the software-- which often go unnoticed
because of the way that print reinforces the idea that what appears on the screen is objective and factual.
22
In the short space allowed here I will focus on some of the positive characteristics of computers
when they are used in classrooms and in online courses, and then discuss why computers undermine the
classroom teacher’s and professor’s mediating role in helping students recognize the differences between
their experiences in the cultural commons and in the industrial consumer culture they also participate in on a
daily basis.  In the upper grades as well as in university classes, the role of the teacher and professor
continues much as before computers appeared on the scene. Assignments are expanded by using the
computer a research tool that provides access to a wider range of information—including already written
papers that students can download and hand in as evidence of their own diligent efforts.  When
communication between the professor and student is online, computers change the relationship in
fundamental ways.  Online relationships have the advantage of marginalizing skin color, as well as the
clothes and body language that communicate social classes and ethnic differences that sometimes are the
basis of prejudicial judgments on the part of the teacher and professor. Computers also tend to make the
relationship between students and teacher/professor less hierarchical, as well as freeing students to exchange
ideas with each other—rather than with an authority figure standing in the front of the room.  Ideas and
questions can be exchanged without becoming part of the power relations that are communicated through
the body language that is often misinterpreted and thus damaging to achieving mutual understanding of
what is being discussed.
What may not occur to the professors, or to the administrators ever in search of new markets from
which to draw students, is that the online courses represent a form of cultural colonization to the idea that
education automatically translates into a higher material standard of living.  The colonization to the
industrial/consumer mind set takes two forms: that of educating students to taken-for-granted Western
assumptions—including the assumptions that Western technologies and ways of thinking are the most
progressive and enlightened in the world.  The other form of colonization that online education promotes is
the way it represents both directly and indirectly the knowledge, practices, and activities of the world’s
diverse cultural commons as the expression of backwardness—even though the cultural commons are, in
many instances, a storehouse of knowledge about how to live the self-sufficient/less-consumer lifestyle that
global warming will eventually force all cultures to adopt. Indeed, at all levels of the educational process,
and in all cultures, the message is continually reinforced that computer mediated thinking and
communication is essential to earning a living in the global economy.
In summary, when we begin to consider the relationships and forms of knowledge that are part of the
process of mediating between the two different cultural orientations, we find that computers are extremely
23
limiting.  In comparing the limitations of computer-based learning to what is required when teachers and
professors view their responsibility as mediating between the students’ experience a they move between the
two cultural orientations, we find the following: (1) As mediators teachers and professors need an in-depth
knowledge of the local culture that others take-for-granted—including the taken-for-granted conceptual and
materialistic moral foundations of the culture of consumerism as well as the moral traditions that are the
legacy of social justice achievements that are part of the cultural commons..  (2) The mediating process also
requires face-to-face questioning, sharing of insights, developing the language for naming what previously
was the un-named and un-recognized part of experience, and the continual comparing of the abstract
representations of everyday experience with embodied experiences.  None of these requirements can be met
by the experts who write the software, as they will be unable to represent accurately the local experiences,
cultural contexts, and the characteristics of the bioregion.  The best they can do is construct abstract
scenarios and models that may replicate certain cultural patterns of decision-making—but they will still be
abstract and thus reinforce the spectator and game-oriented mentality of students.
The use of constructivist theories to justify the increasing reliance upon computers is also
problematic.  Over the years, constructivist approaches to learning in the child-centered classrooms  did not
lead students to ask about racism and gender bias, nor were they concerned about the destruction of the
cultural and environmental commons that were coming under assault by the new technologies and market
forces.  Learning about the skills and accumulated knowledge connected with most cultural commons
activities will be beyond the grasp of students who have been indoctrinated into believing that they can only
find oppression and the stunting of their creative insights if they learn from the traditions of their
community.  The questions that should have been asked by the early progressive educators, and by today’s
proponents of constructivist computer-based learning are: Will reliance upon the students’ immediate
experience and insights enable them to learn about the medicinal characteristics of different plants, how to
perform the skills connected with the building trades, how to prepare a meal that has the right nutritional
ingredients, how to set up a loom and to play a game of chess, and the civil rights they should protect? Will
they be able to recognize the political changes that characterized how other democratic societies allowed
themselves to be transformed into fascist societies?  What the constructivist-oriented classroom teachers will
not do out of fear of imposing their knowledge on supposedly vulnerable students is to ask the important
questions, and to introduce students to an understanding of the historical forces that continue to influence
present ways of thinking.  And this is exactly what the role of mediator requires—to ask the questions about
the taken-for-granted and ecologically problematic aspects of the culture that few if any students have the
24
background knowledge to ask.  It is in knowing what the important questions are-- what taken-for-granted
ways of thinking and experience need to be named and thus critically examined,  what needs to be changed
and what needs to be intergenerationally renewed--that makes the constructivist approach to teaching and
learning so inadequate.  Indeed, given the silences about the nature of the ecological crises that characterize
the thinking of constructivist learning advocates, it would not be incorrect to say that their approach is an
example of the culturally and ecologically uninformed leading those who lack the background for
recognizing what is happening to the environment on a global scale.
 Computer based learning provides access to important and to what is often misleading information,
as well as a sense of an abstract community that reduces personal vulnerabilities. However, it can never be
the basis for learning about the experiential differences between the cultural commons and a money
dependent existence--or about the cultural roots of the ecological crisis that the computer, as well as the
people who use it, are complicit in deepening.
Western Philosophers, the Titanic Mind-Set, and the Upcoming Collision with Environmental Limits
The changes occurring in the natural systems we depend upon-- from global warming to the changes
in the chemistry of the oceans, and now to the rapid decline in plant pollinators--suggest that our problems
are much deeper than relying upon outdated carbon emitting technologies.  One feature common to all forms
of environmental degradation is that these changes have been occurring over hundreds of years, with the rate
of change accelerating in recent years.  That is, the changes have been part of the environmental context
within which people’s lives have been embedded. Yet, with the exception of recent scientific reports and the
efforts of environmentally aware citizens, the language that organizes people’s ways of thinking (including
the language reinforced in public schools and most university classes) continues to marginalize an
awareness of local environmental contexts. It also marginalizes awareness of the differences between
embodied experiences in the cultural commons and in the culture of industrially produced products and
services.  What will be addressed here is how the tradition of Western philosophy has contributed to the
pattern of context free thinking, and to reliance on metaphors that encode analogs that were constituted
before there was an awareness of environmental limits.
The way Western philosophers contributed to a tradition of abstract thinking that is now putting us
on a collision course with environmental limits deserves a more extended treatment than these short pages
allows. Thus, readers may find it useful to read the chapter with a similar title in my online book, Critical
Essays on the Enclosing of the Cultural commons, I shall touch on the features of key Western philosophers
25
who contributed to the pattern of thinking that assumed that words, such as rationality, individualism,
progress, freedom, development, etc., have a universal meaning that transcends different cultural contexts.
Plato made a major contribution to this tradition of marginalizing the cultural and environmental contexts
that have influenced the language and thought patterns of many non-Western cultures when he introduced
the idea of “pure thinking” about a reality that is independent of experience and of the cultural and
environmental ecology it is always embedded in—as Gregory Bateson argues.  Plato also contributed to
three other traditions that strengthened the Western prejudices and silences about the nature and importance
of the cultural and environmental commons.   These include his rejection of narratives and poetry as
unreliable sources of knowledge, his arguments that indirectly marginalized the importance of
intergenerational knowledge (traditions), his silence about the nature of other cultural ways of knowing
(which were part of his cultural world), and the ways in which cultures degraded the environments they
depended upon.
Descartes and Locke further strengthened the idea that intergenerational knowledge, which they
understood as traditions, is an impediment to the efficacy of their respective approaches to knowledge.
They also continued Plato’s silences about other cultural ways of knowing, and the dangers of degrading
natural systems.  If these examples appear unrelated to my argument that these philosophers, along with
Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill (among others) contributed to the current tradition of relying upon an
abstract vocabulary that continues to marginalize an awareness of cultural and environmental contexts, I
suggest they read current philosophers such as John Dewey and Richard Rorty—and even scientists such as
E. O. Wilson and Francis Crick.  Readers should also examine how many current philosophers are aware of
other cultural ways of knowing, the nature and importance of the cultural and environmental
commons—and, most importantly, how the meaning associated with such metaphors as individualism,
tradition, intelligence, conservatism, liberalism, progress, and so forth, are based on the analogs that were
constituted during the period of Enlightenment thinking.   This lack of awareness of the cultural commons
also accounts for why philosophers have been so slow to recognize those aspects of the cultural commons
that were (and continue to be) sources of injustice—such as the tradition of patriarchy, racism, cultural
colonization, and the ecological crises.
This brief overview of the silences and prejudices that have characterized the tradition of mainstream
Western philosophy brings us to the next question: namely, how can we begin to rely upon a metaphorical
language that is informed by current analogs --rather than the analogs derived from the thinking of Plato,
Descartes, Locke and other philosophers taught in our universities?  The problem is made more difficult by
26
the fact that current analogs are often misleading, and may have long-term negative consequences. For
example, some prominent scientists now argue that cultures are also subject to the process of natural
selection by claiming that cultural patterns are “memes” that must meet the same test of Darwinian fitness as
“genes”.  Their extension of the theory of natural selection provides a powerful analog for market liberals
who claim that  corporations should only be held accountable to meeting Nature’s test of survival of the
fittest.  Using the computer as an analog for how to think about the human brain is also profoundly
misleading.
Gregory Bateson and Clifford Geertz provide two important insights that may contribute to a more
accountable use of the metaphors that play such an important role in framing how we think and in
determining what is being marginalized or relegated to the realm of silence.  Bateson’s insight was about the
nature of double bind thinking.  Double bind thinking, as he explains, relies upon analogs formed in the
distant past by thinkers engaged in earlier political debates, and  who were unable to account of our current
cultural and ecological context.  Thus, the analogs derived from the ideas of classical liberal thinkers, which
many of today’s market liberals, and even environmentalists, take-for-granted can be traced back to the
analogs derived from the writings of Locke, Smith, and Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase “survival of
the fittest’). To cite yet another example, the metaphor “tradition” still carries forward the analogs of the
early Enlightenment thinkers who associated traditions with the church, privileges of the aristocracy, and the
Great Chain of Being that limited people’s opportunities.  In effect, overcoming double bind thinking
involves understanding that the language we use may carry forward the misconceptions of the past.
Overcoming the problem of double bind thinking requires drawing from current experiences in the matrix of
cultural and ecological patterns the analogs that will connect our political discourse and policies with the
realities we now face—which means recognizing that progress (unlike the Enlightenment view) often
introduces changes in other parts of the layered and interdependent ecological systems that may be
destructive.
Geertz’s idea of “thick description” is also relevant to ensuring that our metaphors are based on
analogs that take account of our current situation of living in a culturally and ecological diverse world.
Thick description involves considering all the background (history of previous relationships, memory, class
and social status, gender issues, etc.) that needs to be taken into account in understanding the difference
between an involuntary wink and the influences on and the purpose of the wink that is intentional.  Thick
description also needs to be used in identifying the patterns, history, political issues, and all the rest of the
ecology of relationships and ideas that can serve as analogs for understanding such terms as individualism,
27
freedom, progress, traditions, intergenerational knowledge, the commons, conservatism and liberalism, data,
and so on. If we were to do a thick description of what it means to be an individual, free, to progress, to be a
liberal or a conservative, and so on, that take account of the multiple layers of relationships and taken-for-
granted traditions that are part of context and tacit dimensions of the experience commonly associated with
these metaphors the question of which analogs would be the more accurate. Those derived from the
Enlightenment thinkers or from the process of thick description?  What examples would we come up with in
terms of saying that our experience of being an individual is “like this” experience? Would the thick
description also enable us to recognize that our individualism is always part of a larger ecology of
interdependent relationships—including the language derived from earlier non-ecologically aware theorists
who ignored context, tacit understandings and the taken-for-granted nature of most culturally mediated
human experience?
Western philosophers put us on the path of double bind thinking, and our universities continue to
ignore that our context- free metaphors that are the basis of so much contemporary thinking need to meet the
test of thick description—and that the process of thick description needs to include the ecological footprint
of human behavior that is based on the analogs derived from the Enlightenment.
Translating Theory into Ecologically Sustainable Educational Practices
       The previous essay explained how metaphors carry forward the analogs that are the source of double
bind thinking today, and on how the process of thick description is essential to establishing current and more
ecologically sustainable analogs, packed a lot into a few short sentences.  Admittedly, the essay made for
pretty dense reading. Nevertheless, it provides the conceptual framework for understanding why so much of
what is learned in public schools and universities reinforces the same mind-set that continues to be a major
contributor to the deepening ecological crises.
        To review the chief characteristic of double bind thinking: it involves relying upon the analogs
constituted in the distant past when there was no understanding of environmental limits, the nature and
ecological importance of the cultural commons, the diversity of cultural ways of knowing and thus of their
cultural commons.  These analogs also carried forward what Enlightenment thinkers marginalized and
fundamentally misrepresented as sources of backwardness: namely such words as tradition, conserving,
intergenerational knowledge, community-centered technologies, etc.  The role that thick description plays in
overcoming how language based on abstract and long held analogs reproduces today the misconceptions of
the past is the other key idea.  An example of how words (metaphors) reproduce the misconceptions and
prejudices of the past can be seen in how the word “Luddite” is still used today to dismiss people as being
28
against technology. What the Luddites were really against was industrial technology that threatened their
skills and the rhythms and interdependencies of community life. Examples of how thick description
undermines the use of abstractions (that is words –metaphors—used today in a formulaic way) can be seen
in the way feminists described the history of bias, exploitation, and marginalization.  Thick description led
to understanding the word “women” as having many possibilities and talents—and thus not limited to the
stereotype that was encoded in the earlier formulaic use of the word.  Thick description, in effect,
problematizes the use of stereotypes that carry forward the analogs formed at an earlier time.  Metaphors
used today that are in need of being subjected to thick description include thinking of the brain as like a
“machine” and operating on “software”, cultural patterns as like “memes”, and “patriotism” as supporting
the President’s foreign policies of aggression.
The question now is why should the classroom teacher and university professor understand the
nature of double bind thinking?  And equally important, when should they encourage students to find more
current and ecologically informed analogs by engaging in a thick description of words whose historically
derived analogs are otherwise taken-for-granted?  Again, this may sound like a heavy-duty discussion that
would only interest an academic; but the reality is that these relationships need to be understood if we are to
take seriously Albert Einstein’s observation that you cannot use the same mind-set to resolve the problems
that were created by that mind-set. To put it more directly, classroom teachers and university professors
need to help students identify current analogies that reflect both the cultural and ecological dimensions of
daily experience.  We need to stop relying on the past forms of intelligence now encoded in much of our
language.  The practical implications can be seen in the way feminists freed themselves from the patriarchal
analogs that went unquestioned for centuries.  The civil rights movement was also the outcome of this
process of challenging how the dominant society relied upon the analogs from the distant past to justify the
oppression and marginalization of African Americans—as well as indigenous cultures, and, now, various
immigrant populations.
If students are going to learn about the community-centered alternatives that will enable them to live
less consumer dependent lives, and to discover their own talents and future roles as mentors in an activity
that is part of the cultural commons, classroom teachers and university professors will need to engage them
in a thick description of the linguistic legacy of the Enlightenment thinkers who followed in Plato’s
footsteps of relying upon “pure thinking” that was divorced from local contexts, embodied experiences, and
an awareness of human/nature dependencies.  Nearly every aspect of the curriculum contains words that are
part of the process of socialization where cultural context and the embodied experience of students are
29
marginalized or relegated to the realm of silence. Examples may help here. Students who read or are told
about technology are seldom asked to describe the ways in which different technologies mediate their
experience—such as influencing their relationships with others, how they think, forms of dependency and
empowerment, and so forth.  Another typical example of how the meaning of a word is dependent upon an
analog constituted in the distant past can be seen in how “community” is explained in third grade
textbooks—as a place where people work, shop, and play.  The thick description would bring out that
community involves relationships with animals, plants, changes in weather, aesthetic experiences,
awareness of the trails and sacred places of earlier inhabitants, and so forth.  To cite another example, the
title of the textbook, Our World, also carries forward an analog of the past that was based on the widely held
root metaphor that represented humans as at the center of the universe and as in control of nature.
There are other metaphors that carry forward the misconceptions of Enlightenment thinkers that
continue to be reinforced at all levels of public and university education—metaphors that make it more
difficult for students to recognize the patterns of community self-sufficiency, interdependence, and
ecological importance of the local cultural commons—which differ from culture to culture and from
bioregion to bioregion. These metaphors include “individualism”, “freedom”, “liberalism”, “tradition”,
“conserving” and “conservatism”, “intelligence”, “progress”, “technology”, “free- markets” and so forth.  If
students were to do a thick description of liberalism (which has its conceptual roots in the non-culturally
informed theory-based thinking of John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, etc.) they would find that
the analogs associated with  such words as  freedom, individualism, progress, and a human-centered world,
would have to be radically altered in order to take account of how language carries forward and influences
what and how the “individual” thinks, how she/he is dependent upon natural systems, how progress always
involves unintended consequences and often leaves problematic traditions still in place, how different
technologies mediate and thus are not a neutral tool, and so forth.  Similarly, a thick description of the
students’ experience of traditions (rather than relying upon the decontextualized analogs taken-for-granted
in the formulaic use of the word) would encompass the whole range of daily experience that involve the re-
enactment of patterns and ways of thinking that have been carried forward from the past.  It took Edward
Shils over 350 pages to describe the complexity of traditions.  And he was not making an argument for
traditions.  Rather, he was doing a thick description of how traditions are carried forward as part of people’s
taken-for-granted experience—as well as the misconceptions that lead people to be unaware of when
important traditions, such as habeas corpus and privacy are being enclosed by other traditions like
ideologies, market forces, and the drive to create technologies as total surveillance systems.
30
The key point here is that unless students are able to recognize how their thinking is largely
dependent upon words (metaphors) whose meanings are framed by analogs constituted in the past (and are
largely taken-for-granted today), they will continue to ignore the local cultural commons that need to be
revitalized as alternatives to the consumer-dependent lifestyle that is exacerbating global warming and the
other forms of environmental degradation.  The double bind that is being perpetuated today results from the
failure of classroom teachers and university professors to rectify the meaning of key metaphors.  Many of
these metaphors, and the analogs they encode, will continue to be taken-for-granted by classroom teachers
and university professors—including the old assumptions that the techno-scientists will find a solution to
global warming, and that progress will continue as long as people increase their level of consumerism and as
market forces continue to enclose what remains of the world’s diversity of cultural commons.
A Guide for Classroom Teachers and University Professors
         Discussions of educational reforms that address how to revitalize the cultural commons as well as how
to help students develop the communicative competence necessary for engaging in the political process of
resisting various environmental and community forms of enclosure too often are met with indifference or a
blank stare that indicates a lack of understanding.  Why otherwise intelligent people are unable to recognize
the community and ecological importance of the cultural commons can be traced to the way in which public
schools and universities have relegated the knowledge and skills that sustain the cultural commons to such
low status that they are left out of the curriculum.  Thus, in order to discuss educational reforms that address
how to revitalize the local cultural commons in an era of global warming and economic globalization, it is
first necessary to have a clear understanding of the characteristics of the cultural commons and the different
forms of enclosure.  The following provides an introductory overview.
Key Characteristics of the Cultural Commons
• The cultural commons represent the largely non-monetized and non-commodified knowledge, skills,
activities and relationships that exist in every community.
• They are part of the intergenerational legacy within communities that enable people to
engage in activities and relationships that are largely outside of the mainstream consumer,
money dependent culture.
• The cultural commons are intergenerationally passed along through face-to-face relationships
that may include mentoring.
31
• The nature of the cultural commons vary from culture to culture, with ethnic groups often
sharing aspects of the cultural commons with the dominant culture as well as maintaining
their own cultural commons.
• The cultural commons of some cultures may be the source of unjust social practices, while in
other cultures the cultural commons carry forward the traditions essential to civil liberties and
democratic practices.
• The cultural commons are the basis of local economies and systems of mutual support that
contrast sharply with the market system that is driven by the need to create a demand for the
constant stream of new products.
• Participation in different aspects of the local cultural commons enables people to discover
personal interests, develop skills, and to engage with others in ways that strengthen the sense
of community belonging and responsibility.
• The cultural commons, in relying upon non-industrial approaches to production and
consumption, have a smaller adverse impact on natural systems.
• The activities and skills that are expressions of the cultural commons connect the generations
in ways that are profoundly different from relationships that characterize relationships in a
consumer-oriented culture.  Moral reciprocity, receptivity to intergenerational learning and
mentoring, and an awareness of what needs to be conserved as essential to community
identity and self-sufficiency are more easily learned.
• Embodied experiences in the cultural commons are more likely to strengthen the propensity
to cooperate rather than to compete, and to lead to identifying oneself more in terms of
mutually supportive relationships and personal talents rather than as an autonomous
individual who relies upon consumerism as the marker of success.
32
• The cultural commons strengthen the patterns of mutual support and face-to-face
relationships with a broader segment of the community, and thus strengthen the practice of
local democracy.
• The cultural commons are under constant threat from ideological, techno-scientific
developments, and efforts of the market system to incorporate different aspects of the cultural
commons into the market system—thus transforming what remains of community self-
sufficiency into dependence upon the market and a money economy.
Examples of Intergenerational Knowledge, Skills, Practices, and Activities Identified as the
Cultural Commons:  (this list will vary from community to community, and between ethnic groups
within the community)
• Food: Growing, preparing, and ways of sharing food.  Includes knowledge of growing
conditions, recipes for preparing food, traditions of sharing food that strengthen family and
ethnic solidarity.
• Healing Practices:  Intergenerational knowledge of medicinal characteristics of plants,
traditions of providing different forms of support for members of the community that have
physical and emotional problems
• Creative Arts: Various forms of dance, theatre, poetry, writing, painting, sculpture,
photography that involve community participation, development of interests and talents, and
are only minimally dependent upon the market system of production and consumption.
• Narratives and ceremonies:  The narratives that are expressions of community memory
ranging from sports, achievements in the area of social justice, exemplary individuals who
have made major contributions and those who had a destructive influence.  Ceremonies that
celebrate important events, religious traditions, and so forth.  Important to passing on the
moral values of the group and strengthening ethnic, working class, religious and other forms
of group identity.
33
• Craft Knowledge and Skills: Activities that combine aesthetic judgment and skill in
working with wood, metal, clay, jewelry, glass. Produces both useful objects as well as
provides for individual expression that has a transformative effect on the quality of everyday
life that raises it above the banal, what is routine and taken-for-granted.
• Games and Outdoor Activities:  Intergenerational knowledge, skills, and moral guidelines
carried forward in various games ranging from playing chess, cards, to football, track, tennis,
and other games.  Also, includes hiking, birding, camping, and so forth.  Many of these
activities increasingly are becoming commercialized and thus are being transformed in
community destructive ways.
• Animal Husbandry and Care:  Intergenerational knowledge about the care, breeding, and
uses of different animals—from sheep dogs, horses, to household pets.  Encompasses a wide
range of knowledge about sources of feed, habits and traits of the animal, to how to treat
physical and other forms of disabilities.
• Political Traditions:  Democratic practices, traditions that protect civil liberties achieved in
the past, modes of political discourse, moral codes that govern political outcomes not
dependent upon use of force and violence, protection of minority groups and points of view,
protection of academic freedom.
• Language: Vocabulary that illuminates and hides in terms of the culture’s priorities and
prejudices, may be a storehouse of knowledge of local ecosystems, frames different forms of
social relationships, reproduces the misconceptions of earlier thinkers, may carry forward the
wisdom of earlier times, essential to communicative competence, may be used by totalitarian
forces to control consciousness and behavior, has a different cultural influence depending
upon whether it communicated face-to-face or mediated through print and electronic modes
of communication.
Forms of Enclosure:
34
• General definition: Enclosure involves transforming the cultural and environmental
commons from what is largely shared in common, and subject to local decision making, into
what is privately owned, part of the industrial/market economy, and where decision making
is located outside the community.
• Ideologies::  The tradition of market liberalism, with its emphasis on expanding markets and
profits, private ownership, and on ignoring cultural differences, continues to be a major
source of enclosure.  Religious fundamentalism may also lead to different forms of enclosure
such as civil liberties, narratives of achievements in the areas of social justice and
environmental protection.
• Technologies:  The mediating characteristics of different technologies contribute to various
forms of enclosure—from the way computers enclosure (marginalize) the possibility of
mentoring and face-to-face communication, the enclosure of privacy by surveillance
technologies, the enclosure of craft knowledge by automated machines, to the bio-
technologies that now make it possible for private ownership of gene lines.
• Universities that Define What Constitutes High-Status knowledge:  By identifying what
constitutes high status knowledge (which is based on many of the same deep cultural
assumptions that underlie the industrial/consumer oriented culture that is contributing to the
ecological crises) universities and colleges have relegated the various forms of knowledge
that are the basis of the cultural commons to low status—with the result that few graduates
are aware of the complexity and ecological significance of the cultural commons of their
communities.
• Silences Perpetuated by Modern Forms of Development:  The emphasis on change,
individualism, consumerism, personal happiness and interests (as well as the personal
insecurities that accompany the modern industrial system of production and consumption)
has resulted in social divisions where the younger generation is unaware of how participation
35
in the local cultural commons may lead to discovering personal interests, the development of
skills and talents, and a sense of community. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that
most of the younger generation is predisposed to reject the cultural commons as irrelevant.
The older generations who have discovered personal fulfillment and ways of creative
expression from participating in different activities within the local cultural commons too
often remain isolated from the younger generation.  What is being enclosed are the
intergenerational continuities, which leaves the younger generation more dependent upon
what the market can provide.
• Economic Globalizaton:  Western traditions that are being universalized-- such as
approaches to education, various uses of computers, science, English and other dominant
languages, market system of production and consumptions, military domination, etc.,--are
contributing to the enclosure of many of the world’s languages and thus of the world’s
cultural commons.  The result is that more people are becoming dependent upon
consumerism and thus adding to the forces deepening the ecological crises
• Frenetic Pace of Everyday Life:  The modern lifestyle of excessive consumerism,
technologies that require constant personal attention such a cell phones and computers, work
and home responsibilities, and the increasing feeling that if one is not actively engaged
simultaneously in several activities that time is being wasted-- all contribute to focusing
attention on the task at hand.  This leaves little time for in-depth reflections about those
aspects of the cultural and environmental commons that need to be intergenerationally
renewed in order to ensure our future survival. This frenetic lifestyle, where escape is too
often found in watching television with its constant reminders of consumer products that lead
to greater happiness, also contributes to the current state of indifference to considering the
larger and long-term issues—such as the different impacts that economic globalization and
the spreading ecological crises are having on the lives of hundreds of millions of people.  The
lack of time to become informed and reflect on the changes that need to be undertaken is also
a major contributor to various forms of enclosure.
36
The Practice of a Values-Based Education
 The previous essays have taken the reader on a wide tour of issues that are not usually
discussed in thinking about educational reforms; thus, it is somewhat surprising that I have not
received more critical comments.  Having examined how universities promote the same high-status
ideas and values that underlie the industrial/consumer oriented culture, how the metaphorical nature
of language carries forward the misconceptions of earlier thinkers as well as the tradition of relying
on words that are “context independent”, and how the local cultural commons represent alternatives
to dependence upon a level of consumerism that is a major contributor to global warming, it is now
time to focus on educational reforms that will contribute to achieving the values essential to morally
coherent and ecologically sustainable communities.
The values of intellectual curiosity, emotional and spiritual intelligence, a commitment to
freedom, justice, and peace--cannot be given more than lip-service by teachers/professors if the daily
experience of students reinforces the values and taken for granted practices of the market place. The
voice of the teacher/professor will sound ritualistic in comparison with the daily pressures of
working in repetitive and unfulfilling jobs, increasing personal debt, uncertainties of economic and
food security, daily reporting of collusion between government and corporate interests, and the
failures of an immoral imperialistic foreign policy.  Social justice and environmental educators have
attempted to reverse the ecologically and community-destructive slippery slope that has been a
hallmark of America, but have had only minor successes. And even the minor successes, especially
in the area of racial and gender equality, have failed to slow the rate of environmental
degradation—which is now a world-wide crisis. In spite of their well intended efforts,
teachers/professors have also failed to educate students about the community-centered alternatives to
the hyper-consumerism lifestyle, as well as how the industrial/consumer-oriented culture undermines
local democracy and traditions of community self-sufficiency.  As mentioned in previous essays, few
teachers/professors recognize that a major contributor to the current political, ecological, and moral
crises is the hyper-consumerism promoted by the market liberal ideology, with its emphasis on ever
increasing profits, expansion of markets, and exploitation of workers and consumers.
37
When teachers/professors become aware that reducing the level of consumerism is as
essential, if not more so, than the adoption of more technologies that have a smaller carbon footprint,
they then may begin to recognize that the small group of colleagues advocating for the renewal of
community need their support if the current environmental, political, and economic trends are to be
reversed.  And when this realization is more widely accepted, they will find that curriculum reforms
must be centered on introducing students to an understanding of the local cultural and environmental
commons. the importance of maintaining the diversity of the world’s commons, the economic,
ideological, and technological forces that are enclosing them (that is turning what was previously a
largely non-monetized relationship and activity into one that is monetized and subject to market
forces).  The values identified in the Covenant on values-based education can only be fully realized
in face-to-face, intergeneratonally connected communities where individuals discover personal
talents, develop skills and the communicative competence essential to participatory democracy—and
not in the market-centered existence where selfishness and competitiveness are essential to the
“survival- of-the-fittest” ethos.
Educational reforms that focus on revitalizing the local cultural and environmental commons
in rural and urban America will require that the taken-for-granted interpretative framework
reinforced today in most classrooms about individual autonomy, the progressive nature of change,
and a human-centered world will need to be examined critically.  The curriculum should focus on the
tensions existing between the traditions of self-sufficiency and personal empowerment found in most
aspects of the cultural commons as well as the forms of deskilling, disempowering, and ecological
degradation that is connected with being so totally dependent upon consumerism that has now
entered its globalization phase.  The overriding questions that should be addressed in the students’
examination of different aspects of the cultural commons and the industrial/consumer culture
include:  How are relationships affected? Does the activity contribute to the development of personal
talents and skills?  Is it mutually supportive of others?  Does it contribute to becoming less
dependent upon a money economy? What impact does it have on the natural environment?  Does it
diminish the prospects of future generations?  Does it require the exploitation of others?  Is the
activity and the way of thinking it requires free of oppressive implications for others?
If these questions are considered carefully, rather then seen as a ritualistic check list, what
should become clear is that a curriculum that is centered on the tensions between the cultural and
environmental commons, and the industrial culture that is tireless in enclosing what remains of the
38
world’s commons, will focus on learning about relationships, and the connections between the
language acquired in becoming a member of the language community and what is marginalized,
silenced, and misrepresented.  As pointed out in previous essays, the language learned in public
schools and universities has marginalized the importance of being aware of the nature and
importance of the cultural commons, the culturally non-neutral nature of technology, the ways in
which language carries forward the misconceptions of earlier theorists who were unaware of
environmental limits and different cultural ways of knowing.  And it has reinforced the myth of the
autonomous individual who is separate from the world that she/he observes and acts upon.  A
curriculum, which can be introduced in the earliest grades and developed in greater depth at the
university level, that focuses on different aspects of the cultural commons, and in a comparative way
on what the techno-scientific/industrial products that people have become dependent upon, brings
into the foreground the inescapable nature of how the individual is embedded in multiple levels of
relationships and interdependencies.
How does the conduit view of language influence whether embodied relationships are
recognized and how does it affect whether the individual accepts responsibility for intellectual
accountability and moral reciprocity?  If words are accepted as having a universal meaning, rather
than being context dependent, does this contribute to the individual being more susceptible to
propaganda and an Orwellian political discourse?   These questions, using age-level appropriate
examples, can be introduced in the early grades by using the concept-shaping language that appears
in textbooks and on the computer screen as examples.  They can also be introduced at the university
level where an historical perspective as well as differences in ideologies can be discussed.
The last essay contained a list of cultural commons activities, with each item on the list
having many different forms of expression and depth of knowledge and skill.  Each of these areas,
whether in the areas of food, creative arts, craft knowledge and skill, democratic traditions, is under
the constant pressure of enclosure—that is, being transformed from an intergenerationally connected
and largely non-monetized activity into a product or service that requires participating in a money
economy that is both environmentally destructive and increasingly unreliable as corporations
downsize and outsource.  In the case of our traditions of democracy and civil liberties, the process of
enclosure is resulting in an increasingly authoritarian political system that relies upon surveillance,
the increasing threat of being labeled as a threat to society, and loss of a checks and balance system
39
of government.  Learning the history of this aspect of our cultural commons as well as the history of
the ideological and economic forces that lie behind this gathering force will also contribute to
empowering people, as well as their commitment to local communities, peace, and democracy.
In effect, every form of participation in the cultural and environmental commons--regardless
of cultural group and rural, suburban, and urban setting—can be made the focus of what needs to be
critically examined.  In some instances, aspects of the cultural commons will be found to be in need
of radical change, and in other instances there will be aspects of the techno-scientific based industrial
culture that will be found to be beneficial to the life of the community—and  essential to lowering
the human impact on natural systems.
Teaching as Mediating Between Unsustainable and Sustainable Cultural Practices
There are two certainties that need to be taken into account when thinking about educating
for an ecologically sustainable future.  First, cultural beliefs and practices, which vary from culture
to culture, are major contributors to the ecological crises.  The second certainty is that so little
attention has been given to the cultural roots of the ecological crises that we do not always have a
clear understanding of which beliefs and practices (including uses of technology) are part of the
problem or part of the solution.  In many instances, this dichotomous pattern of thinking also
becomes part of the problem as some technologies, such as computers, are a constructive force in
today’s world while at the same time they contribute to economic globalization and to an even more
extreme form of subjective individualism. These certainties need to be kept in mind when thinking
of the classroom teacher’s/professor’s/parent’s role as a mediator whose task is to help students
become more aware of which cultural patterns and ways of thinking are ecologically
sustainable—and which are not.
As discussed in earlier essays, most of the students’ everyday experience involves
participation in different aspects of the local cultural commons (e.g., food prepared according to
traditional recipes, learning from parents how to take care of a minor physical problem, participating
in a musical group, playing a game of chess, assuming that one’s privacy is not being invaded by
government or corporations, helping others in solving a problem or completing a task, etc).  They
also participate in various market/consumer dependent activities  (eating at a fast food outlet,
purchasing various items, driving a car, using medicines for a newly identified illness, working in
various jobs, etc).  Each of these activities also involve reliance on distinct vocabularies and a
complex ecology of emotions, skills, and relationships.  What is common to both sub-cultures that
40
students daily participate in is that most of the patterns and ways of thinking are largely taken for
granted.  In being taken for granted, the students will be less aware of their ecological footprint, and
less able to articulate why certain forms of enclosure of the cultural commons need to be resisted. 
The mediator metaphor is particularly apt in terms of indicating that education should not be
a matter of giving students answers and pre-determined ways of thinking that too often reproduce the
misconceptions from the past.   Rather, the role of the mediator is to encourage students to make
explicit the different dimensions of their experience as well as their ecological consequences.  For
example, encouraging students to name the differences in their experience of relationships, self-
empowerment or dis-empowerment, what is marginalized or cannot be communicated, what
contributes to a greater or smaller ecological footprint, etc., as they engage in print-based and oral
communication with others, in learning to play a musical instrument and purchasing a CD, in sharing
a meal with family and friends and grabbing a fast meal that has been industrially prepared, in
volunteering in a community project and working at a job where the intelligence and skill have been
built into the machine, assuming that one is innocent until charged and proven guilty and being
pulled out of a line and questioned because of skin color, foreign name, and having one’s name
appear on an intelligence agency’s list of potential threats to society.
The mediator’s task is to encourage students to describe (that is, to attach words) to the
relationships and patterns of their experience in the cultural commons that would otherwise be left as
the taken-for-granted background to what they are explicitly aware of.  The description, as
mentioned in an earlier essay, would be what Clifford Geertz referred to as “thick description” or
what can be called a personal bio-cultural ethnography. The key is in encouraging students to make
explicit the complexity of the personal experience as well as the cultural history and patterns that
have also influenced the experience.  This can then be compared with their thick description of
experiences in the market/consumer oriented culture.  Learning to give close attention to cultural
differences leads to developing the language necessary for exercising communicative
competence—which is required in resisting the enclosure of different aspects of the cultural
commons.  What is common to nearly all forms of enclosure is the loss of skills, patterns of mutual
support within the community, and local decision making,  Ironically, the significance of these
losses are too often represented as necessary to the achievement of more individual freedom and
material progress.
41
The role of the mediator also includes encouraging students to investigate the forces that
contributed to past forms of enclosure of the cultural commons--such as technological, scientific,
ideological, linguistic, economic developments.  Giving close attention to the differences between
experiences in the cultural commons and in the market/consumer culture may lead to asking
questions about which practice and tradition has the more adverse environmental impact.  In some
instances, it may be decided that what has been discovered and made available through the
scientific/industrial system of production has made important contributions to the quality of
everyday life; while aspects of the cultural commons may be found to be sources of social injustice.
Before the thick description is undertaken, it is really not possible to judge what is more ecologically
sustainable and enhancing of community.  The layered nature of the metaphorical language that
frames how members of the community think, as well as values encoded and unconsciously
reproduce in the process of metaphorical thinking, are also part of the cultural commons. Many of
the metaphors, as pointed out in previous essays, carry forward the analogs that were constituted at
an earlier time by theorists who did not understand either the nature and importance of the cultural
commons (often seeing them as backward), or the possibility of overshooting the sustaining capacity
of natural systems.
Rather than accept the meaning of such metaphors as progress, individualism, tradition,
conservative, freedom, and so forth, which are based on the analogs constituted in the distant past,
the mediator should encourage students to do a thick description of their embodied experiences that
accompany the use of these abstract metaphors. That is, could they describe the experience of being
an autonomous individual without having to describe the network of constantly changing
relationships and interdependencies with other people and with the many natural systems they are
nested in?  Would their description of the experience of autonomy also include the cultural patterns
that are an inescapable aspect of how they express their supposed autonomy? Would the
Enlightenment view of tradition, which is still held by many educators who view it as a source of
backwardness and thus an impediment to progress, be understood differently if students were
encouraged to do a thick description of the cultural patterns they re-enact on a daily basis—and that
meet Edward Shils’ understanding of a tradition as any aspect of culture that is passed along over
four generations?  Would the analog that leads to thinking of technology as a neutral tool hold up if
students were to do a thick description of how the characteristics of the technology amplify certain
aspects of experience while reducing others?  Extending the mediating responsibility of the
42
classroom teacher/professor/parent into the area of the metaphorical language that influences
understanding relationships within the cultural commons and the industrial/consumer culture would
help to ensure that the metaphors derived from the past would have less control over how the current
cultural, moral, and ecological crises are understood and responded to. Albert Einstein made the
point that we cannot solve the current crisis by relying upon the same mind-set that created it.  This
insight also applies to the problem of relying upon the old analogs encoded in the metaphors we rely
upon today and that continue to frame our thinking in ways that do not take account of current
political, cultural, and environmental realities.
In other words, mediating between cultures (the cultural commons, the culture of the
industrial/consumer dependent lifestyle, and the cultures of the distant past) requires that we do not
take the easy road of relying upon the formulaic use of language derived from a cultural and
environmentally different past; but rather make the effort to align our language in ways that enable
us to understand the relationships and interdependencies that are critical to our future survival as
morally coherent and ecologically sustainable communities.
Chapter 2  E. O. Wilson’s Drift into Scientism: The Challenge Facing Science Educators
The manner in which Darwin’s theory of evolution is being extended to explain non-biological
phenomena poses a special challenge to environmentally oriented thinkers and activists. It also challenges
educators to reflect on the reforms needed that will enable scientists to recognize how limited the
scientific method is for addressing cultural issues, and for predicting the direction of future cultural
changes.  E.O. Wilson’s claim, for example, that moral values are actually moral predispositions encoded
in our genes, and that moral values must meet the test of natural selection (that is, ensure the reproductive
success of future generations) undercuts the cultural knowledge systems upon which our moral values as
well as others are based.  Similarly, the claims by computer proponents such as Hans Moravec (1988),
Kevin Kelly (1994), and Ray Kurzweil (1999) that computers represent the transition to the “post-
biological phase of evolution,” and that artificial intelligence will replace the more limited and poorly
adapted human intelligence, have even more widespread implications.  One of the most obvious
implication being that if people want to postpone their own evolutionary demise, they will need to adapt
as many aspects of their lives as possible to what can be processed through a computer.  To question or
resist the use of computers on the grounds that they promote a consumer dependent lifestyle, and that
43
they undermine face-to-face communities, would be, in effect, to resist Nature’s design process—which,
so the scientific argument goes, ensures that the better adapted survive. Gregory Stock, the author of
Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism (1993) predicts that the
non-western cultures that fail to adopt digital technologies, and the accompanying western mind-set, will
become as extinct as the dinosaur.  For environmentalists working to preserve linguistic diversity as part
of a strategy for preserving biodiversity, Stock’s reading of the process of natural selection suggests that
Nature has already doomed their efforts to failure. Current extrapolations on the theory of evolution
confront environmental educators with the especially difficult challenge of helping students understand
the appropriate and inappropriate extrapolations on the theory of evolution.  This challenge is made even
more difficult by the claims of such prominent scientists as E. O. Wilson and the late Carl Sagan that the
scientific method is the only legitimate approach to knowledge. Indeed, if Wilson and the others are
correct in claiming that the brain is a product of natural selection, then the outcome of natural selection
will also determine which species survives the ecological crisis—which means we are deluding ourselves
in thinking that our fate is partly in our own hands.
While evolution is being increasingly used as the primary explanatory framework in
disciplines as wide ranging as anthropology and psychology, we find the broadest claims being made
on its behalf by E. O. Wilson who is being acclaimed as one of the nation’s leading scientists and
environmental spokesman.  By extending the theory of evolution in ways that explain culture as
having a genetic basis, and thus guided by Nature’s test of genetic fitness, his writings undermine the
environmentalist’s efforts to address the cultural roots of the ecological crisis.  Thus, it is important
to consider how his extrapolations support the cultural forces that are undermining the self-renewing
capacity of natural systems.  It is also important to examine the double bind inherent not only in
Wilson’s thinking but in the futuristic prescriptions of other evolution-oriented scientists and
technologists.
         This critique of Wilson is not intended in any way to diminish the significance of his scientific
research and publications.  But his efforts to establish a new discipline of sociobiology, which is to
provide empirical evidence of the biological basis of human behavior and cultural norms, is more
problematic—and thus deserving of criticism.  In the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition of
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (2000), Wilson summarizes what is needed to make the final
separation between scientific and pre-scientific knowledge.
44
           To grasp human nature objectively, to explore it to the depths scientifically and to
comprehend its manifestations by cause-and-effect explanations leading from biology into
culture, would be to approach if not attain the grail of scholarship, and to fulfill the dreams of
the Enlightenment….human nature as the epigenetic rules, the inherited regularities of mental
development.  These rules are the genetic biases in the way our senses perceive the world, the
symbolic coding by which our brains represent the world, the options we open to ourselves,
and the responses we find easiest and most rewarding to make.  pp. vii-viii
As he puts it in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998), the genes that predispose people to
think and act in certain ways are governed by the process of natural selection.  While he appears to
grant culture a role in the process of evolution by using the phrase “gene-culture co-evolution,” the
reality, as he puts it, is that “the consistent guiding force is natural selection.”   He goes on to
explain that the “genes that confer higher survival and reproductive success on organisms bearing
them, through the prescribed traits of autonomy, physiology, and behavior, increase in population
from one generation to the next.  Those that do not, decrease” (p. 129).
As this reductionist explanation has especially important implications for environmentalists
and educators who are considering how different cultural beliefs and practices impact the
environment, it is important that the conceptual foundations of what Wilson is representing as the
new paradigm for understanding cultural change be examined more closely.  In Concilience, he
states that “today the greatest divide within humanity is not between races or religions, or even, as
widely believed, between literate and illiterate.  It is the chasm that separates scientific from
prescientific cultures” (p. 45).  He goes on to claim that “science for its part will test relentlessly
every assumption about the human condition and in time uncover the bedrock of the moral and
religious sentiments” (p265).  Scientific knowledge, which Wilson calls the “true scientific epic”
thus provides the best chance of human survival.  But human survival will require the religions of
the world to adopt a secular interpretation of the human epic that is in accordance with the findings
of science.  In effect, Wilson is claiming that only a science-based religion will meet the test of
natural selection.
Many of Wilson’s admirers in the environmental movement are likely to claim that he
acknowledges that culture plays a role in process of human/cultural evolution.  Given his
environmental contributions, they are also likely to ignore the implications of his epistemological
45
universalism: that is, that science provides the only legitimate pathway to knowledge. Given this
tendency to ignore Wilson’s proclivity for sweeping generalizations, it is all the more important to
consider closely how he explains the genetic basis of the mind, as well as the epigenetic rules that
guide the formation of culture.
Wilson’s understanding of the mind is especially important.  In his chapter on “The Mind,”
he writes that “all that has been learned empirically about evolution in general and mental processes
in particular suggest that the brain is a machine assembled not to understand itself, but to survive”
(1998, p. 96).  He goes on to claim that “the surest way to grasp complexity in the brain, as in any
other biological system, is to think of it as an engineering problem” (1998, p. 102).  His use of a
mechanistic metaphor for representing the brain, as well as his suggestion that the brain needs to be
approached as an engineering problem, needs to be considered within the context where the guiding
values will be derived not from traditional religion, but from the “true evolutionary epic.”   That is,
the brain should not only be understood, but also engineered in terms of what contributes to survival
within the long-term time frame that Nature requires to separate the fit from the unfit.  While he
does not advocate eugenics, his rejection of non-scientifically based values as well as his reference
to thinking of the brain as an engineering problem certainly opens the door for scientists who want
to speed up the rate at which Nature’s design process works.
Wilson’s explanation of the genetic basis of the epigenetic rules that filter and code stimuli in
sense organisms, and guide the formation of behavior and culture also needs to be challenged.  As
he explains it,
the genes prescribing the epigenetic rules of brain and behavior are only segments of giant
molecules.  They feel nothing, care for nothing, intend nothing.  Their role is simply to
trigger the sequence of chemical reactions within the highly structured fertilized cell that
orchestrate epigenesis.  Their writ extends to the level of molecule, cell, and organ.  This
early stage of epigenesis, consisting of a series of sequential physicochemical reactions,
culminates in the self-assembly of the sensory system and the brain.  Only then, when the
organism is completed, does mental activity appear as an emergent process. The brain is a
product of the very highest levels of biological order, which are constrained by epigenetic
rules implicit in the organism’s anatomy and physiology.   1998, p. 165, italics added
As I read this statement, the sequences of chemical reactions triggered by the genes prescribe the
epigenetic rules that govern the  self-assembly of the sensory system and brain.  But following the
46
statement where Wilson asserts that the brain is the product of the highest levels of biological order
he introduces the idea of gene-culture co-evolution.  Witness the constitutive role he assigns the
brain, which follows the last sentence in the above quotation:
Working in a chaotic flood of environmental stimuli, it (the brain) sees and listens, plans its
own future. By that means the brain determines the fate of the genes that prescribed it.
Across evolutionary time, the aggregate choices of many brains determine the Darwinian fate
of everything human—the genes, the epigenetic rules, the communicating minds, and the
culture. p. 165
       These two segments of his explanation of the casual relationship between genes and the brain
represent the most important paragraph in his book.  First, it asserts without any scientific evidence
that the brain, including all the activities of the brain –metaphorical thinking, memory, conscious
awareness, the meta-cognitive schemata shared with other members of the culture, experience of
meaning, value judgments, intentionality, sense of identity—are the product of physicochemical
reactions.  Having made this claim, which would also have to account for differences in cultural ways
of knowing, including all the brain implicated experiences listed above, he then reverses himself by
stating that the aggregate choices of many brains determine the Darwinian fate of everything
human—which he lists as the genes and epigenetic rules that he early describes as responsible for the
self-assembly of the sensory system and brain   In Biology as Ideology (1992), R. C. Lewontin sums
up the problematic logic of Wilson’s sociobiology as “genes make individuals, individuals have
particular preferences and behaviors, the collection of preferences and behaviors make culture, and so
genes make culture” (p. 14).  Even though Wilson rejects being classified as a genetic determinist,
Lewontin’s summary needs to be compared with Wilson’s own statement about “the genes
prescribing the epigenetic rules of brain and behavior are only segments of giant molecules” (1998, p.
165).  Wilson’s description of the “brain’s machinery,”  and what he elsewhere describes as the
“brain-machine, which is made up of cells, also needs to be taken into account in assessing the
correctness of Lewontin’s summary.
What we call meaning is the linkage among the neural networks created by the spreading
excitation that enlarges imagery and engages emotion.  The competitive selection among
scenarios is what we call decision-making.  The outcome, in terms of the match of the
winning scenarios to instinctive or learned favorable states, sets the kind and intensity of
subsequent emotion.  The persistent form and intensity of emotions is called mood.  The
47
ability of the brain to generate novel scenarios and settle on the most effective among them is
called creativity. 1998, p. 115
 The cells that are the basis of the neural networks that make all of this happen, to reiterate Wilson’s
causal linkages, are the genes that prescribe the epigenetic rules that, in turn, prescribe the
physiochemical processes within the brain that lead to the experience of meaning, creativity, and so
on.  To put this another way, these mental processes, that is, the configurations of the brain-machine
best suited to survive over generations, are governed by Nature’s design process that we know as
natural selection.
Again it must be pointed out that Wilson’s attempt to avoid the criticism of genetic
determinism is like a verbal shell game. His argument that genes create brains,  and that brains
determine the survivability of the genes and the epigenetic rules governing brains and behavior is
circular, and has no basis in scientific evidence. Wilson is simply trying to explain away the
contradiction inherent in his theory.  And he needs the reader to assume that his authority as a much
acclaimed scientist carries over into the complex domain of the world’s diverse cultures.  In spite of
Wilson’s gift as a writer and as respected scientists, the reader needs to keep in mind that his attempt
to represent the brain and culture as co-determinants in the evolutionary process, it is always, as he
also claims, the genetic make-up of humans and, more importantly, the other organisms that
constitutes the environment that culls the weak from the strong.  As Wilson puts it: “the brains that
choose wisely possess superior Darwinian fitness, meaning that statistically they survive longer and
leave more offspring than brains that choose badly” (1998, p. 165).
The basic inconsistency in Wilson’s thinking, and in the thinking of environmentalists who
take him seriously, can also be seen in the following statement. In the introduction to the anniversary
edition of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Wilson writes that “conservation, as I have long
believed, is ultimately an ethical issue.”  Ignoring what he has written elsewhere about the genetic
basis of moral sentiments, Wilson goes on to claim that “moral precepts in turn must be based on
sound, objective knowledge of human nature” (p. viii). The immediate question might be: If moral
sentiments are genetically encoded, what purpose would be served by acquiring a “sound, objective
knowledge of human nature”?  It appears that Wilson is retreating to  the old view of rationality as a
force that can shape the course of Nature.  This leads to another question: How can a scientist or
anyone else acquire objective knowledge of human nature if they unavoidably rely upon the
cognitive schemata encoded in the language of their cultural group?  The cognitive schemata that is a
48
taken-for-granted in Wilson’s thinking, and can be traced back to Johannes Kepler’s way of
understanding the universe, can be seen in Wilson’s representation of the brain as a
mechanism—and as an engineering problem. Wilson also takes-for-granted the cultural cognitive
schemata that represents change as linear and progressive in nature—which leads him to see
scientific knowledge as representing a progressive advance over the knowledge of so called “pre-
scientific cultures.” The irony inherent in this cultural pattern of thinking is that Wilson argues, as
we later shall see, that scientifically based knowledge should be the basis of a world monoculture,
which will require the disappearance of diversity in cultural ways of knowing.   Given that natural
selection does not move in a linear, progressive direction, and that it is the dynamic source of
biological diversity, Wilson’s argument that the world’s cultures should be based on assumptions
that have been scientifically tested reproduces the long-held western myth that cultures can progress
only when they adopt the high-status knowledge of the West.  If Wilson were to be consistent in his
extrapolations, he should be arguing for cultural diversity, just in case a scientifically based culture is
unable to adapt to future environmental changes.
       This criticism of Wilson is likely to take most readers by surprise, as he continually writes
about the importance of biodiversity to our future survival.   His writings on the importance of
biodivesity are both eloquent and well documented.  If one only reads the final chapter of
Consilience where Wilson discusses the different dimensions of the ecological crisis, and even
expresses deep reservations about the genetic engineering of human traits, he comes across as one of
the nation’s preeminent environmentalists.  His work with Nature Conservancy further strengthens
this impression.  But his extrapolations on the theory of evolution, particularly his reductionist
explanation of culture, raises serious questions about whether he has created a powerful
metanarrative (ideology) that will be used by the promoters of economic and technological
globalization.  I think, on balance, that his extrapolations will further strengthen the integration of
scientific research into the corporate culture that is the engine driving the globalization of the
western mind-set that equates consumerism with success and happiness.  His writings also give
legitimacy to the western idea that winners are the fittest—an idea that has its roots in an earlier
phase of Darwinian thinking about the fate of cultures that were being colonized. To reiterate a point
that Wilson continually makes, the reproductive success of future generations is the ultimate test of
genetic fitness—which to the public and heads of corporations sounds like another way of saying
that Nature dictates the “survival of the fittest.”  It is interesting that Wilson avoids using this phrase,
49
but nevertheless gives it a renewed sense of legitimacy.  Let me be more specific about why
Wilson’s contribution to an ideology that justifies the globalization of what has become an
increasingly science based corporate culture will overshadow the contributions he makes as a
spokesperson for conservation.  In what follows I will identify a number of double binds in his
reductionist thinking, and in his inability to recognize the limits of the theory of evolution as an
explanatory framework.
Evolutionary Advantage of Western Science.  Wilson’s statement about the greatest divide being
what separates pre-scientific from scientific cultures, as well as his many other references to the
backwardness of non-western cultures, has special significance for environmentalists.  It justifies, for
example, the current efforts on the part of transnational corporations, neo-liberal politicians, and
scientists whose research is increasingly dependent upon the priorities of corporations to promote the
western model of economic development as the panacea for lifting people out of poverty.  What
Wilson, as well as elite groups that believe survival depends upon the scientific knowledge of the
West, do not recognize is that the dominant patterns of western culture are poorly adapted to
maintaining the sustaining capacity of local ecosystems.  As recent history have proven, the
technological and consumer dependent lifestyle of the West requires the continual exploitation of the
bioregions of other cultural groups.
Many of the cultures that Wilson and others want to see displaced by the Enlightenment
traditions of the West have developed in ways that enable them to live within the limits and
possibilities of the local environments.  The Zapatistas of Southern Mexico, the Quechua living in
the Peruvian Andes, and other indigenous cultures spread across North and South American—as
well in other parts of the world, possess both a complex knowledge of local ecosystems as well as
intergenerational traditions that renew the principles of moral reciprocity that limit their impact on
natural systems.  As these cultures are pressured to modernize by adopting the forms of knowledge
that Wilson upholds as more evolutionary advanced, they become more individually and consumer
oriented –and environmentally disruptive.  In determining which form of culture is better adapted to
its environment, I suggest the reader learn about the cosmovision of the Quechua living in the
diverse ecosystems that make up the Peruvian Andes.  What is particularly interesting is that their
world view has led to one of the most genetically diverse food production regions in the world.
Their careful observation of changes in every aspect of their environment, as well as their way of
understanding that all relationships  that make up the natural world involve both nurturing and being
50
nurtured, stands in sharp contrast to Wilson’s reductionist, survival oriented, and mechanistic
science.  I am not suggesting here that we can or should adopt the Quechua world view, which has
sustained them over eight to ten thousand years.  Rather learning about the complexity of Quechua
knowledge of local ecosystems, and the cultural patterns that enabled them to foster and sustain
biodiversity in one of the more challenging regions of the world, will help bring into question
Wilson’s claim about the backwardness of “pre-scientific cultures,” and his willingness to see them
disappear.  Many other indigenous cultures, as we are beginning to learn, could also be cited as
examples of being ecologically-centered in ways that cultures based on western science are not.
Evolution as an Ideology. Wilson’s extrapolations on the theory of natural selection cover a wide
range of cultural phenomena. They include: pre-scientific cultures are poorly adapted to their
environments, moral values and religions are biases in mental development that are encoded in the
genes, the brain is a product of natural selection, and the basic drive in life is to survive longer and to
leave more offspring.  While these claims  appear to give scientific legitimacy to academics and
other experts who are now explaining everything from cultural trends to individual behaviors as
shaped by the role that genes play in the process of natural selection, none of the above
extrapolations are based on scientific evidence. Causal relationships in the symbolic nature of
culture-- specifically the complex interplay between the episteme of a cultural group, the languaging
processes that sustain the shared meta-cognitive schemata, and the individual’s sense of self-identity
and meaning that both reproduce and individualize the shared cultural patterns—cannot be
empirically established without introducing fundamental misrepresentations.  Nevertheless, Wilson’s
every pronouncement, no matter how problematic, is given public exposure—often in leading
magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and in scientific journals.  The miseducation of the public
is being furthered by proponents of computers who explain technological developments as guided by
the process of evolution.  Psychologists are aligning their professional judgments with the new
scientific orthodoxy that Wilson has pioneered by explaining a range of human behavior as
genetically based; while anthropologists are finding that cultural developments represent efforts to
preserves the group’s genetic material.  Even art is now being explained as an adaptive behavior that,
as Ellen Dissanayaka puts it, “has survival value” (1992, p. 35). In effect, Wilson’s extrapolations
are helping to renew an explanatory framework that is presumed to have a scientific basis, and thus
is being given the special status where criticism is viewed as unwarranted and the expression of anti-
Enlightenment thinking.
51
A totalizing explanatory framework, especially one that appears to be grounded in science
and promoted by academics who, by virtue of their institutional positions, determine what
constitutes high-status knowledge, becomes a powerful ideology made to order for those who want
to promote the latest technology and to open up new consumer markets.  In contrast to Darwin’s
theory, which emphasizes that the survival value of behavioral traits is determined over many
generations, the proponents of modernization read the process of natural selection into every
situation where a new technology displaces technologies and other cultural traditions that have
survived with only minor modification over many generations.  For example, electronic communities
are now being interpreted as more advanced than face-to-face communities.  Similarly, globalizing
an industrial mode of production and consumption is being explained as more evolved than self-
sufficient and non-monetized cultures.  And the prospects of genetically designed offspring is being
viewed as putting the process of natural selection in the hands of experts who will eliminate the
element of chance. This transformation of Darwin’s theory can also be seen in Lee Silver’s
prediction that genetic engineering will soon lead to humans evolving into two distinct species.  This
Princeton University molecular biologist envisions the genetically planned offspring becoming a
separate “Gene-Rich” species of humans, while the non-genetically planned will evolve as the
“Naturals” who will perform the service and hard labor functions in society (1997, pp. 4-7).
Wilson’s contribution to turning the theory of evolution into an ideology ( that is, helping to
revive the nineteen century ideology of “survival of the fittest”) retains key conceptual elements that
were the underpinnings of the Industrial Revolution and the colonizing process that it required.
These include the idea that the basic drive is to survive in an environment that rewards winners and
eliminates losers; that scientifically based technologies are more evolved than technologies that are
more integrated into the web of community life and require greater skill on the part of the user; that
values (which may involve cooperation within the family or corporate unit that compete with other
units) should be judged on the basis of their survival value; and that “evolution” is the scientist’s
special word for what modern thinkers call progress.  As these are the assumptions that underlie the
western model of technological and economic development that has had such an adverse impact on
the environment over the last two-hundred and fifty years, environmentalists need to ask whether
Wilson’s sociobiology outweighs in importance his contributions as an advocate of biodiversity.
Extinction of Pre-Scientific Cultures. Wilson’s reading of the Rosetta Stone of evolution
strengthens the popular bias that non-western cultures are backward, and in need of being
52
transformed in ways that correspond to the western form of consciousness.  Wilson does not provide
scientific evidence, but asserts, as noted earlier, that the greatest divide facing humanity is between
the pre-scientific and scientific cultures. In effect, his argument that the natural sciences should be
the unifying basis of all forms of knowledge, as well as his claim that science should be the final
arbiter of religious insight, put him on the side of those who equate progress with the creation of a
world monoculture.
The double bind in Wilson’s efforts to establish the world-wide primacy of scientifically
based knowledge is that it leads to undermining the linkage between cultural and biodiversity that is
just now being understood by environmentalists.  Wilson’s desire to see the disappearance of
cultures he categorizes as “pre-scientific”  leads to the loss of languages that are astonishing complex
repositories of knowledge of local ecosystems.  Australian Aborigines, for example, have encoded in
their language and ceremonies such a wealth of knowledge of the interrelationship of plants,
animals, weather patterns, and physical characteristics of the landscape that Australian government
scientists have asked them to provide maps that indicate the edible flora and fauna, and explain their
nutritional value.  The Kapingamarangi islanders of Micronesia, according to linguists David Nettle
and Suzanne Romaine, vary their fishing activity evenly over 200 indigenous varieties of fish, thus
ensuring that no one variety is faced with extinction.  Nettle and Romaine also cite the example of
the Haunoo who live on the island of Mindaro.  These “pre-scientific” people can identify 450
species of animals and over 1500 local plants; they also cultivate as many as 450 different plants in
their gardens—with many of the plants having known medicinal value.  The farming practices of the
Haunoo take account of the 10 basic and 30 derivative types of soil.  Their language also includes 4
different terms for soil firmness (Nettle and Romaine, 2000, pp. 71, 166-167).  The Quechua of the
Peruvian Andes represent yet another example of a supposedly pre-scientific culture that Wilson
would like to see transformed by the adoption of science as their sacred narrative. For over eight
thousand years the Quechua cosmovision has represented life processes as a reciprocal dialogue
between humans, deities, and nature. Their understanding of all life processes as essentially
nurturing relationships has enabled them to turn the diversity of ecological niches and microclimates
that characterize the Andes into one of the world’s greatest centers of diversity of cultivated plants.
They grow over 1500 varieties of quinoa and over 3500 varieties of potatoes.  Other examples that
fit into Wilson’s category of pre-scientific culture could easily be given.
53
Given Wilson’s knowledge of the importance of biodiversity, it is surprising that he ignores
the wealth of evidence now emerging from scientific studies of the complex and accurate knowledge
of local ecosystems possessed by many indigenous cultures.  Had he taken this into account, his
theory of the epigenetic basis of cultural patterns, including his reductionist sub-theories about the
genetic basis of brain activity and language, would not have had the conceptual coherence he needed
for his argument that scientifically based cultures are better adapted to meet the challenges of long-
term survival.  There is another reason for this critically important oversight.  His mechanistic
understanding of the brain, along with his need to explain the epigenetic rules governing the
possibilities of language, prevent him from recognizing that the mythopoetic narratives of these
diverse cultures are the basis of their way of knowing—which includes their ways of understanding
relationships and the way relationships are represented in a metaphorical language that is
intergenerationally shared.
The reason for Wilson’s failure to understand how the meta-cognitive schemata (what I have
elsewhere called root metaphors) of a cultural group influences how relationships are understood is
his rigid embrace of the “genes determine culture” argument.  Witness how in the following
statement he attempts to give culture a co-evolutionary role, but ends up reasserting the “realities of
human evolution argument”—which includes the whole package of assumptions about genes giving
rise to individual behaviors and cultural traits that are better adapted for long-term survival.  I will
quote Wilson here to ensure readers that I am not misrepresenting him on this crucial issue.
         The brain constantly searches for meaning, for connections between objects and qualities that
cross-cut the senses and provide information about external existence.  We penetrate that
world through the constraining portals of the epigenetic rules.  As shown in the elementary
cases of paralanguage and color vocabulary, culture has arisen from the genes and forever
bears their stamp.  With the invention of metaphor and new meaning, it has at the same time
acquired a life on its own.  In order to grasp the human condition, both the genes and culture
must be understood , not separately in the traditional manner of science and the humanities,
but together, in recognition of the realities of human evolution. 1998, 163
Had Wilson extended the discussion of metaphor to take account of the layered nature of
metaphorical thinking, including how material culture is also the expression of metaphorical
thinking, he might have recognized that his own explanation of organic processes, such as how
54
genes perform and the activities of the brain, is framed by his reliance upon a mechanistic root
metaphor.
Science and the Evolutionary Epic as the Source of Values.  Wilson’s transformation of the
theory of evolution into an ideology that is to guide the world’s cultures raises the question about the
ability of science as a mode of inquiry, and scientists who are unconsciously influenced by the
assumptions of their own culture, to establish the moral values that are to put human/nature
relationships on a more sustainable basis. Wilson clearly thinks that evolution has now carried
humankind to a new level of moral development. But beyond asserting that the non-secular and non-
scientifically based cultures should abandon their mythopoetic narratives in order to accept what
evolutionary biologists certify as the “bedrock of moral and religious sentiments,” Wilson has little
to say about how to affect this change.  His silence about an effective strategy for carrying out the
changes he sees being dictated by evolution is particularly noteworthy in a world where the
mythopoetic narratives of different cultures are increasingly at the center of political conflict.
     He may, however, have another reason for remaining silent on this crucial issue.  He may
simply assume that the genes that predisposed the members of different cultures to create moral
norms, and the mythopoetic narratives that give them legitimacy, may over time give way to genes
that predispose them to live by moral norms better suited to surviving the ongoing process of natural
selection.  Thus the better adapted genes that Wilson sees as the basis of the epigenetic rules will
simply solve the problem by replacing the unfit moral norms with those that meet the test of
Darwinian fitness. According to Wilson’s genocentric arguments, environmentalists and others who
think that rational discussions that take account of the cultural forces that adversely impact the
Earth’s ecosystems, the quest for more ecologically-centered metanarratives, and eco-justice
oriented educational reforms can make a difference simply do not understand that Nature’s ways do
not always fit what humans desire for the future. Given the deeply moral nature of Wilson’s thesis, I
don’t think he is willing to accept the conclusions that follow his arguments about the “realities of
human evolution.”
But I have concerns that go beyond Wilson’s naïve understanding of how to change the deep
cultural foundations of the value systems of different cultures. These concerns also go beyond the
question of whether he has adequate evidence for his claim that “culture is created by the communal
mind, and each mind in turn is the product of a genetically structured brain” (1998, p. 127).   My
concerns have to do with scientists as individuals who, in learning to think and communicate in the
55
language patterns of their culture, unconsciously reproduce the assumptions of their culture in those
areas where scientific discoveries are being translated into technologies, where individual scientists
explain the social value of their discovery, and where they predict how their discoveries will change
the future direction of the culture.  While Wilson represents scientists as engaged in a dialectic
involving rational thought and empirical evidence, the historical record of scientists as exemplary
moral agents and futurist thinkers is mixed.  We are all aware of how their research and, in many
cases, personal sacrifices have improved the quality of human life and expanded our knowledge of
the physical world.  But like Janus, the two faced Roman god that looks in opposite directions, the
history of the scientific community also has a Janus face.  That is, scientists as a community of
scholar/researchers have made contributions that have been constructive, and contributions that have
been destructive—even environmentally destructive.
      If we look at the historical record of the scientists that Wilson wants to put in charge of
aligning moral values of the world’s cultures with the way he understands the genetic-based
evolutionary origin of moral and religious beliefs, we find the following: (1) Scientists have in the
past and continue today to be the source of basic knowledge that enabled the Industrial Revolution,
and the digital phase it has now entered, to expand on a global scale; (2) Scientists have provided the
knowledge for the development of weapons of mass destruction. That some scientists now oppose
the use of the more destructive weapons does not change the fact that scientists have not always
exercised the high wisdom that Wilson assigns them; (3) Scientists, as Stephen Jay Gould pointed
out in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) were major contributors to intelligence testing and supported
the racist assumption it was based on; (4) Scientists in the early part of this century were deeply
implicated in the eugenics movement, and they are continuing to support the basic assumptions of
this movement today with their drive to find the genetic basis for eliminating human
abnormalities—which goes well beyond the elimination of diseases by placing the scientists and
their clients in the role of defining what constitutes normality; (5) Scientists have introduced into the
environment tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals as a fix for certain problems but without an
adequate understanding how the chemicals interact with other chemical processes upon which
various life forming systems depend.  The myth of progress rather than what is now called the
“precautionary principle” has been the basis of their social and ecological awareness.  Fortunately,
this is beginning to change. But we are now witnessing another development that raises the question
of whether scientists are capable of being the superior moral guides that Wilson represents them as.
56
The merging of scientific research with corporate agendas, including the growing practice of
scientists seeking personal economic gain through their research, is increasing their complicity in the
process of economic and technological globalization that further threatens the viability of the Earth’s
ecosystem—and what remains of the self-sustaining capacity of cultures that have not yet been
pulled entirely into the West’s new colonial system.
     These criticisms of scientists are not meant to diminish the important contributions they are
making in many areas of life—including a more accurate understanding of the rate and scale of
changes occurring in natural systems.  But we cannot forget that the technology dependent,
consumer driven lifestyle now being globalized had its roots in earlier scientific achievements. The
hubris of western scientists, including the way in which they have denigrated knowledge systems
based on non-western assumptions, is partly responsible for our failure to learn from ecologically-
centered cultures the importance of extending moral reciprocity to the natural world. Aldo Leopold’s
A Sand County Almanac ( (1949) represents one of the first efforts in the West to articulate a land
ethic.  While it represents an eloquent and compelling statement, it has not been incorporated into
our ceremonies and taken-for-granted patterns of daily life. Today’s reality is that title of Carl
Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted Word: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1997) expresses more
accurately the hubris toward what Wilson refers to as pre-scientific cultures.  The current effort to
patent indigenous knowledge of biodiversity (that is, to exploit it as another resource in the industrial
process) is yet another example of the failure of western scientists to provide moral leadership in
sustaining the cultural diversity that is so essential to the viability of biodiversity.  The scientists’
current role in the appropriation of indigenous knowledge for industrial purposes, which they justify
in the name of progress, represents a continuation of over a two hundred and fifty year collaboration
between scientists and industry—a collaboration that has undermined the ability of many species to
ensure the survivability of their genetic material.  This collaboration is totally ignored by Wilson.
Indeed, his arguments for making scientists the guardians of the world’s moral values ignores the
long history of destructive and morally problematic projects that should be laid out along side the
equally long history of positive achievements. But this more balanced view of the scientists’
capacity as a moral leader is totally lacking in Wilson’s thinking.
Wilson’s argument that scientists should take on the Promethean role of saving the diverse
cultures of the world from the consequences of their pre-scientific knowledge systems led Wendell
Berry to write a devastating critique of what he calls the “explicitly imperialistic” nature of Wilson’s
57
faith in the “ultimate empirical explainability of everything” (2000. P. 30).  As Berry put it in The
Miracle of Life: An Essay Against Modern Superstition, “ Wilson himself, in his conviction that
everything that is not science out to be and will be, shows himself to be a man with a fiercely
proprietary mind and dire intentions toward the unenlightened. The logic of his position is clear and
it is most disquieting” (p. 31).
Ecological Implications of Science as  an Anti-Tradition Tradition.
 Any assessment of Wilson’s contribution to creating a more ecologically sustainable culture
must also take into account the scientists’ knowledge of their own culture, as well as that of other
cultures.  When Wilson claims that scientists “will test relentlessly every assumption about the
human condition and in time uncover the bedrock of moral and religious sentiments (1998, p. 265)
he is assuming that scientists possess superior knowledge and that they should take on the
Promethean role of rescuing people from their misconceptions. But one of the characteristics of the
human condition, regardless of cultural group, is that it involves dependence upon traditions.  As
most traditions are a taken-for-granted part of daily experience, the challenge is to recognize
traditions that are essential to civil society and less consumer driven lives, that are no longer useful,
and that were wrongly constituted in the first place. The ecology of traditions, which includes all
aspects of culture passed down and re-enacted over four generations or cohorts, represents the
intergenerational continuities within a culture.  Science as a mode of inquiry, and the technologies
and ideology it relies upon, are also examples of traditions.  But as Edward Shils points out, science
is a tradition that has as it primary purpose the overturning of traditions that do not meet the test of
new scientific discoveries.  That is, science is what Shils calls an “anti-tradition tradition” that has its
roots in Enlightenment thinking.  As an anti-tradition tradition, science has led to important changes
in ways of thinking and in the development of highly useful technologies that have become new
traditions.  It has also been the basis of new traditions that we are now recognizing as
environmentally destructive, such as farming techniques that overly rely upon chemical pesticides
and fertilizers, the over prescribing of drugs, and the practice of seeking a technological solution to
environmental problems rather than changes in cultural values and ways of thinking.  The list of
more ecologically sustainable cultural traditions undermined by scientifically based technologies
includes how the Green Revolution undermines the indigenous knowledge of how to adapt
agricultural practices to the characteristics of local ecosystems, the displacement of craft knowledge
by the industrial mode of production, the undermining of mentoring relationships  and embodied
58
experiences of place by computer mediated communication, and the marginalization of
intergenerational knowledge and skills by market oriented techniques that are based on scientific
knowledge of how to shape human expectations and to create greater efficiencies in market
activities.  Indeed, the process of globalizing western traditions of industrially produced foods,
clothes, modes of communication, and so forth, is dependent upon western science, and these
western traditions not only undermine local traditions of self-sufficiency but also foster a cultural
ecology of constant change in consumer expectations and technological innovation.
        The problem with Wilson’s recommendation that scientists should decide what values and
cultural practices people should live by is that scientists, as a group, are among the least qualified to
make decisions about which traditions are essential to morally coherent and ecologically sustainable
cultures.  As pointed out above, their conceptual orientation is toward introducing new technologies
and ways of thinking.  Aside from personal experience, which is mostly experienced as taken-for-
granted background knowledge, they have no expert knowledge of which traditions are especially
important as sources of self-sufficiency, nor have they demonstrated a special awareness of the
importance of traditions that are being undermined or entirely lost as a result of the technologies that
new scientific discoveries give rise to.  For example, scientists as a group have not resisted the loss
of the tradition of privacy, including freedom from governmental surveillance, which computers now
make possible.  Nor have they been concerned about the loss of the traditions dependent upon face-
to-face intergenerational communication that are also being undermined by computer technologies.
If Wilson were to be consistent in his argument that genes determine brains and thus culture,
and that natural selection determines which genes contain the chemical instructions best suited to the
survival of future generations of the organism, the process of determining which beliefs and cultural
practices should survive would be left to Nature and not be placed on the shoulders of scientists.  As
pointed out earlier, Wilson’s political agenda is to create a world monoculture based on the thinking
of scientists who have made essential contributions to the earlier and, now, present phase of the
Industrial Revolution—a revolution that has undermined cultures that have a smaller ecological
impact and that has undermined the self-renewing capacity of natural systems.
    Wilson’s division of human evolution into what he called the “greatest divide,”  the “chasm
that separates scientific from prescientific cultures” (1998, p. 45), as well as his arguments for
replacing the world’s religions with the scientific narrative of human evolution, seems strangely at
odds with his biophilia hypothesis.  His call for the cultures of the world to adopt the scientific
59
narrative as their secular religion, is really a call for a world monoculture,  At the same time his
biophilia hypothesis, which is also without a scientifically established basis that takes account of
cultural differences, is that human evolution has led to the genetic basis of human preferences for
and affiliations with life forming processes. His hypothesis also claims that biophobic (adversive)
responses on the part of humans toward environmental destruction can also be traced to the process
of human evolution.  If Wilson had tried to reconcile his arguments for a world monoculture based
solely on scientifically based knowledge with his biophilia hyposthesis he would have been faced
with explaining why he wants to impose a scientifically based epistemology and moral system on
indigenous cultures that have “evolved”  to the point where their technologies, ceremonies, patterns
of moral reciprocity, and place-based knowledge are expressions of human affiliation  with the life
forming processes that make up their bioregion.  It may be that Wilson, in recognizing that his
arguments about natural selection and the long history of disclaimers about science being separate
from values, realized that he would need to come up with a theory that explains the genetic basis of
an environmental ethic.  But he overlooked the historical record of western science, and how it has
been justified on the grounds that it would enable man to subdue nature, to exploit is as a resource,
and to find substitutes for systems that disappear.  In effect, he argues for universalizing a mode of
inquiry, and the economic system dependent upon it, that show far less evidence of the qualities he
associates with biophilia.  Indeed, Wilson’s reference to  the brain as a machine, as a problem in
engineering, suggests that, in spite of the fame that has come to him because of his theory of
biophilia, his thinking is still in the tradition of science that treats nature as an object of study,
exploitation, and experimentation.  These are hardly the qualities that he associates with biophilia.
      It has only been in the last three or so decades that scientists have become widely concerned
about changes in natural systems, while their record of helping to incorporate nature into the
industrial, monetized culture goes back hundreds of years.  And even today, there are scientists who
are still working to incorporate natural processes into an industrial mode of production and
consumption.  While the growing concern about achieving scientific knowledge of changes in
natural systems, and developing technologies that mitigate the human impact, represents an
important development, there is little evidence that scientists have begun to think about the
interconnections between the mythopoetic narratives of different cultures and the traditions that
make them less dependent upon consumerism—which is one of the main threats to the
environment—and thus to the survivability of the genetic material of different species.
60
     In summary, Wilson’s good intentions, and even his genuine concern about conserving
biodiversity, are less significant than the support his extrapolations on the theory of evolution give to
the promoters of a world monoculture based on a western  consumer dependent lifestyle.  Wilson has
made important scientific contributions and has been given wide acclaim. But the fatal flaw in his
thinking is that he does not recognize the deep cultural assumptions that limit his ability to recognize
when he has stepped beyond the boundaries in which he is knowledgeable.  And he does not
understand how his taken-for-granted cultural assumptions lead to recommendations that work
against his genuine concern about the survivability of humankind.  While Wilson could be justifiably
accused of having a Promethean complex, he should be understood as embodying the limitations that
characterize most scientists: that is, the failure to understand how their activities impact the cultures
of the world.  Yet, the education that most scientists receive ignores this increasingly important
limitation. Rather, it reinforces the ideology that represents scientific inquiry as free of cultural
influences.  This education also reinforces an even more destructive myth, namely that the scientist
is not responsible for how society turns scientific discoveries into new technologies and systems of
control.  The problematic nature of this ideology can be seen in the self-certainty (indeed, hubris) of
Martin W. Lewis who states:
As a self-professed environmentalist, I fully concur that the passage into the twenty-first century sees
the world in a state of ecological crisis. I further agree that much of the blame must be
assigned to technologies that owe their existence to the success of Enlightenment thought.
But I am also convinced that a wholehearted commitment to reason and science offers the
only way out of the dilemma. Only through scientific investigation can we know the origin
and magnitude of the planet’s problems.  But of equal significance is the fact that only
through science can we devise less harmful technologies that will allow us to continue to
enjoy the fruits of modernity—which twentieth-century humans will not foreswear, no matter
how urgent the pleading—without undercutting natural systems in the process. Gross and
Levitt, 1996, p. 210 (italics added)
Again, we see the double bind. To paraphrase Lewis, the mind-set that has been a major contributor
to the ecological crisis is the only mind-set capable of saving humanity.  Like Wilson, Lewis’
representation of the scientist as a modern Prometheus omits the importance of understanding culture
in all its dimensions and diversity.  The problem is that the language of science, and the ideology
61
that legitimates its higher-status, is inadequate for understanding the cultural limits of scientific
expertise.
References
Apffel-Marglin, Frederique (editor with PRATEC). 1998.The Spirit of Regeneration: Andean
Culture Against Western Notions of Development. London: Zed Books.
Berry, Wendell. 2000. Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition. Washington, D.C.:
Counterpoint.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton.
Dissanayaka, Ellen. 1992. Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why. New York: Free
Press.
Kelly, Kevin. 1994. Out of Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Kurzweil, Ray.  1999. The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human
Intelligence. New York: Viking Press.
Leopold, Aldo. 1966 edition. A Sand County Almanac. San Francisco: Sierra Club/Ballantine Book.
Lewis, Martin W. 1994. “Radical Environmental Philosophy and the Assault on Reason.” Pp. 209-
230 in The Flight from Science and Reason, ed. Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt, and Martin
W. Lewis. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Lewontin, R. C. 1992. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper Perennial.
 Moravec, Hans. 1988. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s
Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sagan. Carl. 1997. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. London: Headline
Book.
Silver, Lee. 1997. Re-Making Eden: How Cloning and Beyond Will Change the Human Family.
New York: Avon.
Stock, Gregory. 1993. Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global
Superorganism. Toronto: Doubleday Canada.
62
Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
__________. 2000. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Chapter 3 The Environmental Ethic Implicit in Three Theories of Evolution
 In Educating for Eco-Justice and Community (2001), I briefly discuss the pitfalls of using
evolution as a conceptual framework for recommending educational reforms.  While my book was in
the early stages of being reviewed, Edmund O’Sullivan’s Transformative Learning: Educational
Vision for the 21st Century (1999) appeared.  O’Sullivan’s book is significant for a number of
reasons.  But the two most important are that it represents one of the first books written by a theorist
deeply rooted in the tradition of critical pedagogy that addresses the cultural changes being forced
upon the world by the ecological crisis.  Second, the conceptual framework he uses is based on the
Brian Swimme/Thomas Berry interpretation of evolution—or what they call the “universe story.” It
should also be said that O’Sullivan’s extrapolations on the Swimme/Berry interpretation are
insightful, well supported by other writers who share a holistic view of the relationship between
humans and Nature, and persuasively argued.
My purpose here is not to critique Transformative Learning, but to fame the discussion on
another level—one that returns to the concerns I raised in my earlier discussion of the limitations of
using a theory of evolution to explain cultural developments.  I should say “theories” of evolution as
there are, among others, three prominent theories that have profoundly different political
implications.  In a world where there are still approximately 6000 different languages still spoken
(with many of the verge of extinction), and thus an equal number of world views, the vast
differences in ways of knowing now under pressure from globalization create yet another set of
issues being ignored by the theorists promoting the three schools of evolutionary thought that will be
examined here.
The critical questions that need to be asked by any educational theorist who relies upon one
of the three theories of evolution are: “Which one is the most scientifically based?” and “Which one
most effectively accounts for the diversity of the world’s cultures—particularly the cultures that have
developed ecologically sustainable beliefs and practices?”. The answer to these questions, as I will
63
attempt to show, will help to clarify a characteristic shared by all three interpretations of evolution:
namely, how they lend ideological support to the western approach to creating a world monoculture.
That is, the answer to these questions will bring out the double bind of how using a theory of
evolution to address ecological problems can, at the same time, legitimate the cultural practices that
are the greatest threat to ecological sustainability.
Assessing the ideological and ecological implications of three different interpretations of
evolution brings into focus a number of issues that educational theorists, as well as other reform-
minded thinkers, should consider.  As there are fundamental differences between the three accounts
of evolution, the question of which one is valid becomes a central concern.  There is also the
question of whether the three accounts of evolution avoid the limitations of the Social Darwinism of
the late nineteenth century.  Additionally, there is the question of whether an evolutionary based
explanatory framework makes both the educational and political processes we associate with a
democracy little more than misguided thinking.  In light of Kevin Kelly’s observation that Nature’s
agenda is “out of our control” (1994, p. 471), the ideal of an educated citizenry being essential to a
democratic society may not fit Nature’s agenda for ensuring the survival of the fittest.  Before
examining the three interpretations of evolution being given prominence by different groups, it must
be acknowledged that important debates among evolutionists, such as the one precipitated by the
field research of Stephen Jay Gould, will not be considered.  Nor will the arguments that a
Darwinian interpretation of evolution ignores that the universe and the Earth’s organisms are too
complex to be explained by the interplay of mutations and the selective power of the environment,
and thus that the evolution is thus the outcome of intelligent design (i.e. God).
Entering the Post-Biological Phase of Evolution
The power of computers has led to many predictions of how they will change life in the
future, such as reproducing human emotions, becoming an auxiliary brain, and providing for instant
language translations.  Perhaps the most important prediction is that computers represent the next
phase of evolutionary development, which will lead to a post-biological world monoculture.  Hans
Moravec, the principal research scientist at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University,
announced in 1988 that we are now entering a “post-biological world dominated by self-improving,
thinking machines” (p. 5).  More recently, he wrote in the End-of-the Millennium Special Issue of
Scientific American, that by 2040 “we will finally achieve the original goal of robotics and a
thematic mainstay of scientific fiction: a freely moving machine with the intellectual capacity of a
64
human being” (1999, p. 126).  The evolutionary advantage of computers over humans, as he pointed
out, is that computers are capable of mental calculations millions of times faster than the human
brain.  With the evolution of intelligence being taken over by computers, Moravec predicted that the
evolutionary dead-end for humans will be a Nevada style Sun City existence.  As he put it, humans
“will probably occupy their days with a variety of social, recreational and artistic pursuits, not unlike
today’s comfortable retirees or wealthy leisure classes” p. 135.
         Given the highly specialized nature of education experienced by most computer scientists, it
should be no surprise that Moravec is not the loan Promethean thinker who holds out the promise
that the future fate of humans will no longer be dependent upon the flawed thinking of politicians
and despots, but will be determined by Nature’s process of natural selection—which will ensure that
the best and most deserving will survive. George Dyson, author of Darwin Among the Machines
(1997) and son of Nobel Prize recipient Freeman Dyson, explains how Nature rewards the “fittest.”
By “fittest” Dyson means the “most economical and efficient processes for encoding information”
that are the basis of life sustaining processes. The following quotation needs to be read in the context
of the subtitle of his book, which is “The Evolution of Global Intelligence.”
                     Biology and technology evidence parallel tendencies toward collective, hierarchical
processes based on information exchange.  As information is distributed, it tends to be
represented (encoded) by increasingly economical (meaningful) forms.  This evolutionary
process, whereby the most economical or meaningful representation wins, leads to a
hierarchy of languages, encoding meaning on levels that transcend comprehension by the
system’s individual components—whether genes, insects, microprocessors, or human
minds….Nature, in her boundless affection for complexity, has begun to claim our creations
as her own. 1997, p. 7-8.
       While Dyson does not use the vocabulary of classical liberal thinkers, or that of the promoters of
the World Trade Organization, he nevertheless gives the impression that the classical liberal
worldview is supported by the scientifically based theory of evolution.  It is also important to note
how Dyson merges the categories of biological organisms and machines, which previously have been
understood as separate. This aspect of Dyson thinking is becoming an increasing conventional trait
among a wide range of scientists.  Dyson’s extension of the theory of natural selection to explain
technological developments governed by the same design criteria Nature uses in the natural world is
also critically important.  In effect, he opens the door to explaining all aspects of culture, and thus the
65
development of different cultures, as governed by the laws of natural selection.  The argument that
the better adapted are selected to survive, and to reproduce  themselves through future generations,
makes politics little more than a theatre of illusions and impossible expectations.
          Another point that needs to be brought out is that Dyson should have recognized that his last
statement about Nature’s “boundless affection for complexity” is inconsistent with his main
thesis—namely, that evolution is leading to a global intelligence.  That is, in the case of human
evolution, the complexity of different cultural ways of knowing, which are adapted in many instances
to the characteristics of their bioregion, is to replaced by a machine mediated global intelligence.  In
other words, cultural evolution is to be guided by an opposite set of design criteria.
               Gregory Stock also presents a picture of an evolutionary process that leads from a wide
array of tradition-oriented cultures to a hybrid of computer and biological processes he calls
“Metaman.”  Holding a Ph.D. in biophysics from Johns Hopkins University, Stock lays out the
evidence of an evolutionary process, which moved from diverse cultures dependent upon a human
brain and augmented by intergenerational knowledge to a global form of intelligence.  Unlike Dyson,
Stock is aware of cultural differences. But he brings the prejudices of the scientist, as well as those of
the modern urban thinker, to his interpretation of them.  The following quotations both provide the
evidence he uses to justify his claim that we are evolving a global intelligence, and the stages of its
development.
Toward Global Culture
A few centuries ago, the world brimmed with rich, distinctive cultural traditions. Not only were
Zulus, Eskimos, Maoris, and other nature cultures still largely isolated from outside influences,
but differences between developed lands were pronounced. Today such diversity is mostly a
thing of the past. 1993, p. 99
Human-Machines Hybrids
As the nature of human beings begins to change, so will concepts of what it means to be human.
One day humans will be composite beings: part biological, part mechanical, part electronic…. p.
152
The human ‘form’ will instead come to represent a broad variety of potent hybrids between
biology and technology—beings that can only survive with Metaman. p. 171
      From Human Brain to Global Mind
66
Continually sensing, transferring, and manipulating information, Metaman does more than just
shuffle and store data.  Metaman interprets and processes it.  In essence, Metaman actually
‘thinks’ by using a ‘brain’ that is literally all around us.  And that brain contains within it the
functional equivalent of the global ‘memory’ housing all humanity’s accumulated knowledge.
1993, pp. 84-85.
Scientists supposedly only deal with facts derived from empirical evidence, and leave to others the
non-empirical realm of values. But this is not the case with Stock.  He uses evolution, and thus the
authority of science, to cloak a series of value judgments that have important ideological
implications.
              For example, his statement about cultural diversity being a thing of the past is not based on
scientific evidence, but represents a value laden interpretation that reflects the western assumption
that development is a linear process—moving from a wide range of indigenous cultures to a
progressive, technologically developed modern culture.  In effect, Stock is attempting to give
scientific legitimation to a continuation of the western project of global colonization.  Instead of using
the godwords of “progress” and “modernization,” he uses the supposedly non-political language of
evolution to explain how Metaman will end up with a western, liberal/technologically oriented
mindset.
                 The question that needs to be asked is: What is the scientific basis for the decision that the
members of other cultures should not have a voice in deciding whether they want to be transformed
by western technology into the futuristic hybrid envisioned by Stock?  What scientific evidence exists
that supports the claim that Metaman will be better adapted , and thus have a more sustainable future
than the members of cultures that have accumulated a complex understanding of the limits and
possibilities of their bioregions—and have developed over many generations complex ways of
communicating this knowledge and the moral framework it is embedded in?  Stock, like Moravec and
Dyson, lacks an understanding of when science becomes an ideology, and how the ideology is rooted
in liberal traditions of thinking.
                Ray Kurzweil’s prediction of how computers are going to evolve beyond humans is even
more remarkable—and disturbing.  Like the others, his predictions must be seen as an indirect way of
identifying what is worth preserving.  His book, The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers
Exceed Human Intelligence(1999), is based on the same assumptions held by the Moravec, Dyson,
and Stock: namely, that humans will have no influence over their own relationship with technology;
67
that the diverse cultures are irrelevant to how the process of natural selection will select computers
over humans as the unit of survival; and that the ecological crisis will play no part in the direction of
evolutionary change.  Kurzweil is equally silent about the importance of what cannot be digitized
other than as an abstract text. The importance of face-to-face, contextual, and metaphorically layered
ways of knowing unique to different cultures are totally irrelevant for the simple reason that they
represent an evolutionary dead-end, like the dinosaur.  According to Kurzweil,  computers will have
human-like personalities indistinguishable from people we know today.  They will also have a
human-like capacity for religious experience. As his techno-optimism seems too over the edge to
have been taken seriously by a publisher, let along intelligent readers, it is again necessary to read his
predictions in his own words.
        On downloading the human mind into a computer:
             Objectively, when we scan someone’s brain and reinstantiate their personal mind file into a
suitable computer medium, the newly emergent ‘person’ will appear to other observers to have
very much the same personality, history, and memory as the person originally scanned.
Interacting with the newly instantiated person will feel like interacting with the original person.
The new person will claim to be that same old person and will have a memory of having been
that person, having grown up in Brooklyn, having walked into a scanner here, and woken up in
the machine there.  He’ll say ‘Hey, this technology really works.’ (1999, p. 125)
On the end of mortality:
Actually there won’t be mortality by the end of the twenty-first century.  Not in the sense that we
have known it.  Not if you take advantage of the twenty-first century’s brain-porting technology.
Up until now, our mortality was tied to the longevity of our hardware.  When the hardware
crashed, that was it. For many of our forebears, the hardware gradually deteriorated before it
disintegrated….As we cross the divide to instantiate ourselves in our computational technology,
our identity will be based on our evolving mind file….Our immortality will be a matter of being
sufficiently careful to make frequent backups.  If we’re careless about this, we’ll have to load an
old backup copy and be doomed to repeat our recent past. (pp. 128-129)
On virtual houses of worship for spiritual machines:
68
              Neuroscientists from the University of California at San Diego have found what they call the
God module, a tiny locus of nerve cells in the frontal lobe that appears to be activated during
religious experiences….When we can determine the neurological correlates of the variety of
spiritual experiences our species is capable of, we are likely to be able to enhance these
experiences in the same way we will enhance other human experiences.  With the next stage of
evolution creating a new generation of humans that will be trillions of time more capable and
complex than humans today, our ability for spiritual experience and insight is also likely to gain
in power and depth….Twenty-first century machines—based on the design of human
thinking—will do as their human progenitors have done—going to real and virtual houses of
worship, meditating, praying, and transcending—to connect with their spiritual dimension. pp.
152-153
If we were to take Kurzweil seriously, decisions about what needs to be conserved in order to live
more ecologically sustianable lives will be made in the future by computers capable of updating their
software in ways that take account of every micro and macro change in the layered and multiple
ecosystems that are so complex that scientists are only now beginning to partially understand them.
In effect, it doesn’t matter how much humans misuse the environment, as computers will have the
capacity to process trillions of bits of information and thus keep all human and natural systems in
balance.  Contrary to current pessimism about the efficacy of the political process to reach
international agreements on curbing environmentally destructive practices, Kurzweil and the other
techno-utopians hold out the promise that computers will shortly be taking over and, like a totally
benevolent God, will restore the Garden of Eden to its original harmony.  Indeed, they share Kevin
Kelly’s faith that while everything “out of our control” Nature will ensure that the fittest survive. In
order not to leave the impression that computer scientists are the only ones with a special proclivity
for expressing their hubris in ways that lead to interpreting evolution as having politically totalitarian
implications, it will be useful to consider E. O. Wilson’s more mainstream interpretation of evolution.
Gene-Culture Co-Evolution
While evolution is being increasingly used as the primary explanatory framework in disciplines as
wide ranging as anthropology and psychology, we find the broadest claims being made on its behalf
by E. O. Wilson who is being acclaimed as one of the nation’s leading scientists and environmental
spokesman.  By extending the theory of evolution in ways that explain culture as having a genetic
69
basis, and thus guided by Nature’s test of genetic fitness, his writings undermine the efforts of
educational reformers to address the cultural roots of the ecological crisis.  Thus, it is important to
consider how his extrapolations support the cultural forces now undermining the self-renewing
capacity of natural systems.  It is also important to examine the double bind inherent not only in
Wilson’s thinking but in the futuristic prescriptions of other evolution-oriented scientists.
       This critique of Wilson is not intended in any way to diminish the significance of his scientific
research and publications.  But his efforts to establish a new discipline of sociobiology, which is to
provide empirical evidence of the biological basis of human behavior and cultural norms, is more
problematic—and thus deserving of criticism.  In the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition of
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (2000), Wilson summarizes what is needed to make the final
separation between scientific and pre-scientific knowledge.
         To grasp human nature objectively, to explore it to the depths scientifically and to
comprehend its manifestations by cause-and-effect explanations leading from biology into
culture, would be to approach if not attain the grail of scholarship, and to fulfill the dreams
of the Enlightenment….human nature as the epigenetic rules, the inherited regularities of
mental development.  These rules are the genetic biases in the way our senses perceive the
world, the symbolic coding by which our brains represent the world, the options we open to
ourselves, and the responses we find easiest and most rewarding to make.  pp. vii-viii
As he puts it in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998), the genes that predispose people to
think and act in certain ways are governed by the process of natural selection.  While he appears to
grant culture a role in the process of evolution by using the phrase “gene-culture co-evolution,” the
reality, as he puts it, is that “the consistent guiding force is natural selection.”   He goes on to explain
that the “genes that confer higher survival and reproductive success on organisms bearing them,
through the prescribed traits of autonomy, physiology, and behavior, increase in population from one
generation to the next.  Those that do not, decrease” (p. 129).
  As this reductionist explanation has especially important implications for environmentalists
and educators who are considering how different cultural beliefs and practices impact the
environment, it is important that the conceptual foundations of what Wilson is representing as the
new paradigm for understanding cultural change be examined more closely.  In Consilience, he
states that “today the greatest divide within humanity is not between races or religions, or even, as
widely believed, between literate and illiterate.  It is the chasm that separates scientific from
70
prescientific cultures” (p. 45).  He goes on to claim that “science for its part will test relentlessly
every assumption about the human condition and in time uncover the bedrock of the moral and
religious sentiments” (p265).  Scientific knowledge, which Wilson calls the “true scientific epic”
thus provides the best chance of human survival.  But human survival will require the religions of
the world to adopt a secular interpretation of the human epic that is in accordance with the findings
of science.  In effect, Wilson is claiming that only a science-based religion will meet the test of
natural selection.
Many of Wilson’s admirers in the environmental movement are likely to claim that he
acknowledges that culture plays a role in process of human/cultural evolution.  Given his
environmental contributions, they are also likely to ignore the implications of his epistemological
universalism: that is, that science provides the only legitimate pathway to knowledge. Given this
tendency to ignoreWilson’s proclivity for sweeping generalizations, it is all the more important to
consider closely how he explains the genetic basis of the mind, as well as the epigenetic rules that
guide the formation of culture.
Wilson’s understanding of the mind is especially important.  In his chapter on “The Mind,”
he writes that “all that has been learned empirically about evolution in general and mental processes
in particular suggest that the brain is a machine assembled not to understand itself, but to survive”
(1998, p. 96).  He goes on to claim that “the surest way to grasp complexity in the brain, as in any
other biological system, is to think of it as an engineering problem” (1998, p. 102).  His use of a
mechanistic metaphor for representing the brain, as well as his suggestion that the brain needs to be
approached as an engineering problem, needs to be considered within the context where the guiding
values will be derived not from traditional religion, but from the “true evolutionary epic.”   That is,
the brain should not only be understood, but also engineered in terms of what contributes to survival
within the long-term time frame that Nature requires to separate the fit from the unfit.  While he does
not advocate eugenics, his rejection of non-scientifically based values as well as his reference to
thinking of the brain as an engineering problem certainly opens the door for scientists who want to
speed up the rate of Nature’s design process.
      Wilson’s explanation of the genetic basis of the epigenetic rules that filter and code stimuli in
sense organisms, and guide the formation of behavior and culture, also needs to be challenged.  As
he explains it,
71
The genes prescribing the epigenetic rules of brain and behavior are only segments of giant
molecules.  They feel nothing, care for nothing, intend nothing.  Their role is simply to
trigger the sequence of chemical reactions within the highly structured fertilized cell that
orchestrate epigenesis.  Their writ extends to the level of molecule, cell, and organ.  This
early stage of epigenesis, consisting of a series of sequential physicochemical reactions,
culminates in the self-assembly of the sensory system and the brain.  Only then, when the
organism is completed, does mental activity appear as an emergent process. The brain is a
product of the very highest levels of biological order, which are constrained by epigenetic
rules implicit in the organism’s anatomy and physiology.   1998, p. 165, italics added
As I read this statement, the sequences of chemical reactions triggered by the genes prescribe the
epigenetic rules that govern the  self-assembly of the sensory system and brain.  But following the
statement where Wilson asserts that the brain is the product of the highest levels of biological order
he introduces the idea of gene-culture co-evolution.  Witness the constitutive role he assigns the
brain, which follows the last sentence in the above quotation:
Working in a chaotic flood of environmental stimuli, it (the brain) sees and listens, plans its
own future. By that means the brain determines the fate of the genes that prescribed it.
Across evolutionary time, the aggregate choices of many brains determine the Darwinian fate
of everything human—the genes, the epigenetic rules, the communicating minds, and the
culture. p. 165
These two segments of his explanation of the casual relationship between genes and the brain
represent the most important paragraph in his book.  First, it asserts without any scientific evidence
that the brain, including all the activities of the brain –metaphorical thinking, memory, conscious
awareness, the meta-cognitive schemata shared with other members of the culture, experience of
meaning, value judgments, intentionality, sense of identity—are the product of physio-chemical
reactions.  Having made this claim, which would also have to account for differences in cultural
ways of knowing, including all the brain implicated experiences listed above, he then reverses
himself by stating that the aggregate choices of many brains determine the Darwinian fate of
everything human—which he lists as the genes and epigenetic rules that he early describes as
responsible for the self-assembly of the sensory system and brain
        In Biology as Ideology (1992), R. C. Lewontin sums up the problematic logic of Wilson’s
sociobiology as “genes make individuals, individuals have particular preferences and behaviors, the
72
collection of preferences and behaviors make culture, and so genes make culture” (p. 14).  Even
though Wilson rejects being classified as a genetic determinist, Lewontin’s summary needs to be
compared with Wilson’s own statement about “the genes prescribing the epigenetic rules of brain
and behavior are only segments of giant molecules” (1998, p. 165).  Wilson’s description of the
“brain’s machinery,”  and what he elsewhere describes as the “brain-machine, which is made up of
cells, also needs to be taken into account in assessing the correctness of Lewontin’s summary.  As
Wilson put it,
What we call meaning is the linkage among the neural networks created by the spreading
excitation that enlarges imagery and engages emotion.  The competitive selection among
scenarios is what we call decision-making.  The outcome, in terms of the match of the
winning scenarios to instinctive or learned favorable states, sets the kind and intensity of
subsequent emotion.  The persistent form and intensity of emotions is called mood.  The
ability of the brain to generate novel scenarios and settle on the most effective among them is
called creativity. 1998, p. 115
       The cells that are the basis of the neural networks that make all of this happen, to reiterate
Wilson’s causal linkages, are the genes that prescribe the epigenetic rules that, in turn, prescribe the
physiochemical processes within the brain that lead to the experience of meaning, creativity, and so
on.  To put this another way, these mental processes, that is, the configurations of the brain-machine
best suited to survive over generations, are governed by Nature’s design process that we know as
natural selection.
Again it must be pointed out that Wilson’s attempt to avoid the criticism of genetic
determinism is like a verbal shell game. His argument that genes create brains,  and that brains
determine the survivability of the genes and the epigenetic rules governing brains and behavior is
circular, and has no basis in scientific evidence. Wilson is simply trying to explain away the
contradiction inherent in his theory.  And he needs the reader to assume that his authority as a much
acclaimed scientist carries over into the complex domain of the world’s diverse cultures.  In spite of
Wilson’s gift as a writer and as respected scientists, the reader needs to keep in mind that his attempt
to represent the brain and culture as co-determinants in the evolutionary process, it is always, as he
also claims, the genetic make-up of humans and, more importantly, the other organisms that
constitutes the environment that culls the weak from the strong.  As Wilson puts it: “the brains that
73
choose wisely possess superior Darwinian fitness, meaning that statistically they survive longer and
leave more offspring than brains that choose badly” (1998, p. 165).
The basic inconsistency in Wilson’s thinking, and in the thinking of environmentalists who
take him seriously, can also be seen in the following statement. In the introduction to the anniversary
edition of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Wilson writes that “conservation, as I have long
believed, is ultimately an ethical issue.”  Ignoring what he has written elsewhere about the genetic
basis of moral sentiments, Wilson goes on to claim that “moral precepts in turn must be based on
sound, objective knowledge of human nature” (p. viii). The immediate question might be: If moral
sentiments are genetically encoded, what purpose would be served by acquiring a “sound, objective
knowledge of human nature”?  It appears that Wilson is retreating to  the old view of rationality as a
force that can shape the course of Nature.  This leads to another question: How can a scientist or
anyone else acquire objective knowledge of human nature if they unavoidably rely upon the
cognitive schemata encoded in the language of their cultural group?  The cognitive schemata that is a
taken-for-granted in Wilson’s thinking, and can be traced back to Johannes Kepler’s mechanistic
way of understanding the universe, can be seen in Wilson’s representation of the brain as a
mechanism—and as an engineering problem. Wilson also takes-for-granted the cultural cognitive
schemata that represents change as linear and progressive in nature—which leads him to see
scientific knowledge as representing a progressive advance over the knowledge of so called “pre-
scientific cultures.” The irony inherent in this cultural pattern of thinking is that Wilson argues, as
we later shall see, that scientifically based knowledge should be the basis of a world monoculture,
which will require the disappearance of diversity in cultural ways of knowing.   Given that natural
selection does not move in a linear, progressive direction, and that it is the dynamic source of
biological diversity, Wilson’s argument that the world’s cultures should be based on assumptions
that have been scientifically tested reproduces the long-held western myth that cultures can progress
only when they adopt the high-status knowledge of the West.  If Wilson were to be consistent in his
extrapolations, he should be arguing for cultural diversity, just in case a scientifically based culture is
unable to adapt to future environmental changes.
This criticism of Wilson is likely to take most readers by surprise, as he continually writes
about the importance of biodiversity to our future survival.   His writings on the importance of
biodivesity are both eloquent and well documented.  If one only reads the final chapter of
Consilience where Wilson discusses the different dimensions of the ecological crisis, and even
74
expresses deep reservations about the genetic engineering of human traits, he comes across as one of
the nation’s preeminent environmentalists.  His work with Nature Conservancy further strengthens
this impression.  But his extrapolations on the theory of evolution, particularly his reductionist
explanation of culture, raises serious questions about whether he has created a powerful
metanarrative (ideology) that will be used by the promoters of economic and technological
globalization.  I think, on balance, that his extrapolations will further strengthen the integration of
scientific research into the corporate culture that is the engine driving the globalization of the
western mind-set that equates consumerism with success and happiness.  His writings also give
legitimacy to the western idea that winners are the fittest—an idea that has its roots in an earlier
phase of Darwinian thinking about the fate of cultures that were being colonized. To reiterate a point
that Wilson continually makes, the reproductive success of future generations is the ultimate test of
genetic fitness—which to the public and heads of corporations sounds like another way of saying
that Nature dictates the “survival of the fittest.”  It is interesting that Wilson avoids using this phrase,
but nevertheless gives it a renewed sense of legitimacy.
The Brian Swimme/Thomas Berry Interpretation of Evolution
The third interpretation of evolution, or what Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry call the
“universe story” is gaining a significant following among certain sectors of the religious community,
the general public, and educational theorists such as Edmund O’Sullivan.  Neither Swimme nor
Berry are scientists, which may account for why they give their account of evolution a more spiritual
interpretation.  Swimme earned his doctorate in mathematics, having written his dissertation on
“Singularities in the N Body Problem,” and is now Director of the Center for the Story of the
Universe at the California Institute of Integral Studies.  Thomas Berry founded the History of
Religion Program at Fordham University, and served as President of the American Teilhard de
Chardin Association.  Together they wrote The Universe Story (1992), which is both a history of the
origin of the universe and the development of life on earth, and of the developmental stages of
human culture.
The Universe Story is meant to be more than the narrativization of the universe’s 15 billion
year history. Rather, the main purpose of Swimme and Berry is to place the ecological crisis within
the larger context of the life forming processes that have led to the biologically diverse world as we
now know it. Their concern is that the modern industrial approach to production and consumption
now threaten to destroy the natural systems that human life depends upon.   Whereas the other two
75
interpretations of evolution suggest that human decisions are irrelevant, Swimme and Berry see
humans as at a critical juncture.  In effect, they argue that the future direction that evolution will take
depends upon whether humans choose entering a new era they call the Ecozoic phase of evolution or
continue to perpetuate the life-destroying Technozoic era.  The Ecozoic era, they point out, will
require a fundamental transformation of consciousness, one that recognizes that the entire planet is
interdependent and governed by the same life producing forces. This transformation of
consciousness will also require, as they put it, that “the human community becomes sacred through
its participation in the larger planetary community” (1992, p. 257).
Their view that human choice will determine whether evolution will follow the path dictated
by either the Technozoic and Ecozoic era, as well as their appeal for a change in human
consciousness, leads inevitably to a discussion of the role that education should play.  And in
suggesting that education has a role to play in contributing to a more ecologically sustainable future,
they are again departing from the geneocentric interpretation of evolution articulated by Wilson and
the computer-centric interpretation of Moravec, Dyson, and Kurzweil.  The argument of Swimme
and Berry that human agency can direct the future course of evolution represents a radical departure
from the more widely accepted view that the environment selects the life forms that are to survive
and reproduce themselves through future generations.  Thus they need to explain the process of
evolution in a way that allows for the efficacy of human choice. And they do this by introducing the
idea that evolution is based on what they call the “Cosmological Principle.”  This principle, they
claim, is characterized by “differentiation, autopoiesis, and communion throughout time and space
and at every level of reality” (p. 71).
        Differentiation is simply another term for the process of mutation and niche selection, and is a
core feature of the mainstream interpretation of evolution articulated by Wilson and Richard
Dawkins (1976). Autopoiesis, which refers to the self-organizing characteristics of all organisms, is
also essential to the mainstream interpretation of evolution.  But communion is not.  Swimme and
Berry summarize the nature of communion as being related—“for relationship is the essence of
existence” (p. 77). This understanding of communion (relationships) as a defining characteristic of
life could have been achieved by using the word ecology,  However, the use of communion has a
more theological connotation that is essential to their way of framing citizenship within the Ecozoic
era.  They also want to go beyond just introducing a religious theme: they want the principle of
communion to frame how evil is understood.  As they put it:
76
The loss of relationship, with its consequent alienation, is a kind of supreme evil in the
universe.  In the religious world this loss was traditionally understood as an ultimate mystery.
To be locked up in a private world, to be cut off from intimacy with other beings , to be
incapable of entering into the joy of mutual presence—such conditions were taken as the
essence of damnation. p. 78
       Swimme and Berry suggest that there is another characteristic of evolution that has been
overlooked in the other interpretations.  That is, they explain the process whereby natural selection
fits an organism to a particular niche in a way that invests the organism with intentional choice.
Their example is the evolution of the horse and the bison, which they claim involved a choice on the
part of the horse to evolve in a way that made survival dependent upon speed of movement.  The
bison evolved its more massive physical features by making the choice to stand and confront its
enemies. Unlike the two previous interpretations of evolution being considered here, Swimme and
Berry need to introduce intentional choice into the process of natural selection in order to make the
case that humans have a choice between a Technozoic-life-destroying future and an Ecozoic-life-
sustaining future.
       It is especially important to note that the introduction of communion and choice  as essential
features of evolution are not found in the mainstream scientific version of evolution.  We have only
to recall Wilson’s explanation of how genes carry the instructions that give organisms their
distinctive form and capabilities—including mental processes that produce culture.  Wilson
attempted to avoid presenting a form of genetic determinism by suggesting that genes co-evolved
with culture, but he constantly follows his gene-culture co-evolution with statements such as the
following.
           Thousands of genes prescribe the brain, sensory system and all the other physiological
processes that interact with the physical and social environment to produce the holistic
properties of mind and culture. Through natural selection, the environment ultimately selects
which genes will do the prescribing. 1998, p. 137 italics added
It is also important to note that Swimme and Berry also acknowledge natural selection as “life’s
power to sculpt diversity in a creative fashion” (p. 127). In another statement that is consistent with
the mainstream theory of evolution they write that “natural selection is a survival of the ‘fittest’ in
the sense that the genes enabling one particular phenotype to succeed relative to all others are
selected and passed on” (p. 128).
77
The problem that Swimme and Berry do not address is how to reconcile human choice with
the amoral, non-rational dynamics of natural selection—which Swimme and Berry acknowledge as
dictating the survival of the fittest .  Another problem they overlook is that human choice and
communion occur within a human time frame that is profoundly different from the time frame within
which natural selection works.  The efforts of Swimme and Berry to humanize the inexorable
dynamics of natural selection thus seem little more than wishful thinking that may or may not have
any influence on meeting the test of natural selection.  Perhaps the predictions of Moravec, Stock
and the other techno- utopians that computers will replace humans will prove to be more accurate.
Nature (the interplay between genes and the environment) may not reward the efforts of
environmentalists, but instead reward the corporations working to impose a monoculture of taste and
values on the world.  It may even be possible that Nature’s fittest will prove, over time, to be the
dictators who do not flinch at imposing repressive policies on the weakest members of their
societies.  In short, even if one accepts that evolution can governs cultural developments, the life-
span of individuals who make judgments about what represents the outcome of natural selection in
the area of culture is too limited to accurately predict what Nature has selected for survival.
       Having accepted evolution as the total explanatory framework , Swimme and Berry have no
real basis for claiming that human choice can influence the outcome of natural selection.  Swimme,
for example, sees not contradiction in basing the following statement on an evolutionary account of
the survival of the fittest:
The center of the cosmos is each event in the cosmos. Each person lives in the
                         center of the cosmos. Science is one of the careful and detailed methods by which the human
mind came to grasp the fact of the universe’s beginning, but the actual origin and birthplace
is not a scientific idea; the actual origin of the universe is where you live your life. 1996. p.
112 italics in the original
Swimme’s life-affirming words may appeal to members of the affluent middle class who are
searching for a sense of meaning in an increasingly materialistic world, but they seem to be more
New Age than consistent with the evolutionary paradigm that is the basis of their story of the
universe. Indeed, his statement suggests that every kind of behavior is what the cosmos is doing, and
that the cosmos will sort out the fittest from the rest.
78
Ideological and Educational Implications
      It needs to be recognized at the outset that adopting any of the three theories of evolution
contributes to extending the explanatory power of science into the symbolic domain of culture.  For
all its contributions to improving the quality of live, and to expanding our knowledge of natural
phenomena, the scientific mode of inquiry is too limited to explain the evolutionary basis of
mythopoetic narratives, meaning, values, and daily practices of different cultures.  The claim that
cultural patterns are “memes” that are determined in the micro-ecologies within which genes pass on
their life building instructions simply reflects the hubris of scientists who do not recognize the
limitations of science.
There are, however, other reasons for caution in adopting any of the three explanations of
cultural evolution.  A careful examination of the computer-centric and  genocentric interpretations
of evolution, as well as the universe story of Swimme and Berry, brings out an important limitation
in their thinking.  Namely, all three envision evolution leading to a world monoculture.  The Wilson
and the Swimme/Berry interpretations are sensitive to the ecological crisis, yet both of their
accounts are based on assumption that, regardless of cultural developments, it is Nature that selects
the fittest to survive. Wilson wants to make scientists the ultimate judge of which cultural beliefs
and patterns will meet the test of Darwinian fitness.  Swimme and Berry envision the world’s
cultures organizing themselves to fit the “single story” of the evolution of the universe. “The
primary purpose of education,” according to them, “should be to enable individual humans to fulfill
their proper role in this larger pattern of meaning”.  They go on to claim that “we can understand
this role in the Great Story only if we know this story in its full dimensions” (1992, 256).  While
Swimme claims that “each person lives in the center of the cosmos” may suggest that cultural
diversity is part of the unfolding of the cosmos, the underlying epistemological framework is the
theory of evolution of western science. In effect, Swimme and Berry are claiming that there is only
one story, and, by extension, that the stories of other cultures are to be abandoned in favor of the
one that claims that natural selection “shapes life at a fundamental level” (127). Their references to
Muslim, Hindu, and Confucian cultures might suggest to the casual reader that they are committed
to a culturally diverse world. Nevertheless, it needs to be kept in mind that the main theme they
keep coming back to throughout the book is that western science has given us the only true
story—that life and culture are formed through natural selection.
79
Aside from the failure of all three theories to account for how cultures reproduce themselves
in ways that are consistent with their mythopoetic narratives, and for how many oral cultures have
attained a far more ecologically-centered existence than the supposedly more advanced western
cultures, there is the even more serious problem of expanding the theory of evolution into a total
explanatory framework.  The micro level of natural selection, where better genes produce better
organisms that are able to reproduce themselves over many generations, can too easily lead to the
extrapolation that at the macro level the better memes (cultural beliefs and patterns) have met the
test of natural selection and become encoded in the institutions that represent the cutting edge of the
evolutionary process.  That is, the scientific account of why some organisms survive while others
do not is easily translated into an ideology, as we have witnessed since the latter part of the
nineteenth century, that justifies the destruction of local self-reliant cultural traditions in the name
of progress.
While ideologies do their work in the immediate here and now, natural selection works over
a longer time frame than what humans can individually experience.  Humans simply cannot
determine what will survive over the long term, but they can find in the theory of natural selection
the metaphors that legitimize their activities and institutions as being consistent with Nature’s design
process.  These metaphor include “competitive,” “better adapted,” “fittest,” and, now, “sustainable.”
These metaphors can easily be incorporated into the language of Classical Liberalism, which is the
guiding ideology underlying the west’s economic systems.
In today’s world, arguments for globalizing a consumer/technology dependent lifestyle, the
right of the WTO to nullify the process of democratic decision making at all levels of government,
and the right of corporations to destroy the economic basis of local communities and the resource
base of Third World cultures, can all be justified on the grounds that the basic life forming processes
are being expressed when the strong (the fittest) displace the weakest (the unfit).  Swimme’s mantra
(“the center of the cosmos is each event in the cosmos’) can easily be adopted by heads of
corporations and the decision makers in the WTO and World Bank.
It is unfortunate that Swimme and Berry chose evolution as an explanatory framework for
suggesting that the direction of cultural development in the West needs to be changed.  By
suggesting that choice, communion, and an ecologically sustainable form of consciousness are
subject to the process of natural selection, they give support to an updated and thus supposedly more
scientifically rigorous version of Social Darwinism.  If the environment determines the fittest, then
80
choice becomes what markets dictate, communion becomes the sense of participating in an
interconnected global economy, and sustainability becomes a matter of beating back competitors by
exploiting cheaper labor and the natural resources of Third World cultures.  They could have made a
stronger case for alerting the public to the dangers of following the present course of experimental
and unrestrained technological development, and for their understanding of the changes that will
lead to lifestyles governed by a deep commitment to moral reciprocity between humans, between
humans and Nature, and between cultures.  The ideas of Gregory Bateson, the literature on different
cultural approaches to revitalizing their traditions of self-sufficiency, and the critiques of how
international economic agreements  are undermining local democratic traditions and patterns of self-
reliance would have provided the insights, evidence, and sense of hope that Swimme and Berry want
to engender through their story of the universe.  Instead of the omnipresent background message that
Nature decides, the reader would have encountered examples of on-the-ground efforts of people in
different cultural contexts to live less ecologically destructive lives.
Implications for Educational Reforms
Most educational advocates of constructivist learning are preparing students for participation
in the global monoculture that requires constant change. These theorists contribute to the modern
mind-set that experiences change as the norm, and as the expression of progress.  Indeed, their
respective process approaches to education are claimed to be the well-spring of new ideas and values
that will accelerate the rate of change.  Their continual references to the reconstruction of experience
and to transformative learning indicates that these educational theorists, in effect, share the same
view of constant change that underlies all three interpretations of evolution.  They also share in
common with the three interpretations of evolution the assumption that their prescriptions for reform
are to be universally applied.  While they may give lip service to cultural diversity, they assume that
their assumptions about the progressive nature of change, individualism, ongoing emancipation, and
an anthropocentric world view are shared by all cultures.  And like the interpreters of evolution they
assume that they speak for all the world’s cultures.
What is needed today are not educational reforms based on the same deep cultural
assumptions that underlie the current phase of economic globalization and cultural
colonization—twin processes that are undermining linguistic/cultural diversity and are accelerating
the destruction of natural systems.  Educational reform should, instead, address issues connected
with eco-justice that have implications for all cultures.  The irony is that eco-justice is not based on
81
the logic of Darwinian fitness where the contingencies of the environment select which organism
and corporation is to reproduce itself over generations to come.  Rather, it is oriented toward
addressing the plight of what from a Darwinian point of view would be viewed as the weakest
groups in society and the most vulnerable cultures.
The four principles of eco-justice that should be the focus of educational reform include: (1)
addressing the nature, causes, and strategies for eliminating environmental racism; (2) affecting
basic reforms that will end the exploitation of the South by the North; (3) revitalizing the non-
commodified traditions of self-reliance within different communities and cultural groups that will
reduce dependence on industrially produced goods and services; and (4) ensuring that today’s
cultural practices do not degrade the environment in ways the diminish the prospects of future
generations.  Each of these areas of educational reform can be justified as contributing to an
ecologically sustainable future, but they do not fit with Wilson’s explanation of how genes create a
range of possibilities that the environment, in turn, will select for survival—which, in the final
analysis, Swimme and Berry also subscribe to.
As mentioned earlier, the three interpretations of evolution emphasize that change is a
constant, which is easily interpreted to mean that cultures undergoing rapid change are in a constant
state of adapting to the contingencies of the environment.  On the other hand, cultures oriented to
conserving beliefs, practices and place-based technologies are viewed as backward,
undeveloped—and as colonizing opportunities. Conserving cultures, even those that are
ecologically-centered, are thus seen as on the verge of extinction.  Yet, the only effective resistance
to the current global expansion of the industrial mode of production and consumption is in local
traditions of face-to-face, intergenerationally connected activities and forms of knowledge that have
not been monetized.  These community revitalizing traditions vary from culture to culture, and are
under pressure from the products of transnational corporations geared to overwhelm their
competition in real short-term tests of survival of technologically and economically  fittest.  As the
cultural environments become increasingly shaped by these transnational corporations, asking the
question “What do we need to conserve in an era of ecological uncertainty?”  appears to be an
irrelevant if not a reactionary question.  But this is the very question that is at the center of an eco-
justice and community building approach to educational reform.
The condition of hyper-consumerism that now exists in North America, and is now upheld as
the standard that other developed and non-developed cultures should aspire to, is a major contributor
82
to environmental racism, the exploitation of the South by the North, and to putting the prospects of
future generations at risk.  Hyper-consumerism and the constant search for new technologies and
exploitable niche markets are also responsible for the amount of toxic waste that gets dumped in the
neighborhoods of the most vulnerable groups in society.  The rapid depletion of natural resources,
which requires exploiting the resource base of Third World cultures can also be traced back to the
hyper-consumerism that is now the norm in North America.  The problem is that the need to
continually expand markets in order to expand production and profits requires that cultural traditions
of self-sufficiency be undermined, as we are witnessing in the industrial approach to agriculture
being promoted in Third World cultures that requires the purchase of fertilizers, pesticides, and, in
many instances, seeds for next year’s planting.  To cite another example, the industrialization of food
preparation and consumption (e.g., MacDonalds, KFC, etc.) disrupts the passing on of
intergenerational knowledge about the preparation of food and the face-to-face experience of
families sharing their stories with each other over a meal.  If we examine all the cultural disruptive
characteristics of hyper-consumerism we find the what the industrialization of life processes requires
is the autonomous individual that western approaches to education have also made their goal.
An eco-justice approach to education can address the ecologically disruptive level of
consumerism by orienting the curriculum more towards revitalizing the intergenerational forms of
knowledge, skills, and activities that represent alternatives to a consumer dependent lifestyle.  Thus,
the importance of asking what it is in the various communities and cultural groups that needs to be
conserved—in the areas of food preparation, ceremonies, healing, the arts, sports, craft knowledge,
patterns of mutual aid, and so forth.  Students need to do a survey of just how many aspects of daily
life involve some form of monetized relationships and activity.  And they need to engage in a survey
of the aspects of the different communities and cultural groups that involve non-monetized
relationships and activities. They may find mentors in the various arts, gardening, sports, use of
place-based technologies, story-telling, and so forth that will lead to the development of the students’
interests and talents—and that reduce the need to work long hours in minimum wage jobs that leave
little or no time for participating in community networks.  Unfortunately, the eco-justice reforms that
follow from reducing the today’s out-of-control consumerism are going to be difficult to achieve,
partly because the intergenerational knowledge that need to be revitalized has been accorded low
status by public schools and universities.
83
Yet revitalizing the local knowledge of self-sufficiency, both within western and non-western
cultures is absolutely essential if we are to slow the current rate at which the world’s 6000 or so
languages are disappearing—along with the knowledge they encode of local ecosystems.  The
emphasis on change, and being the dominant culture in the Darwinian game of survival of the fittest,
puts these ecologically-centered cultures at great risk.  With their disappearance, the industrial model
of production and consumption gains in strength and momentum.  The danger in Wilson’s
genocentric argument can be seen if the logic of his position is spelled out: the genes that give rise to
brains that are more competitive in creating new technologies and expand markets by undermining
intergenerational traditions of self-reliance are the major contributors to developing a world
monoculture and to turning the environment into toxic waste.
The suggestion that we need a major change in consciousness, particularly in western
cultures, is likely to run into stiff opposition—even from environmentalists and community activists.
The problem is that for generations the promoters of the industrial model of production and
consumption have been identified with conservatism, even though their ideas and values have their
roots in the Classical Liberal tradition of John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and a misreading of Adam
Smith.  The ideas of these founding fathers of liberalism was given further legitimization by Social
Darwin theorists such as Herbert Spencer.  The need today is not for the global expansion of this
tradition of thinking, but for an understanding of how to achieve a better balance between
community-centered traditions of self-sufficiency and reliance on technological advances that make
a genuine contribution to improving the quality of life within different cultures. Educational reforms
need to be based on an understanding of how the curriculum can best provide students with the
knowledge and values necessary for assessing the impact of new technologies on the environment
and on the traditions of self-reliance within different cultures.  Contrary to the conventional wisdom
held by most educational reformers, asking the question “What do we need to conserve as the world
moves closer to overshooting the capacity of natural systems?” is essential to democratic decision
making.  Reliance on a theory of natural selection that explains how the diversity of life has evolved
from primitive to complex, and how certain cultures will survive while others will not, makes the
question of what needs to be conserved appear to be irrelevant if not a reactionary position to hold.
The assumption that the environment selects the better adapted culture supports the western cultural
myth that equates change with progress, which is not the assumption that leads to resisting the
economic and political forces behind the process of globalizing a consumer dependent lifestyle that
84
is rapidly degrading the environment.  Resistance to these forces is at the local level, in face-to-face
relationships that involve non-monetized activities and patterns of mutual support.  And revitalizing
these intergenerationally connected patterns of community that are the basis of moral reciprocity and
ecological sustainability often represent acts of resistance to the domination of what has been
industrially produced—which to neo-liberal thinkers appears as the most culturally evolved.  Thus,
genuine curriculum reforms must not be based on any of the three theories of evolution which
become ideologies when extended into the domain of culture.  Nor can they be based on the liberal
assumptions that, in the name of progress and individual autonomy, undermined cultural sources of
resistance to the industrialization of everyday life.
References
Bowers, C. A. 2001. Educating for Eco-Justice and Community. Athens: University of Georgia
Press.
___________. Winter, 2001. “Toward and Eco-Justice Pedagogy.”  Educational Studies. Vol. 32.
No. 4. Pp. 401-416
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dyson, George. 1997. Darwin Among the Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence:
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Kelly, Kevin. 1994. Out of Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization. Reading,       Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Kurzweil, Ray. 1999. The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence.
New York: Viking Press.
Lewontin, R.C. 1992. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper.
Moravec, Hans. 1988. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
____________. December ,1999. “Rise of the Robots.” Scientific American. Vol. 281. No. 6. Pp.
124-135.
O’Sullivan, Edmund. 1999. Transformative Learning: Educational Vision for the 21st Century.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press/Zed Books.
Stock, Gregory. 1993. Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global
Superorganism. Toronto: Doubleday Canada.
85
Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
__________. 2000. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Swimme, Brian. 1996. The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos: Humanity and the New Story. Maryknoll,
NY.: Orbis Books.
Swimme, Brian, and Berry, Thomas. 1992. The Universe Story. San Francisco:
Harper/SanFrancisco.
Chapter 4 Why the Lakoff and Johnson Theory of Metaphor is Inadequate for Addressing
Cultural Issues Related to the Ecological Crises
The writings of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson were intended to radically  change one of the
dominant traditions of Western philosophy, which is the tradition of abstract theory that stretches from
the ancient Greeks down through the writings of the today’s analytic philosophers.  In place of de-
contextualized and thus culturally uniformed theories about the nature of reality, mind, language, and
individualism, Lakoff and Johnson proposed that the task of the philosopher is to clarify how the
metaphorical basis of language, and thus systems of knowing, originates in the embodied experience of
individuals.   In effect, their agenda is summed up in the title of their major book, Philosophy in the
Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought (1999).  While they make a cogent
case against the many ways in which Western philosophers have framed the process of reasoning, thus
achieving little more for humanity than giving legitimacy to their own theoretical edifices, the Lakoff
and Johnson argument that metaphorical reasoning originates in individual’s “sensorimotor experiences
so regularly they become neurally linked” (1999, p. 555) represents an equally extreme and problematic
position.  In place of the rational process that is represented as free of both cultural and embodied
experiences, they argue that the starting point of philosophy, science, and knowledge generally begins
with the individual’s perceptual and motor systems—that is, embodied experience.
The word culture occasionally appears in their writings, but they do not examine its complex
nature and diversity, and thus the implications it has for bringing into the question the Western
notion of the autonomous (that is, culturally uninfluenced) individual they take for granted—and
upon which their entire theory rests.  A word they do not mention is “ecology”.  This omission, leads
in turn, to their failure to acknowledge that today the ecological crises should frame any discussion
86
of metaphorical thinking.  What cannot be explained by their theory is why they share this oversight
with key Western philosophers who also ignored how the environments of their era werebeing
degraded.  Supposedly, the individual whose sensorimotor experiences and habituated neural
connections become the basis for framing the meaning of words (metaphors), and thus for how
relationships are understood, is unaffected by changes in the natural environment.  This is not simply
an oversight that has few if any serious implications. It becomes of paramount importance when it is
recognized that the extrapolation of the word “ecology”, which is the modernized version of the
early Greek word “oikos”, always situates the individual as a participant within a cultural and
environmental context..  It is only when the “individual” is treated as an abstraction that these
ecological relationships are ignored.  In effect, the individual’s embodied participation in this larger
ecology of relationships includes other people, the semiotic systems of the culturally constructed
world, and the complex message exchanges (what Gregory Bateson refers to as the “difference
which makes a difference”) that sustain the complex and interdependent living systems we refer to as
the natural environment.
       In order to understand the more long-term problem of locating, as Lakoff and Johnson put it,
“our conceptual system” in the individual’s “perceptual and motor systems”  (1999, p. 555), it is
necessary to summarize the changes that the Earth’s natural systems are undergoing.  It needs to be
recognized at the outset that global warming is just one aspect of the ecological crises that is not
likely to be addressed by concepts derived from the embodied experience of the individual.  Indeed,
their extreme reductionist understanding of the origins of knowledge leads to a radical difference
between what individuals would be able to learn from their embodied encounters with their local
environments and what scientists are now reporting.  For example, scientists studying the impact of
global warming have documented that the Greenland ice cap is melting at an accelerating rate, with
one glacier moving to the sea at a rate of 2 meters an hour on a 3 mile front and at a depth of 1500
meters.  The melting of the Arctic sea ice and the glaciers in the Antarctic is also accelerating at a
rate totally beyond what scientists thought possible. And the glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibet-
Qinghai Plateau that feed the major rivers in India and China are disappearing at a rate of 7 percent a
year; with glacier in other parts of the world disappearing at a similar rate. (Brown, 2008).  The basic
assumptions (listed below) of Lakoff and Johnson limit the individual’s conceptual understanding of
the environment to what they have an embodied relationship with.  The result would be that grasping
87
the world-wide consequences of global warming would be beyond the individual’s
conceptualization.
         There are other changes in the life sustaining capacity of the Earth’s ecosystems that would
also go unrecognized. In addition to the global threat to the sources of fresh water that hundreds of
millions of people face, there are similar changes in the chemistry of the world’s oceans.  As the
oceans absorb higher level of carbon dioxide they are becoming more acidic, and this change in their
chemistry as well as temperature is threatening the organism that are the basis of the ocean food
chain.  Other changes in the world’s oceans include the near extinction of many fisheries that are
vital sources of protein that hundreds of millions of people depend upon. Kolbert, 2006).   In
addition to droughts that are affecting many regions of the world, and the dying off of vast forests
due to changes in temperatures that make them vulnerable to insects, the estimated loss of the earth’s
topsoil has been put at over thirty percent.
The huge expansion of the world’s population over the last century along with the spread of
economic globalization have combined into an increasingly destructive force that is undermining the
capacity of natural systems to regenerate themselves.  Until social  philosophers and market liberals
turned Adam Smith’s theory of free markets and the “invisible hand” into an abstract and thus
universal law of economics, markets were local and integrated into the cultural fabric (including
moral norms governing reciprocity) of the world’s diverse of communities.  But this abstract theory
has now taken on the same status as the natural law of gravity, and has become a major force in
spreading the industrial/consumer dependent lifestyle that is increasing the rate of environmental
degradation.  China, for example, is becoming transformed into a consumer-oriented society, and
now is first in the production of coal, steel, and cement. It also has 16 of the world’s 20 most
polluted cities.  Their current economic downturn is being met by reducing the production of
consumer goods for export, but is being replaced by greater investment in infrastructure
projects—including the building of more coal fired electrical generating and carbon emitting plants.
These plants are being build at a rate of one very week or so. China has already consumed the forests
of Thailand, Cambodia, and the Philippines—and at the current rate will within two decades swallow
the forests of five neighboring countries, including the forests of the Russian Far East.  India, Brazil,
as well as many other countries are also on the same consumer-oriented cultural pathway of
development.  Indeed, consumerism and the adoption of Western patterns of thinking and values are
88
now associated with becoming modern and developed, and thus free of being stigmatized as
culturally backward.
As philosophers have a long history of ignoring how cultural belief systems impact the life
sustaining capacity of local ecosystems, the question that is likely to come up is: what relevance
does this overview of the ecological crises have for assessing what is problematic about the
Lakoff/Johnson theory of the embodied origins of our guiding metaphors?  What is being overlooked
by the scientists and engineers who are trying to develop more sustainable and less carbon producing
technologies, and by the general public that has accepted that new technologies are the solutions to
the ecological crises, is that we need to change the metaphorical language that gave conceptual
direction and moral legitimacy to the industrial/consumer oriented culture that has become a major
contributor to overshooting the sustaining capacity of natural systems. Lakoff and Johnson got it
right when they argued in Metaphors We Live By (1980) that all thought is based on metaphors,
When they made the turn toward locating the source of metaphors in the embodied experience of the
individual, which was motivated by their concern with the hegemony of abstract theory and language
usage by mainstream Western philosophers, they lost sight of the more obvious and now
ecologically important characteristic of language.  That is, they ignored that words as metaphors
have a history and that they carry forward the misconceptions and silences of earlier thinkers who
succeeded in establishing the analogs that framed the meaning of words over time.  In effect, they
failed to recognize that the industrial/consumer oriented culture that is now being globalized, and
that is overshooting the sustaining capacity of the natural systems, is based on the metaphorical
thinking of earlier thinkers who were unaware of environmental limits.
Before explaining how much of today’s ecologically problematic thinking is based on what
Gregory Bateson refers to as “double bind thinking” it is necessary to reproduce here the 6 basic
assumptions that the Lakoff and Johnson theory is based upon.  In order to avoid any
misrepresentations of their assumptions, they shall be presented here as they appear in Philosophy in
the Flesh.
Embodied Reason
• Embodied Concepts:  Our conceptual system is grounded in, neurally makes use of, and is
critically shaped by our perceptual and motor systems.
89
• Conceptualization Only Through the Body:  We can only form concepts through the body.
Therefore, every understanding that we can have of the world, ourselves, and others can only
be formed in terms of concepts shaped by our bodies.
• Basic-Level Concepts: These concepts use our perceptual, imaging, and motor systems to
characterize our optimal functioning in everyday life.  This is the level at which we are
maximally in touch with the reality of our environment.
• Embodied Reason:  Major forms of rational inference are instances of sensorimotor
inferences.
• Embodied Truth and Knowledge: Because our ideas are framed in terms of our unconscious
embodied conceptual systems, truth and knowledge depend upon embodied understanding.
• Embodied Mind: Because concepts and reason both derive from, and make use of, the
sensorimotor system, the mind is not separate from or independent of the body. Therefore,
classical faculty psychology is incorrect.  (1999, p. 555)
There can be no doubt that many of our metaphors have their origins in bodily experiences, as
Lakoff and Johnson point out.  Concepts such as up and down, back and forward, full and empty,
and even the old British systems of measurement of inch, foot, yard, and mile can be traced back to
bodily experiences.  Also,their discussion of how different experiences provide generative
frameworks (schemas) for understanding an activity, behavior, and policy , where the already
familiar becomes the model for understanding something new, has to be taken seriously.  It needs to
be pointed, however,  that their insight is only partly correct.  Some of our concepts do have an
embodied origin yet even these conceptual schemas will differ from culture to culture, depending
upon the culture’s mythopoetic narratives and/or cosmology.  For example, while Lakoff and
Johnson would attribute the concept that underlies the use of the personal pronoun “I” to the
embodied experience of an individual, they over look that this is a culturally constructed
identity—one that can be traced back to the writings of post-medieval philosophers and political
theorists.  Instead of the “I want” and “I think” habituated pattern of thinking so prevalent in the
West, there is a profoundly different way of understanding self which varies from culture to culture.
Among the traditional Maori, for example, when a guest enters into the marea (the communal
gathering place) she gives her name and then her lineage—followed by an explanation of her ties to
the family or group she is visiting.  If we consider the Quechua of the Peruvian Andes we find a
different way in which this relational self is understood—which can be traced to their cosmovision
90
that represents all aspects of life as interdependent and in constant communication—with plants,
animals, and weather patterns communicating what the people’s agricultural decisions should be.
The key point is that Lakoff and Johnson repeat the silences about the nature and influence of culture
that characterizes Western philosophy.  One of the consequences of perpetuating this hubris is that
readers who take them seriously are not likely to recognize that we have much to learn from cultures
that have developed in ways that enabled them to live within the limits and possibilities of their
biroregions.
 While Lakoff and Johnson also remain silent about the ecological crises, the consensus of the
world’s scientists is that we are within a few generations of a tipping point when changes in human
behaviors will not longer be able to reduce the rate of global warming.  It is important, therefore, to
consider whether the Lakoff and Johnson theory of the embodied basis of metaphorical basis of
thinking is useful for understanding why the dominant Western culture continues to promote an
industrial/consumer dependent lifestyle when the evidence continues to mount that it is ecologically
unsustainable. The other question that needs to be raised is “can their theory of the embodied origins
of our concepts lead to introducing fundamental changes in ways of thinking and behaviors that have
a smaller ecological footprint—including changes in  our policies of economic and cultural
colonization that prevent other cultures from revitalizing their traditions of self-sufficiency and
mutual support that are less dependent upon a money economy and that have a smaller ecological
footprint?”
What the Lakoff and Johnson theory of metaphor fails to take into account is that words have
a culturally specific history.  As metaphors whose meanings were framed by analogs established in
the distant past by people who were unaware of environmental limits and other cultural knowledge
and moral systems, these words continue to influence current thinking in ways that reproduce the
misconceptions and silences taken for granted in these earlier times.  Albert Einstein was aware of
this problem when he warned about the danger of relying upon the same mindset that created the
problem to fix it.  “Double bind thinking” is the phrase  Gregory Bateson used to describe this same
problem, which he understood as the failure to recognize that the meaning of key words used today
as the basis of understanding current problems and relationships were framed by the analogs
established by earlier thinkers who were addressing issues in a different historical and cultural era.
The analogs that framed the meaning of words such as “intelligence”, “technology”, “tradition”,
“individualism”, “property”, “freedom”, “woman”, “environment”, and so forth, can be traced back
91
to earlier theories, powerful evocative experiences, and even to mythopoetic narratives such as found
in the Book of Genesis.   For example, the limiting analogs that framed how the word “woman” was
understood in the West over thousands of years did not arise out of the
embodied/sensorimotor/neurally connected experience of today’s individual.  Nor do today’s widely
accepted understanding, especially within the academic community, of such words and phrases as
“tradition”, “artificial intelligence”, “property” , and “enlightenment” have their origins in the
subjective embodied experience of the individual.  The analogs that continue to frame what is taken
today as the meaning of these words can be traced back to earlier events and thinkers.  To summarize
a key shortcoming of the Lakoff and Johnson theory about the origins of metaphorical thinking: it
cannot account for the linguistic colonization of the present by the past.
    Nor can their theory clarify the dynamics of the linguistic colonization of other cultures.
Indeed, if one gives careful consideration to their 6 key assumptions, it becomes impossible to
explain the differences in cultural ways of knowing—including why some culturals have developed
in ways that are more ecologically sustainable.  For example, the collection of essays by Third
World writers  in Wolfgang Sachs’ The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power
(1992) provide examples of how such words as “development”, “market”, “poverty”-- whose
meanings were framed by the analogs taken for granted by Western thinkers—are understood as the
language of cultural colonization.  Gerald Berthoud summarizes in the following way the colonizing
agenda in the Western use of “development”:
               What must be universalized through development is a cultural complex centered around the
notion that human life, if it is to be fully lived, cannot be constrained by limits of any kind.
To produce such a result in traditional societies, for whom the supposedly primordial
principle of boundless expansion in the technological and economic domains is generally
alien, presuppose overcoming the symbolic and moral ‘obstacles’,  that is, ridding these
societies of various inhibiting ideas and practices such as myths, ceremonies, rituals,
networks of solidarity and the like. (Sacks, p. 72)
        Berthoud identifies the analogs that frame the Western idea of development by observing it
subjects Third World cultures to”the compelling idea that everything that can be made must be
made, and then sold. Our universe (according the Western way of thinking) appears unshakeably
structured by the omnipotence of technoscientific truths and the laws of the market” (p. 71).   The
other essays in The Development Dictionary bring out how key words in the modern vocabulary are
92
not culturally neutral metaphors, but are part of the process of linguistic colonization that serves to
legitimate economic colonization.  And the combination of linguistic and economic colonization
impacts the behavior of individuals—even at the level of the individual’s “perceptual, imaging, and
motor systems”—which is the reverse of the Lakoff and Johnson formula that represents bodily
experiences as shaping the individual’s conceptual system.
         There is another characteristic of metaphorical thinking ignored by Lakoff and Johnson that is
critical to whether we are able to adopt a more ecologically informed way of thinking and behaving.
The image metaphors (or what can be referred to as iconic metaphors) they focus on as originating in
embodied experiences, as well as image metaphors that come down to us from earlier times (which
they do not recognize) are often framed by the prevailing root metaphors of the culture.  According
to Richard H. Brown, root metaphors are meta-cognitive schemata that are taken for granted and thus
frame thinking in a wide area of cultural activity over years—even centuries (1977, p. 125).   They
originate in the mythopoetic narratives of the culture, powerful evocative experiences that are
sustained over generations, and from the processes of analogic-based theories by writers who were
able to overturn older root metaphors.
In the West, patriarchy and anthropocentrism are examples of taken for granted
explanatory/moral frameworks (root metaphors) that have not only framed how people think and
behave, but also what they ignore.  Individualism and progress are also root metaphors that can be
traced back to various political theorists, evocative experiences ranging from the introduction of the
printing press to the early successes of modern science.  Mechanism is yet another root metaphor
whose origins was not in the individual’s bodily experiences, but to a combination of historical
events—ranging from organizing the rhythms of daily life in accordance with the cycles of a
mechanical clock, the successful applications of a mechanistic paradigm by scientists, to advances in
medicine and other technologies such as computers.  The explanatory power of the mechanism root
metaphor over hundreds of years can be seen in Johannes Kepler’s (1571-1630) statement that “my
aim is to show that the celestial machine is to be likened not to a divine organism but to a
clockwork”; in Marvin Minsky’s (early leader in the field of artificial intelligence) statement that
“our conscious thoughts use signal-signs to steer the engines in our minds, controlling countless
processes of which we’re never much aware of”, in Richard Dawkin’s reference to the body as a
“survival machine”; in  E. O. Wilson’s reference to his brain as a machine, in the current way of
93
identifying a plant cell as possessing a “powerhouse”, “recycling center”, and a “production center”;
and in today’s widespread references to the brain as like a computer.
         As meta-cognitive explanatory frameworks guide thought and behavior at a taken for granted
level of consciousness, they exercise a profound influence on many as aspects of culture—and thus
on the embodied experiences of the individual. For example, the root metaphor of patriarchy
established the analogs for understanding the identify and behavior of women in ways that were
highly restrictive, and it exercised this control over centuries until only recently when the word
“woman”, in some sectors of society, became associate with a wide range of new analogs such an
engineer, artist, doctor, politician, and so forth. We could take other mutually supportive root
metaphors in the West and trace how they create areas of silence, limit the vocabulary to what is
conceptually and morally coherent with the root metaphor, and thus control the discourse that frames
how political problems are understood and the approach to resolving them.  What is especially
important about the root metaphors listed above is that they gave conceptual direction and moral
legitimacy to the industrial/individually-centered/ consumer-dependent lifestyle that has been a
major contributor to global warming and to the economic exploitation of the environment.
        As fisheries disappear, droughts become more widespread, storms  more violent, and sources of
potable water increasingly scarce and contaminated, the embodied experiences that Lakoff and
Johnson want to claim as the source of concepts and inferences are unlikely to lead to an awareness
that everyday life is being impacted by a symbolic ecology that is still being reinforced at every level
of the educational process— and by the media, political pundits, and even by many
environmentalists.  To make the point more directly, embodied experience alone will not provide the
conceptual and linguistic capital necessary for recognizing the double bind thinking that limits our
ability to renew the intergenerational patterns of self-sufficiency and mutual support that represent
alternatives to the industrial/consumer lifestyle that is moving us closer to the tipping point that will
have huge consequences for the embodied experience of the individual—such as social chaos,
starvation, and toxic induced illnesses and death.  What is ironic, especially since the new root
metaphor of evolution is now being extended to explain how cultural patterns (memes) are subject to
the same process of natural selection, is that it is being promoted by professors who are unaware that
when evolution is turned into a root metaphor that supposedly explains the symbolic world of culture
it supports the market liberal ideology that, in being globalized, is exacerbating the ecological crises.
94
        While Lakoff and Johnson claim that “our conceptual system is grounded in, neurally makes
use of, and is crucially shaped by our perceptual and motor systems, it turns out that their writings
and ways of understanding political issues have been heavily influenced by the root metaphors they
take for granted.  Johnson responded in a letter to my earlier criticism of Lakoff’s lack of historical
accuracy and misuse of our political categories by claiming that there is nothing problematic with
Lakoff’s reference to environmentalists as  progressives. The point to keep in focus is that Johnson’s
association of environmentalism with the forces of progress and Lakoff’s reliance on the same
political language that underlies the cultural forces that are pushing the world beyond what the
ecosystems can sustain is that their concepts are not derived from their own embodied experiences.
What is ironic is that if they had done an ethnographic description (or what Clifford Geertz calls
“thick description”) of their own embodied experiences they would have found that they cannot be
explained by using the context free vocabulary of freedom, individual autonomy, and linear
progress.  Rather, a self-focused ethnography would lead to an awareness of the many ways the
description of embodied experiences requires a vocabulary that foregrounds the many biological  and
cultural conserving processes—including the language and thus thought patterns derived from the
past, the temperamentally conserving of what one is comfortable with in food, conversations,
friends, of how their own DNA and RNA conserves physical traits that are intergenerationally
connected, and all the taken for granted cultural patterns that sustain everyday life.  In effect, a
description of embodied experience that is not distorted by ideology and the formulaic use of
language would be a description of conserving cultural processes and patterns—with only minor
ethno-biographic differences.
        The task here is to document how Lakoff, in particular, is unable to rely upon his own theory
when it comes to justifying his political preferences, and to stigmatizing his political opponents.  In
his New York Times best selling book, Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame
the Debate (2004) Lakoff makes an important contribution to understanding how the use of language
frames what is given attention and what is marginalized in today’s political discourse.  He is making
the basic point that language is not politically neutral.  Instead, the group that is able to establish its
preferred vocabulary (including its silences and metaphorically based prejudices) will control the
policies that are conceptually consistent with their language.  In effect, a group cannot achieve its
own political goals if it is forced to think in the opponent’s.language.
Instead of following what is derived from his own embodied-based reasoning, Lakoff adopts
95
the Orwellian vocabulary that is now current at every level of the American political discourse.  This
discourse labels as conservatives the market liberals who derive their ideas about free markets and
the invisible hand from the abstract theories  of classical liberal thinkers—and the religious
fundamentalists who derive their guiding principles from the equally abstract idea that the Bible,
which has undergone many translations, represents the actual word of God. Lakoff’s Orwellian
thinking leads to identifying as progressives the social groups concerned with conserving our civil
liberties (the American Civil Liberties Union), the natural systems we depend upon (the
environmentalists), the people who translate their religion into social justice activism, and ethnic
groups working to sustain the connections between their identities and their traditions, as all
identified as progressives (p. 14). Lakoff also labels as conservatives the think tanks such as the
CATO, American Enterprise, and Hoover Institutes. If he had checked out their websites, rather than
relying upon popular misconceptions, he would have found that all three identify the expansion of
free markets, individual freedom, and a strong defense as their primary political agenda. He would
have found the following on the website of the CATO Institute: "’Conservative’ smacks of an
unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to
refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive,  dynamic, and ever-changing system the world
has ever known--as conservative.  Lakoff is old enough to remember Ronald Reagan introducing the
General Electric weekly television program where the GE mantra of “Progress is our most important
product” serves as the analog the public was to identify with GE technologies.  Surely, he is aware
that the techno-scientific/industrial culture has always claimed the role of being the primary
progressive force in society. It has only been in recent years that, out of a widespread ignorance that
can be partly attributable to the failure of universities to introduce students to the historical roots of
current ideologies, that the ever changing system of free-market capitalism has been labeled as
conservative (Hartz,1955).
As pointed out above, one of the characteristics of a root metaphor is that its supporting
vocabulary does not include the words that enable the basic taken for granted cultural assumptions
upon which it rests to be questioned.  In the case of the root metaphor of progress, the two words that
are either proscribed or mis-represented are “tradition” and “conserving”.   By relying upon the root
metaphor of progress to frame his analysis of liberalism and conservatism, Lakoff falls into the
conceptual trap of letting the root metaphor of progress dictate what should not be questioned:
namely, whether interpreting all forms of change as the expression of progress is partly responsible
96
for undermining the traditions that should be conserved. Habeas corpus, the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights are traditions that should be conserved--which is the primary agenda of the American Civil
Liberties Union.  Since the early days of the 1900s, there has been a movement to conserve what are
increasingly referred to as the environmental commons, which include what remains of the natural
systems that have not been taken over by private and corporate ownership and turned into market
opportunities (which is considered by market liberals as progress).  The cultural commons, which
both Lakoff and Johnson could have made the focus of their discussion of embodied knowledge,
represent the intergenerational knowledge, skills, and mutually supportive relationships that enable
people to live more community-centered and thus less money dependent and less environmentally
destructive lives.  Yet it is these communities that are sources of resistance to the market system that
the CATO Institute celebrates as the engine of progress.  In short, by uncritically accepting an
interpretative framework (root metaphor) that can be traced back to the 17th century shift in Western
consciousness, Lakoff abandons his own prescriptions for how to account for “Embodied Reason”.
By lacking an  historical knowledge of the origins of philosophical conservatism, which has led to
our checks and balance system of government, and of the abstract theories of classical liberalism,
Lakoff unknowingly aligns himself with the environmentally destructive and cultural colonizing
forces of the market liberals who promote progress as though it is a law of nature.
The questions that should be asked about the Lakoff and Johnson theory of the embodied
reason and the embodied origins of metaphorical thinking go much beyond the problem of their
inability to abide by their own guiding assumptions.  The deeper problem is their lack of awareness
that we are not only at a tipping point in terms of the rate of environmental changes, but also at a
tipping point in terms of whether human kind can move beyond the myths that underlie the
individualistic/consumer-oriented/industrial culture.  The tipping point, in effect, involves the choice
of following the cultural trajectory of economic globalization that is being adopted in many regions
of the world or revitalizing the local cultural and environmental commons that represent a post-
industrial consciousness that is based on the ancient root metaphor that represents the biological and
cultural renewing processes as an ecology.  Many environmentally oriented scientists have moved
beyond the mechanistic root metaphor by learning to think of the natural world as living ecologies,
and many Third World cultures have not entirely lost their ecologically informed traditions.
The main challenge will be for philosophers and social theorists such as Lakoff and Johnson to
explain the dangers of accepting without question the root metaphors that were constituted before
97
their was an awareness of ecological limits and to explain, in ways that can be widely understood,
how our everyday vocabulary in the West needs to framed by analogs that are culturally and
ecologically informed.  Given their unquestioning embrace of the root metaphor of progress and
their commitment to assuming that embodied experience is the primary source of the metaphors that
guide thought and behaviors, it is doubtful that their contribution will be little more than yet another
distraction as we move closer to the ecological tipping point.  Perhaps if they were to start not with
the embodied experience of the supposedly autonomous individual, but with the individual’s
culturally mediated embodied experience, they would have the conceptual opening for considering
the influence of culture, the role of language in the cultural construction of identities and ways of
thinking, the impact of diverse cultures on the embodied experiences, and ecological implications of
doing a “thick description” or personal ethnography of the interdependencies within the local
cultural commons.  This would have represented a genuine departure from the silences and hubris of
most Western philosophers.
References
Brown, Lester. 2008. Plan B 3.0: Mobalizing to Save Civilization. New York. W.W. Norton
Brown, Richard H.  1977. A Poetic for Sociology: Toward a Logic of Discovery for the Human
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of Political Thought Since
the Revolution.  Harcourt, Brace.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2006. “The Darkening Sea”. The New Yorker. November 20, pp.67-75.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its
Challenge to Western Thought.  New York; Basic Books.
____________________________. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Sachs. Wolfgang (editor). 1992.  The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power.
London. Zed Books.
98
Chapter 5  Revitalizing the Cultural Commons  or An Individualized Approach to Planetary
Citizenship: The Choice Before Us
      While attending the international conference on Lifelong Citizenship, Participatory Democracy,
and Social Change that was sponsored by the Ontario Institute for the Study of Education, I learned
that just before Paulo Freire’s untimely death he had, according to Moacir Gadotti,the Director of the
Paulo Freire Institute in Brazil, turned his attention to putting down his first thoughts on the need for
an eco-pedagogy.  Gadotti went on to claim that Freire’s yet unpublished thoughts, when they are
published, would be seen by  environmental educators as making  a major contribution to the
formulation of an eco-pedagogy that has as its ultimate goal the creation of  a “planetary
consciousness.”
As Freire’s exact thoughts were not made available to the large audience, we had to rely upon Gadotti’s
representation of Freire’s thinking of how to reconcile the ongoing project of emancipation with how to
live in a more ecologically sustainable way.  The assumption communicated to the audience was that
Gadotti’s extrapolations merely represented an extension of Freire’s newly articulated guiding principles.
Gadotti did not elaborate on the actual practice of an eco-pedagogy; rather his focus (and what he
represented as Freire’s main focus) was on the big picture.  That is, the way in which an eco-pedagogy is
to transform the world’s diverse cultures into what he kept referring to as “citizens of a single nation.”  In
an earlier article that includes a more extended discussion of the global agenda of an eco-pedagogy, whose
main points were reiterated in Gadotti’s presentation to an audience of over 400 students and professors
from different countries, he wrote that the main goal of an eco-pedagogy is the development of the
“planetary citizen” (2000, p. 8). His explanation of how this new form of citizen is to be achieved is based
on the core assumptions and silences in Freire’s formulation of a pedagogy of the oppressed.  Thus, the
keystone premise of Freire’s theory of how humans are to achieve their highest potential, which is to
engage in the continual renaming of the world that is to follow from critical reflection (1974 edition, p.
76), also becomes the keystone that holds together Gadotti’s theory of the nature and goal of an eco-
pedagogy.  In the article “Pedagogy of the Earth and Culture of Sustainability,” Gadotti reiterates Freire’s
criticism of the “banking” approach to education by stating that “educating then, would not be as Emile
Durkheim explained as the transmission of culture ‘from one generation to the next,’ but the grand journey
of each individual in his interior universe and in the universe that surrounds him” (2000, p. 9).  It is
99
important to note that nowhere in Freire’s writings does one find a reference to the grand journal into the
individual’s subjective universe as an empowering source of knowledge.  But there is an even more
serious problem with Gadotti’s assumption that the “transmission of culture from one generation to the
next” can be avoided by the subjective explorations of the individual.  I have put in italics Gadotti’s use of
the masculine pronoun as his way of representing all of humankind, which is an example that
demonstrates his failure to understand the many ways that cultural traditions are passed on at a taken-for-
granted level of awareness.
       Gadotti’s inability to emancipate himself from the many ways in which the languaging processes of
his own culture are intergenerationally reproduced relates to a more serious problem; namely, the way in
which his eco-pedagogy reproduces the Western assumptions that make it a pedagogy of Western
imperialism. Following the Freirean inspired idea that culture should not be transmitted from one
generation to the next, Gadotti states that “globalization in itself does not pose a problem, since it
constitutes an unprecidented process of advancement in the history of humankind” (p. 9). There could not
be clearer statement of how Gadotti understands the ultimate goal of a eco-pedagogy: namely, a global
culture that will replace the diversity of the world’s cultures. But Gadotti is unwilling to examine the logic
of the argument that an eco-pedagogy should emancipate individuals from the culture that is passed on and
modified by each generation.  That is, he is unwilling to consider the possibility that individuals, when
relying upon threir own construction of  knowledge and values, might not lead to the planetary
consciousness he envisions as averting ecological disaster.  Nor is he willing to consider that many of the
world’s cultures have already worked out how to live within the limits of their bioregions.  It should also
be pointed out that the Gadotti vision, to be achieved by teachers who function as “transformative
intellectuals,” vastly over estimates the willingness of people to reject all the traditions of their culture
(such as the Muslim, Hindu, Quechua, Zapotec, Inuit, and so forth)—even if they could become aware of
how their taken-for-granted cultural patterns influence their perceptions, ways of understanding
relationships and norms that guide their  moral reciprocity with the natural environment.  This part of the
theory that underlies the Gadotti’s eco-pedagogy is so naïve, uninformed by recent world events,  and
driven by a messianic ethnocentrism that it is surprising that he is already being looked to as a leading
theorist on how education can contribute to saving the planet.
       The language used in the talks given by Gadotti and Sandra Luciana Dalmagro (a women who works
with the landless peasants of Brazil) highlighted the high-status political metaphors in the West:
democracy, individualism, citizen, change.  They both spoke about the importance of promoting decision-
100
making by  individuals who understand themselves as subjects who can create their own history.  What
they did not acknowledge is that the individuals who have been emancipated from the intergenerational
knowledge of their culture would exercise “democratic” decision making at the same emotive level as the
customer who makes a choice between the vast array of products in a shopping mall. Similarly, neither
Gadotti nor Dalmagro recognized that the concept of a citizen goes back to the early Greeks, which
represented a profound shift from allegiance to the family and the tribe to that of the state.  But the
Western agenda that is to free the peoples of the world from the supposed backwardness of their cultures
is also to include, as Gadotti put it, promoting within each individual the desire, indeed, their
responsibility for changing the world.  Following Freire’s thinking, the primary purpose of an eco-
pedagogy is to create the desire on the part of each generation to change the world of the previous
generation.
        Gadotti’s extension of what he represented as Freire’s core ideas on the nature of an eco-pedagogy
overcomes the silence about the environmental crisis that has long been a hallmark of Freire’s
writings—as well as that of his many followers.  But the basic contradictions inherent in Freire’s thinking,
such as equating emancipation with what amounts to indoctrination to a Western way of thinking, remain.
As in the past, this and other contradictions went unnoticed by most of the audience that included
professors who stood up to praise Gadotti for helping them recognize the importance of using Freirean
ideas in addressing environmental problems.  Perhaps the most egregious contradiction, which also went
unnoticed, is that the core assumptions underlying Gadotti’s extensions on what he kept referring to as
Freire’s yet unpublished thoughts on an  eco-pedagogy (the individual should be emancipated from the
traditions of her/ his culture, the recognition that critical inquiry is the only source of empowering
knowledge, that change leads to progress, etc.) are also the assumptions that the West’s industrial culture
is based upon. Gadotti’s argument that globalization( that is, the development of a world monoculture)
represents an advance in human history is also shared by such organizations as the World Trade
Organizations and the neo-liberal politicians who want to transform every aspect of daily life (even the
process of human reproduction) into a market opportunity.   While Gadotti is very clear that his vision of a
global culture is to be understood as standing in opposition to a global industrial culture, he does not
understand that his ideal of the autonomous individual who has no intergenerationally acquired skills or
knowledge of the culture’s patterns of mutual aid would be totally dependent upon the market to meet
her/his daily needs.  To cite one example, the individual who does not know what her/his culture
understands about growing and preparing food, which is dependent upon a knowledge of the soil, weather
101
conditions, recipes handed down over generations, and rejects learning from this intergenerational
knowledge as though doing so were a critical pedagogy inspired civic virture, is more likely to be
dependent upon industrial processed food that is destructive of both the environment and human health.
To make this point more directly: although Gadatti is highly critical of the globalization of a market
oriented culture, his way of understanding the primary goal of an eco-pedagogy would have the effect of
creating the very form of individualism that can most easily be exploited as a customer.
        I agree with Gadotti that the ecological crisis is the paramount issue that faces all of humanity, but
only wish that Freire had not ignored it during the many years when his intellectual leadership influenced
several generations of professors of education who are now unable to recognize that resistance to
globalization is not achieved by promoting the same values and assumptions that are the basis of the
current project of remaking the world in the image of the West.  The irony  is that Gadotti’s
recommendation that each individual should pursue  her/his own grand journey, which miraculously is to
lead to “planetary citizenship,” could have easily been written by the speech writer for President George
W. Bush.  Transforming the diverse cultures of the world in the image of Western culture is not only an
extension of western colonization; it will further accelerate the overshooting of the life sustaining capacity
of the Earth’s natural systems.  This criticism should not be interpreted as saying that Gadotti supports
President Bush’s foreign policies. The issue is more fundamental in that both President Bush and Gadotti
take-for-granted a common set of Western assumptions that different political groups can use to justify
their own ends.  But the significance of the differences are minor compared to the imperialistic nature of
the assumptions they share in common; which is the need for one nation (a global mono-culture) where
individuals, in pursuit of making their own history, reject the intergenerational knowledge that, in many
instances, is the basis for resisting the further expansion of the industrial culture.
Educating for Eco-Justice and the Revitalization of the Commons
    There is another way to think about the direction that educational reform should take—one that
strengthens the ability of the world’s diverse cultures to resist the environmentally destructive and cultural
homogenizing forces that are now being globalized.  This alternative approach to educational reform
involves learning about (indeed, revitalizing) the traditions of the commons of these cultures that go back
to the origins of humankind.  Basically, the commons included what was available to all members of the
culture: the water, air, woodlands, pastures, plants, animals, as well as other natural systems.  The
commons also included the symbolic aspects of the culture: narratives, knowledge of the cycles of natural
systems, spoken and written symbol systems, craft knowledge, music, dances, moral norms and patterns of
102
reciprocity, knowledge of the medicinal characteristics of plants, and so forth.  The commons were and
still are varied depending upon the characteristics of the bioregion. And the cultures that developed over
hundreds, even thousands of years of place-based and tested experience also led to different traditions that
became a taken-for-granted part of the commons.  The key  issue here is not to interpret this brief
overview of the commons as representing all the symbolic aspects of the commons as free of injustice and
environmental abuse.
                If we were to trace the introduction of enclosure in different cultures we would find that in many
instances it was based on unjust relationships and was the cause of impoverishment (from our
perspective). In a few instances it led to major cultural achievements. Basically, enclosure involved
transforming what was shared in common (that is, available to all members of the community) into
what was privately owned, into a commodity, and into a monetized activity or relationship.  For
example, what was previously passed on through  mentoring relationships and is now dispensed by
experts represents the transition from the non-monetized and non-privatized nature of the commons to
the monetized and privatized nature of the market.  Enclosure takes many forms, but essentially it
involves exclusion, disenfranchisement, and dispossession in ways that advantage some groups over
others.  It also reduces collective and local decision making about the rules that will govern the
commons by shifting the power of decision making to individuals and institutions that do not have to
experience the consequences of their decisions. Thirdly, enclosure forces more aspects of daily life to
come under the logic of a money economy—which marginalizes the practices of mutual exchange
and barter relationships. It represents, in effect, the transition from work as an activity that is returned
to viewing work as an activity that is paid.
       In the contemporary world, the process of technological and economic globalization involves the
further enclosure of the commons of both natural and cultural systems.  The pressure to privatize
water, land, forests, the gene lines of plants, animal and human blood, the minerals under the ground,
and so forth, has increased dramatically in recent years.  The enclosure of the symbolic aspects of the
commons of different cultures is being driven by the same market forces. This includes the enclosure
of education, first by the state, and now by private groups.  It also includes health care, entertainment,
sports, food, and even thought and communication which is now being mediated by computers and
cell phones.  The Western approaches to enclosure, driven by the merging of science, technology, and
corporations, is contributing to the emergence of a planetary culture—a planetary culture that Gadotti
103
gives legitimacy to by  his failure to recognize the dangers of using the same language and relying
upon the same cultural assumptions as the neo-liberal politicans and institutions he opposes.
        The most recent expressions of enclosure involve the spread of genetically modified seeds that
require the use of super powerful pesticides that kill- off the nearby birds, animals, wild plants, and
the micro-organisms in the soil.  To cite another example, the further automation of the process of
work that further reduces the need for workers (which is an important form of enclosure) also
continues the process of dispossessing workers of their craft knowledge and skill.  As the
intergenerational knowledge that sustained the commons for generations disappears under the
pressure of the liberal ideology that promotes the progressive idea that individuals should construct
their own knowledge by exploring the depths of their own  interior universe more aspects of daily life
will require participation in a money economy.  In short, enclosure of the natural systems that
sustained human communities for centuries, and the political economy that determines the
distribution of wealth within and among cultures, are major contributors to the poverty that is
increasing around the world.
       Understanding how educational reform can contribute to the revitalization of world’s commons is
becoming more urgent as the automation of production reduces the need for workers—which is now
being felt even in countries such as Mexico and China.  The myth of unending progress and a rising
material standard of living is fast being challenged even in Western countries where pension funds
are diminishing, unemployment is rising, and local decision making about conserving the commons is
being overruled by international treaties and institutions such as the World Trade Organization.
        But the forces resisting the educational reforms that address the revitalization of the commons
are both powerful and numerous.  Public schools and universities, for example, continue to reinforce
the mind set that underlies the globalization of industrial culture.  The complicity of educators in
resisting the revitalization of the commons can be seen in the way the professors and students
listening to Gadotti applauded wildly  when he finished his talk on how an eco-pedagogy contributes
to the creation of a global culture of anomic individuals.  Their receptivity to the Gadotti’s vision and
representation of Freire’s last thoughts on the need for an eco-pedagogy was in no way extraordinary
from the way most public school teachers and university professors think.  The incessant quest for
new ways of thinking, technologies, and values is a dominant characteristic of Western education—at
all levels.  The other high-status forms of knowledge promoted in Western educational institutions
that denigrate the forms of knowledge and relationships that sustain the commons include the
104
emphasis on the abstract and often formulaic knowledge of experts, the technologies that are based on
Western science and are generally uninformed by a knowledge of the culture they are introduced into,
and the authority of printed texts (and now computer mediated data).  These aspects of the liberal
mind-set are further sustained by ignoring the differences in the knowledge systems of different
cultures, by relying upon an evolutionary explanatory framework that represents Western cultures as
more advanced and better adapted to survive than the indigenous cultures that live by ecologically
informed practices. The hubris of Western thinkers, including prominent scientists such as E. O.
Wilson, Francis Crick, and Stephen Hawking, is partly responsible for imposing upon the rest of the
world the technologies that are both culturally and environmentally destructive.
             The generations that have been educated to think in ways that support a consumer and technology
dependent lifestyle lack the language that would enable them to name the non-monetized knowledge,
activities, and relationships in their own communities.  When limited in this way, they are unable to
understand the importance of what remains of the commons—including the fact that the commons
provides alternatives for the newly unemployed or under-employed to live productive and meaningful
lives on much less money than previously thought. Unlike the monetized aspects of everyday life, the
commons involves mutual support and patterns of reciprocity that will be even more needed as we
move toward the global state of consciousness that accepts unemployment and poverty as the price
that must be paid for technological progress.
       There is another problem connected with the way Western educational institutions marginalize
or are completely silent about the nature and importance of the commons-- and the dangers that
accompany the further enclosure of the commons.  That is, ignorance of and indifference to the
commons results in the collective failure to recognize when vital aspects of the commons are being
enclosed—such as the current process of privatizing municipal water systems, the expansion in the
corporate ownership of the airwaves, and in the further industrialization of human reproduction and
the plants we rely upon for food.  Ignorance of the need to protect the commons of other cultures,
including their languages that encode their accumulated knowledge of sustainable practices within
their bioregion, leads not only to the loss of cultural diversity in approaches to self-sufficiency but
also to the loss of biodiversity itself.
      The revitalization of the commons is important for reasons that go beyond the non-monetized
mutual support systems that represent sites of resistance to the expansion of industrial culture.  It is
also important because the commons represent a refuge for people who possess the skills that have
105
been marginalized by  the industrial culture, who find that work is no longer available due to
automation and outsourcing, and who want to base their lives on meaningful social relationships and
community enhancing activities.  The revitalization of the commons can also be understood as having
both a political and moral justification.  That is, the non-consumer, non-enclosed aspects of the
commons can be justified on the grounds that it contributes to eco-justice. And by extension,
education that contributes to the revitalization of the commons can be understood as an eco-justice
pedagogy that stands in sharp contrast to the romantic vision of Gadotti where each individual
undertakes “the grand journey in his interior universe and in the universe that surrounds him.”
Anyone comparing the eco-justice pedagogy being outlined here with the eco-pedagogy of Gadotti
also needs to keep in mind his goal of fostering citizenship in a “single nation” that is to be based on a
“planetary consciousness.”   It is difficult to avoid interpreting his solution to the further degradation
of the environment, and what he means by a “planetary consciousness, as anything other than a world
monoculture based on Western values.
        An eco-justice pedagogy will contribute in the following ways to resisting the further enclosure
of what remains of the world’s commons, and to addressing the consequences of economic
imperialism.  First, by fostering a greater awareness of the toxic contamination that results from the
industrial process, and how the disposal of the toxic waste is influenced by the culture’s social status
system, it will give the issue of environmental racism as more central place in the curriculum.
Second, by helping the students understand the nature of the commons and how they differ in terms
of culture and bioregion, the forces of enclosure, the many adverse consequences of different forms
of enclosure, an eco-justice pedagogy provides the knowledge necessary for the students’
communicative competence.  Furthermore, these understandings will enable them  to recognize that
there are alternatives to being totally dependent upon a money economy that  is increasingly
characterized by the double bind where the cost of paying for the basic necessities of daily life
continues to increase while the opportunities for work (even low paying ones) continue to disappear.
       Third, by helping students recognize the community-centered alternatives to a life of near total
dependency upon consumerism, and the environmental impact on Third World countries that results
from the hyper-consumerism in the West, an eco-justice pedagogy contributes to reducing the
domination of the South by the North.  Fourth, by helping students to understand the ecological
consequences of globalizing a consumer dependent lifestyle and by helping them to understand the
consequences of losing many of the world’s ecologically informed knowledge systems, an eco-justice
106
pedagogy helps to ensure that the prospects of future generations have not been diminished by a
degraded environment.  Fifth, by contributing to a less consumer dependent lifestyle, an eco-justice
pedagogy contributes to the revitalization of local democracy and to what Vandana Shiva has referred
to as earth democracy—that is, the right of natural systems to renew themselves.
       If we consider the ideological differences between the Gadotti’s approach to an eco-pedagogy
and an eco-justice pedagogy, we find that while Gadotti is critical of industrial culture, he
nevertheless bases his prescriptions for reform on the same liberal assumptions that are used to justify
economic globalization. That is, globalization for both the proponents of industrial culture and for
Gadotti is viewed as the highest expression of human development. In addition, both the proponents
of economic globalization and Gadotti agree that cultural differences should be replaced by a single
way of knowing.  And while they differ on the ends that are to be served by critical reflection; they
also agree that intergenerational knowledge limits the ability of each individual to rename the world
and to be free of the constraints of the patterns of reciprocity that characterize intergenerationally
connected communities.  The anomic form of individualism that can be more easily manipulated by
the media turns out, upon close examination, to be identical to the individual who lives the self-
centered life of exploring “his interior universe” and is both ignorant of and indifferent to the
traditions of mutual support that are the source of food, shelter, political freedoms, and narratives that
are the basis of the community’’s moral codes (which may not always be in line with our moral
priorities).  To bring out another commonality between the proponents of globalizing the
industrial/enclosure oriented culture and the planetary culture being advocated by Gadotti: while
Gadotti expresses deep concern about the destruction of natural systems he shares the same
indifference to what is the central question that should be asked as the life-supporting systems that
constitutes the commons come under even greater assault. Namely, neither the proponents of
economic globalization nor Gadotti ask what needs to be conserved as the basis of resisting the
further degradation of the environment and the spread of poverty.  This is also a question that Freire
and his followers never asked.
       When the enclosure of the commons was not the result of a naked power grab, it has been
justified as contributing to social progress.  The privatizing and monetizing of the natural
environment, the airways, health practices, gene lines, and so forth are largely being justified in terms
of the latter. A strong case can be made the international trade agreements currently forcing people
off the land are a mixture of the two. Seldom has enclosure been justified on the grounds that it
107
conserves what contributes to the well-being of the human and natural community. The current
efforts of various conservation groups, such as the Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Land
Trust, to purchase land in order to return it to the public should not be viewed as examples of
enclosure, but rather as expanding the commons.  With the environment now undergoing changes that
could not have been imagined a mere 30 years ago (the melting of the polar ice caps, the  collapse of
fisheries previously thought to be inexhaustible, the spread of toxic chemicals in our bodies and
through the environment, etc.) it is now  necessary to recognize that the language of liberalism
(progress, individualism, emancipation, development, global village and planetary consciousness)
excludes an alternative vocabulary  that enables us to consider the central concerns of
environmentalists, Third World activists, and people in the West whose lifestyles contribute to
sustaining the commons.  These latter groups are concerned with “conserving” the diversity of
species, cultural ways of knowing that have been shaped by inhabiting a bioregion over hundreds
even thousands of years, and the intergenerational knowledge that has been the basis of community
self-sufficiency.  These groups are now under intense pressure, as documented in Helena Norberg-
Hodge’ s Ancient Future: Learning from Ladakh (1992),  Frederique Apffel-Marglin’s (with
PRATEC) edited book, The Spirit of Regeneration: Andean Culture Confronting Western Notions of
Development (1998) to adopt the Western model of development, which means to accept the
enclosure of their traditions in exchange for Western technologies and consumer goods.  The
resistance to the Western model of development, as documented in Bonfil Batalla’s Mexico Profundo
(1996) and which was the central focus of indigenous activists attending the recent conference on
“American Profundo” in Mexico City, is also oriented toward conserving the traditions essential to
cultural identity, self-sufficiency outside of the Western money  economy, and to conserving natural
systems.
      The word “conserving” and the phrase “mindful conservatism” (Bowers, 2003) are not part of
the vocabulary of Gadotti for achieving a more sustainable world.  Indeed, when the word
conservatism appears in the writings of both Gadotti and Freire, it is equated with the evils of
capitalism.  In his talk at the international conference Gadotti said there was no possibility of having a
dialogue with the conservatives who run the transnational corporations.  What he and the many
followers of Freire who also identify corporations as conservative institutions fail to understand is
that industrial culture is based on the values and assumptions of Classical Liberal thinkers such as
John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill—and more recently on the re-emergence of Social
108
Darwinist thinking that is sweeping through university departments. In its statement of guiding
principles that appears on the web-site of the CATO Institute (which is the most influential liberal
think-tank in America), the point is made that only in America is market-oriented liberalism
interpreted as the highest expression of conservatism.
       This market-oriented industrial culture is being given further legitimacy by scientists who are
extending various interpretations of evolution in ways that explain which cultural memes meet the
test of Darwinian fitness and thus are genetically driven to become the basis of a world monoculture.
It is also  important to recognize that both Gadotti and Freire (1974) also rely upon a  theory of
evolution to justify their vision of a global consciousness. But they are not alone. The transformative
learning theories of  Edmund O’Sullivan and William Doll, Jr., are also based on an interpretation of
evolution that incorporates the Western myth of linear progress.  Aside from the fact that the process
of natural selection is the basis of diversity, while the theory of transformative learning assumes the
world-wide adoption of Western assumptions—and thus would lead to a world monoculture, there is
another irony that is overlooked by proponents of transformative learning such as Gadotti, Freire,
O’Sullivan, and Doll. While transformative learning is a vision to be realized in the future, the
spread of the West’s industrial, consumer-oriented culture is the most transformative force in today’s
world.
        The failure of Gadotti to recognize the ideological roots of industrial culture, and how many of
the liberal assumptions he shares in common with it—even as he criticizes its exploitive nature,
explains why he does not recognize that critical reflection should also be used in the service of
revitalizing the commons. While they equate critical reflection with individuals creating their own
history, as both Gadotti and Freire put it in their separate writings (especially read Freire’s
discussion on page 199, The Politics of Education), an eco-justice pedagogy is based on the
recognition that conserving the commons, including earth democarcy, is partly dependent upon the
exercise of critical reflection.  For example, an eco-justice pedagogy involves reliance upon critical
reflection as part of the process of clarifying what is being overturned (enclosed) by the introduction
of computers, the use of robots in the work place, the genetic engineering of plants and animals, the
further merging of universities and corporate culture, the imperialism of the Western entertainment
system, the increasing reliance on the industrialization of food, and the way current politicians create
demons in order to create a Nazi-like state of compliance on the part of the public.   In these
examples, the outcome of critical reflection might lead to adopting new ways of doing
109
things—which would mean that some traditions would be seen as in need of being changed, and in
other instances critical reflection would lead to conserving traditions that are important to the
community.  But an eco-pedagogy is not based solely on critical reflection; it also recognizes that the
viability of the commons also depends upon other ways of knowing and intergenerational renewal
such as mentoring, the use of narratives, embodied learning, the multiple languaging processes that
largely pass on the taken-for-granted assumptions and behavioral patterns of the culture—which are
often in need of being examined critically (such as the cultural assumptions that Gadotti takes for
granted).
       For readers who are uncomfortable with the word conservatism, and who are not aware that
most groups who identify themselves as conservatives are actually in the liberal tradition of thinking,
they might consider whether there are any aspects of their legal system, including Constitutional
rights they would want to conserve.  In terms of the United States, would they want to “conserve”
the tradition of a trial by a jury of peers?  Would they want to conserve the tradition of an
independent judicial system, including an independent Supreme Court? Or would they consider the
control of the Supreme Court by a political party the latest expression of progress?  Would they want
to conserve the gains made over the last century in the area of women’s rights and protections in the
workplace—or would they be willing to let powerful interest groups transform these gains into a
more “progressive” development such as the recent effort to eliminate overtime pay for workers.
The latter effort was  justified on the grounds that it would enable corporations to be more
competitive—a progressive development in the eyes of liberal, free-market advocates.  And on a
more personal level, would the reader want to “conserve” the traditions of food preparation within
their family and cultural group or is industrially processed food to be embraced as the latest
expression of progress and the merging into a planetary consciousness?
       An eco-justice pedagogy is based on the need to conserve cultural traditions that enable people
to reduce their dependence on a money economy  as well as the size of their ecological footprint.
But it is unlikely that the practitioners of an eco-justice pedagogy will succeed in rectifying the use
of our political vocabulary on their own.  They need the help of other groups that are concerned
about the loss of cultural and species diversity, and the growing threat of a global culture based on
the Western idea of the autonomous, self-creating individual. Ideally, if public schools and
universities would help students understand that the words “tradition” and “conservatism” are too
complex to be reduced to the formulaic thinking that now passes for an empowering political
110
discourse it might then be possible to recognize that the history of liberalism co-evolved (I use the
term deliberately) with the growth of the Industrial Revolution and that the hubris it is based upon
accounts for its role in furthering Western imperialism.  It might also be possible for students to
understand the many forms of conservatism, and thus be able to discriminate between what is
reactionary, what is the expression of “traditionalism” (that is, the mistaken belief that traditions
should not change), and what is oriented to conserving the non-monetized forms of knowledge,
relationships, and activities that represent sources of resistance to the further enclosure of the
commons of different cultures.
        The hubris of Western liberalism and the hubris that underlies the Gadotti’s approach to an eco-
pedagogy should lead us to ask the question of when does a reform oriented educator cross the line
by becoming an agent of cultural invasion.  This question could be broadened to include any cultural
outsider (the scientist, development specialist, missionary, etc.).  Here, I shall focus on the
differences between an eco-pedagoy and an eco-justice pedagogy.
         A key  characteristic of the eco-pedagogy advocated by Gadotti, and that corresponds to
Freire’s vision of a world of constant change, is that it is based on a deficit model of culture.  The
deficit (backwardness, wrongly developed, lacking in adherence to Western values) is to be
overcome as the teacher, as an agent of cultural transformation, reinforces the individual’s own
determination of ideas and values (the journey into the “interior universe”) and reliance on critical
reflection as the basis for membership as “planetary citizen.”  That the members of Islamic, Hindu,
Buddhist, Christian, and thousands of indigenous cultures (many of the latter having already worked
out a sustainable environmental ethic) will allow themselves to be transformed by eco-pedagogues to
fit the Western Enlightenment ideal of the critically reflective, self-determining individual is totally
unrealistic.  The romantic perception of the Earth as “a single community” blinds Gadotti from
recognizing that many non-Western cultures are already ecologically-centered, and that we should be
learning from them about how to live in ways that sustain the commons.  Gadotti’s blanket formula
for changing other cultures to fit his ideal of a single form of consciousness, what he calls a
“planetary consciousness,” indicates that he is blinded by his extreme ethnocentrism (which he
shares with Freire) and the hubris that leads him to dictate how the world’s cultures should reform
themselves in order to save the planet.
       The role of the eco-justice oriented educator is profoundly different.  As the revitalization of the
commons requires addressing all five aspects of eco-justice that have particular relevance for guiding
111
educational reform, the teacher’s role becomes that of a mediator—and not a “transformative
intellectual” as Henry Giroux put it.  As a mediator between cultures, including the differences
within Western culture, the educator’s responsibility is to help the different communities (and
cultures) to understand the cultural transformations that are likely to result when Western
technologies and systems of expert knowledge are adopted. Clarifying these potential
transformations involves fostering a community-wide discussion of the assumptions that underlie
Western approaches to development, and how the adoption of Western values and technologies will
affect the commons as they know it.  Mediating thus involves making explicit what lies behind the
language of progress and modernization. The educator who made explicit for Quechua teachers the
forms of cultural knowledge that cannot be digitized, as well as how adopting computers in schools
involves both forms of enclosure and becoming dependent upon a money economy was acting as a
mediator.  Similarly, the educator who explains to Canadian bureaucrats why the Inuit, as a
subsistence culture, need to possess rifles and why they do not want child-care centers, as well as
help the Inuit elders understand the cultural assumptions of the bureaucrats, is playing the role of a
cultural mediator.  The decisions about their collective future is thus left to them to make.
       An eco-justice pedagogy can only be effective in clarifying the nature of cultural domination as
the educator learns from the community’s (culture’s) approaches to sustaining the commons.  This
mediating role also extends to the educational process within Western contexts.  That is, the
curricular focus would be on clarifying the ecological implications of different traditions such as the
non-monetized traditions within the community and the industrial traditions of enclosure. While
Gadotti’s proposal for an eco-pedagogy and an eco-justice pedagogy are based on  similar concerns
about the destruction of the Earth’s ecosystems, they represent profoundly different approaches to
understanding the role of education in resisting the further enclosure of the commons.  Given
Gadotti’s vision of how the world’s cultures should be transformed, it is clear that he have crossed
the line—and is dedicated to promoting the aspects of Western imperialism that paves the way for
the globalization of the industrial culture he rejects.
               References
Batalla, Bonfil. 1996. Mexico Profundo: Recaliming a Civilization. Austin,TX.: University of Texas
Press.
112
Apffel-Marglin: Frederique, with PRATEC (editors). 1998. The Spirit of Regeneration: Andean
Culture Confronting Western Notions of Development. London: Zed Books.
Bowers, C. A. 2003. Mindful Conservatism: Rethinking the Ideological and Educational Basis of an
Ecologically Sustainable Future. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Freire, Paulo. 1974. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Mew York: Seabury Press.
 __________. 1974. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
__________.  1985. The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation. South Hadley, MA.:
Bergin & Garvey.
Gadotti, Moacir. 2000. “Pedagogy of the Earth and Culture of Sustainability.” Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Instituto Paulo Freire. Pp. 1-11.
Norberg-Hodge, Helena. 1991. Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books.
Chapter 6  The Case Against John Dewey as an Environmental and Eco-Justice Philosopher
         My participation in a recent conference on Pragmatism and Values held in Stara Lesna,
Slovakia rekindled my doubts about the relevance of Dewey’s ideas for addressing an ecological
crisis that has many dimensions beyond that of global warming.  I say rekindled my doubts, as they
were first formed by Richard Rorty’s attempt to reconcile the contingent knowledge and values of
the ironist individual with his anthropocentric interpretation of solidarity.1  Although the participants
at the Slovakian conference had been exposed in their individual lives to frequent media coverage of
global warming, depletion of the world’s fisheries, and evidence that industrial chemicals are
changing the reproduction patterns of humans as well as other species, not one of the participants
attempted to relate Dewey’s ideas to what is now the most problematic set of issues we face. 1  This
is particularly surprising as Dewey made problematic situations the starting point and central focus
of experimental inquiry.  My more recent reading of the essays in Environmental Pragmatism
(1996), edited by Andrew Light and Eric Katz, further confirmed my concern that the attempt to
represent Dewey as an important environmental philosopher will have little, if any, influence on
environmental thinkers.
113
        In the chapter titled “Nature as Culture: John Dewey’s Pragmatic Naturalism,”  which appears
in Environmental Pragmatism, Larry A. Hickman explains how Dewey can be interpreted as an
evolutionary naturalist, and even as laying the basis for an epistemology that situates inquiry within
contexts where nature and the human community are integral aspects of problematic situations—and
thus to the reconstruction of experience.  If I allow myself to accept the conceptual boundaries that
Hickman and the other contributors to Environmental Pragmatism take-for-granted, I can even
appreciate Dewey’s argument that the experimental nature of what he termed the “method of
intelligence” is enhanced by an educational process that provides for the widest possible
participatory decision making.  The problem is that I cannot accept these conceptual boundaries.
This is because Dewey’s epistemology, as well as the recent efforts to revive his philosophy, are too
limited for addressing the cultural roots of the ecological crisis.  Even more serious is that his ideas,
even when his efforts to naturalize intelligence are considered, cannot be used to clarify and give
legitimacy to more ecologically sustainable cultural practices.  Indeed, I shall argue that the
characteristics of culture that are excluded from consideration by Dewey and his current followers
are at the center of a double bind that would arise if his epistemology were to be universalized.  That
is, I shall argue that his epistemology, with its emphasis on growth in the capacity to reconstruct
experience and thus to replace spectator based knowledge with his method of intelligence, would
represent yet another expression of western colonialism—and that this would further undermine the
ability of many  cultures to avoid the consumer/technology dependent lifestyle that is one of the
major contributors to the ecological crisis.
         The ideas of Dewey and his current interpreters are based on a fundamental misunderstanding
of cultural diversity, the nature and role of mythopoetic narratives and the resulting root metaphors
that encode a culture’s way of understanding relationships, and the intergenerational nature of
traditions.  I shall address each of these aspects of culture in order to show that key aspects of
Dewey’s philosophy cannot be used as a basis for affecting the deep cultural changes that the
ecological crisis will force us to make.
1. The Diversity of Cultural Epistemologies:
              It is important to acknowledge at the outset that Dewey’s references to culture are based on an
evolutionary framework that represents cultures as either backward or advanced.  Backward cultures,
according to Dewey, rely upon a spectator approach to knowledge as well as fixed truths and values.
114
In Democracy and Education (1916) he states that the method of intelligence of savages is “plainly
absurd—so absurd that we fail to note that savages are simply falling back upon habit in a way that
exhibits its limitations”. 2  Advanced cultures, on the other hand, are oriented toward growth,
experimental inquiry, democracy, and what Michael Eldridge terms “secularity”.3
       The following is typical of how Dewey understood the nature of culture.  As he puts it in Art as
Experience (1959 edition)“ as the developing growth of an individual from embryo to maturity is the
result of interaction of organism with surroundings, so culture is the product not of efforts of men
put forth in a void or just upon themselves, but of prolonged and cumulative interactions with
environment”. 4  This explanation appears to reaffirm the argument that Larry Hickman makes in
Environmental Pragmatism about the biocentric nature of Dewey’s philosophy.   While the
culture/Nature connection is important in the current debate over whether Dewey was an
anthropocentric thinker, the more important issue is that this and other similar statements of Dewey
reflects an  evolutionary (developmental) way of understanding culture.  And this evolutionary
framework serves to delegitimate the efficacy of other cultural epistemologies.  Dewey’s failure to
take account of differences in cultural ways of knowing, and thus approaches to community and
human/Nature relationships, can be seen in the way the lectures he presented at the Imperial
University of Japan in 1919 omitted any reference to the cultural way of thinking of his hosts.
Statements such as “change is associated with progress rather than lapse and fall”  and “growth itself
is the only moral end” must have sounded strange, even incomprehensible to those in the audience
who had not already become westernized.5
      It also needs to be pointed out that Dewey’s singular focus on what he called the “method of
intelligence”  totally marginalized the cultural ways of knowing that characterized the
neighborhoods of Chicago and New York, which was part of the environment he interacted with on a
daily basis.  The question that needs to be asked is: Was his vision of democracy based on the
assumption that Italian, Irish, Jewish, and Polish immigrants, to cite the larger ethnic groups, should
abandon their ways of knowing and traditions that served as the basis of their identity and patterns of
moral reciprocity in order to be participants in the new democratic social order?  A second question
also needs to be asked: Do the contemporary followers of Dewey expect the members of the world’s
major cultures to abandon their ways of knowing in order to embrace Dewey’s method of
intelligence?  It is interesting to note that E. O. Wilson , another advocate of an evolutionary
interpretation of culture, shares the Deweyian assumption that the experimental method of western
115
science should become the basis of knowledge, values, and even the religions of the world’s
cultures.6
        The multiple moral, political, and environmental problems connected with universalizing Dewey’s
pragmatism, as well as the revisionist interpretations found in Rorty’s Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity
(1989) and Michael Eldridge’s Transforming Experience: John Dewey’s Cultural Intrumentalism (1998)
are simply ignored.  They are even omitted from the various interpetations of the usefulness of
pragmatism found in  Environmental Pragmatism.  The failure to address these issues is especially ironic
when we consider that many of the world’s cultures (Western Apache, Balinese, Zapotec—to cite just of
few) represent cultural epistemologies and moral systems that involve lifestyles that have a smaller
adverse impact on their  bioregions.
               Both Rorty and Eldridge deserve to be faulted even more than Dewey as their writing is being
done in a era marked by widespread media coverage of, as well as scientific reports on, the rapid
decline in the viability of natural systems.  Rorty’s ironist individual, as well as his category of “final
vocabulary”  which serves the same obfuscating function as Dewey’s category of the “spectator
theory of knowledge,”  would be an affront to many cultures that have much to teach us about living
less consumer-centered and technology dependent lives. Instead of juxtaposing the “final
vocabulary”  with the ironist individual who worries that “she has been initiated into the wrong tribe,
and taught to play the wrong language games”.7  Rorty should have explained why the western
assumptions underlying his vision of a liberal society are more worthy than the assumptions that
have enabled many cultures to develop complex symbolic systems for governing moral relationships
within their communities and with the environment.  His assumptions about equating change with
progress, the autonomous individual whose major focus is on self-creation, and an extreme
anthropocentism that appears rooted in nineteenth century Classical Liberalism are also the
assumptions that were the basis of the Industrial Revolution.  While Eldrige does not argue for
Rorty’s version of relativism, the subtitle of his book, “John Dewey’s Cultural Instrumentalism”
incorrectly suggests that differences in cultural epistemologies will be a major focus of his analysis.
What Eldridge does is to appropriate the word culture without any recognition of the epistemological
differences between cultures.  Indeed, he fails to consider the deeper implications of referring to
Dewey’s epistemology as a “cultural instrumentalism.”  That is, he fails to explain the culturally
specific assumptions it is based upon, and to acknowledge that the relativism that is at the center of
116
Dewey’s epistemology is guaranteed by another culturally specific assumption: namely, that
“experimental intelligence” will always lead to progressive changes.
2. Mythopoetic Narratives  and Root Metaphors:
         The failure to situate Dewey’s philosophy within the context of the world’s other cultural
epistemologies represents a serious limitation.  Even more serious is the failure of the contributors to
Environmental Pragmatism to acknowledge the cultural epistemologies of ecologically centered
cultures, and thus to explain why the shared characteristics of these epistemologies should be
replaced by Dewey’s experimental mode of inquiry.  A comparison with the cultural epistemology of
the Balinese 9,,Western Apache10, and the indigenous Andean cultural groups 11, or any number of
other cultures that have not adopted the western mode of production and consumption would have
helped to highlight  Dewey’s failure to understand that the basis of moral reciprocity governing the
relationship and practices of these cultures within the  Natural world is grounded in their
mythopoetic narratives.  The Balinese temple system, which regulates the allocation of water to the
rice paddies on an ecologically sustainable basis, is rooted in their mythopoetic narratives that
explain how the temple ceremonies balance the forces of good and evil—which in turn leads to a
culture that has made the arts of poetry, dance, and theatre a central aspect of everyday life.  The
mythopeotic narratives that connect the specific physical features of the Western Apache bioregion
with the stories of ancestral experiences, which are encoded in the place names, connect a
knowledge of place with the moral insights of the ancestors. Learning the names of the landscape
also involves learning the moral codes that are to guide the behavior and thought of the Western
Apache.  In the case of the Quechua mythopoetic narrative, the spirit world, human communities,
and natural world are interconnected and, according to Frederique Apffel-Marglin, form a living
whole. As she explains it, “the three realms meet at the site of the chacra, the field where the
peasants raise their crops but also any site where the human community, the natural community, and
the community of deities converse and reciprocate in order to regenerate life”.12  Before dismissing
these cultures as being backward, and my reference to them as the expression of naïve romanticism,
it should be kept in mind that the Balinese tried and rejected the “Green Revolution”  as unworkable
even though it was based on an experimental mode of inquiry, and that the Quechua culture goes
back at least 10,000 years and is the eighth most productive center of cultivated plant species in
human history.
117
        For Dewey and his present interpreters, mythopoetic narratives are the basis of ignorance, and
are to be replaced by the method of intelligence.  That is, ideas and values are to be assessed in terms
of consequences that follow from acting upon them. As Dewey succinctly put it, “experimental
empiricism in the field of ideas of good and bad is demanded to meet the conditions of the present
situation”.13  In place of wisdom about relationships, first encoded in stories of creation that
represent humans and Nature as part of the same spiritual/moral world and tested and refined over
generations of communal experience, Dewey and his environmentally oriented interpreters want the
immediate experience of each generation to be the basis of moral insight.  As Kelly Parker puts it,
“For the pragmatists, ‘participatory democracy’ is a political expression of the metaphysical idea that
reality is involvement and transformation.  Because the public consists of a vast plurality of people
and things valued, and because the world is changing at every moment, the ways and means of
providing for the individual and the common good have to be experimentally determined” (italics
added).14  Michael Eldridge, who fails even to mention the environmental crisis, explains Dewey’s
approach to reconstructing the moral values that guide relationships in the following way: “Criticism
was the instrument of his humanistic naturalism.  But it was not just a means for Dewey; it was also
an end—a way of associated living that would allow us to constantly revise the present in terms of
projected better possibilities and ensuing results as simultaneously critical, intelligent, democratic,
humanistic, and secular”.15 And Rorty’s revisionist interpretation of Dewey led him to claim that
“there are no nonhuman forces to which humans should be responsible”.16
       While many of the world’s cultures are based on mythopoetic narratives that have had an
environmentally destructive impact, and are used to justify the denial of basic human rights to many
of their members, the fact remains  that there are other cultures that have developed moral values and
technological practices that represent an understanding of the interdependence of humans and the
natural world.  In some cases, they even regard the natural world as sacred, and thus not reducible to a
natural “resource”. Given the existence of these ecologically centered cultures, and the fact that many
of them are actively resisting being further colonized by western technologies and modes of thinking,
the question arises as to whether the current followers of Dewey have considered whether an
ecologically sustainable future would be better assured by promoting Dewey’s experimentalism on a
world wide basis.  There is also the question of whether his followers understand that the
experimental method of problem solving involves a political process that does not always lead to a
new and higher level of consensus, and that the outcome, when practiced in the real life situations, is
118
not always democratically determined.  One of the consequences of recognizing only one method of
intelligence is that what Dewey termed the “recalcitrant minority”  might decide to ignore the
importance of participatory decision making and how the majority perceive the common good.
Recent political events bring home a point that Dewey and his followers have never acknowledged:
namely, that in some areas of public decision making the position taken by the “recalcitrant minority”
was the one that should have prevailed.  Initially, it was a minority of Americans who resisted the
Viet Nam War; and it continues to be a minority that is resisting advances in biotechnology that
promise to change the basis of life as we know it.  In effect, Dewey’s epistemology leads to opening
all aspects of everyday life to the political process, and thus, if universalized, would undermine those
cultures where decision making is carried out within the framework of morally coherent mythopoetic
narratives. In the case of many indigenous cultures, the mythopoetic narratives underlie their
ecologically sustainable practices. It would also undermine the moral authority that underlies the
efforts of various groups in American society who are attempting to address environmental and social
justice issues.  Dewey’s epistemology would require that the moral values used to legitimate various
political decisions emerge from the same experimental process of inquiry that is to determine the
ideas that are to be acted upon; thus the moral values would be treated as relative until validated by
decision making process of the group.
       There is another problem with Dewey’s epistemology that his current interpreters have failed to
address.  Dewey did not understand how language encodes and carries forward over time earlier
patterns of metaphorical thinking.  Edward Sapir, a contemporary of Dewey, was writing about the
connections between language and cultural ways of knowing during the same period of time (the late
nineteen twenties and early thirties) that Dewey was writing his most important books on a
naturalistic view of intelligence.  It is interesting to speculate on whether a knowledge of Sapir’s
writings  might have led Dewey to alter the arguments he made in Knowing and the Known (1947)
that  “the naming of the observation and naming adopted is to promote further observation which in
turn will advance and improve. This condition excludes all namings that are asserted to give, or that
claim to be, finished reports on reality”.17 Simply stated, Dewey was proposing that words should be
emptied of their historical content in order to avoid distorting the connections between direct
experience and the exercise of intelligence.  At the same time Dewey was writing The Quest for
Certainty, which was based on the assumption that the method of intelligence is free of hidden
cultural influences, Sapir was giving a paper at the 1929 joint meeting of the Linguistic Society of
119
America and the American Anthropological Association in which he explained that “the ‘real world’
is to a large extent unconsciously built up in the language habits of the group.”  He went on to say
that “the worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with
different labels attached….We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because
the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretations” (italic added).18
Rorty was more aware of the reproductive characteristics of language, but mistakenly incorporated
Donald Davidson’s misunderstanding of the metaphorical nature of language when he should have
taken seriously the writings of Richard Brown, Mark Johnson, and George Lakoff on the
connections between the metaphorically layered nature of language and thought.19
           In spite of Hickman’s attempt to establish that Dewey was not an anthropocentric thinker, and
the attempts by the other contributors to Environmental Pragmatism to put environmental philosophy
on a pragmatic footing, they all continue the Dewey/Rorty tradition of ignoring the role that language
plays in reproducing the culture’s taken-for-granted ways of understanding relationships—including
how to think about the attributes of the participants in the relationship..  As I point out in my earlier
critique of Rorty’s misunderstanding of the metaphorical nature of language, the root metaphors of a
culture, which are often based on its mythopoetic narratives, frame the process of analogic thinking,
and over time become encoded in the iconic or image metaphors that largely are a taken-for-granted
part of daily thought and behavior.20  Examples of root metaphors derived from western mythopoetic
narratives include patriarchy, anthropocentrism, and the autonomous individualism.  Root metaphors
that had their origins in powerful evocative experiences and philosophical writings (which were
themselves influenced by taken-for-granted root metaphors)  include linear progress, mechanism,
economism, and, now, evolution.  Root metaphors provide the meta-cognitive schemata or
interpretative framework, which can be seen in Dewey’s thinking.  He challenged the prevailing
assumption about individualism, and whether his thinking is based on the root metaphor of
anthropocentrism is now being debated by the contributors to Environmental Pragmatism.  However,
the root metaphors of linear change and evolution provided the meta-cognitive schemata that enabled
Dewey to assume that the experimental method, and the political/educational process that is required
to carry it out in a participatory setting, would always lead to more progressive and intelligently based
relationships.  Dewey’s genderized use of language also indicates that he took for granted the schema
or interpretative framework dictated by the root metaphor of patriarchy.
120
        There is yet another characteristic of language that brings into question Dewey’s understanding of
how moral norms can be based on the method of intelligence. It also has special relevance to any
discussion of environmental ethics.  Not only does language encode a cognitive schemata that frames
how we think,, it also  carries forward the culture’s understanding of the moral norms that govern
relationships.  The root metaphor of patriarchy framed how the attributes of men and women were to
be understood.  These attributes were, in turn, encoded in the process of analogic thinking and in the
iconic metaphors where it was automatically understood that the engineer, scientist, historian, and
carpenter were male activities. Similarly, anthropocentrism was encoded in the language in ways that
led to thinking of the environment as a resource, as a wilderness that had to be brought under human
control, and as property that can be individually owned.  The recent emergence of “ecology” as an
alternative root metaphor now leads to thinking of wilderness as the natural condition of diversity and
self-regeneration that needs to be preserved—and recovered.  To cite another example, the use of
evolution as a root metaphor possesses important explanatory power in the area of natural phenomena,
but leads to exceedingly problematic thinking when extended to areas of cultural beliefs and
practices—as the writings of E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins demonstrate.
       The implications of not understanding how the metaphorical nature of language carries forward
earlier culturally specific forms of intelligence deserves more extended treatment in any assessment of
Dewey as an environmental philosopher. However, I want to conclude this part of the discussion by
pointing out the double bind in trying to make the case that Dewey is a “biocentric thinker” when his
thinking is based on two of the root metaphors that were taken- for-granted by the promoters of the
Industrial Revolution: the interpretative framework that  represented change as the linear expression of
progress, and evolution as way of justifying the colonization of non-western cultures deemed to be
backward and, in today’s language, “undeveloped.”   The question that needs to be addressed by
philosophers arguing that Dewey is an environmental philosophy is this: will the adoption of Dewey’s
epistemology, and its underlying root metaphors, by cultures based on more ecologically centered
mythopoetic narratives (root metaphors) contribute to a more sustainable future?
3.  Tradition:
       In assessing Dewey’s contribution to living more ecologically sustainable lifestyles it is
important to emphasize that his epistemology lays out a method of experimental inquiry that is to be
applied in every aspect of a daily life that is constantly caught in the crosscurrents of change.  No
values or behaviors rooted in intergenerational experience are to be understood as being more
121
inherently ecologically sound than others.  In effect, the ongoing experiences of the present generation,
guided by experimental inquiry, is to determine what constitutes the values and ideas that are to be the
basis of behavior. To put it another way, Dewey’s method of intelligence, as well as what the
contributors to Environmental Pragmatism propose as the pragmatic basis of an environmental
philosophy, involves the continual experimentation with the conceptual and moral foundations of
experience—with the result that the immediate experience of experimental inquiry becomes the test of
newly formed ideas and values.  I reiterate this point because it is crucial to understanding the forms of
knowledge that are marginalized or represented as the residue of oppressive traditions.  Knowledge
refined over generations of living in a bioregion, and encoded in ceremonies, in the wisdom of elders,
in the vernacular architecture and agricultural practices, and in the taken-for-granted linguistic and
behavior patterns of everyday life do not meet the strict criteria of experimental inquiry—and thus are
to be regarded as traditions or habits that limit the method of intelligence.  In effect, by not challenging
the limited approach Dewey takes to what constitutes knowledge, the effort to represent Dewey as an
environmental philosophy marginalizes the various forms of knowledge that characterize many
indigenous cultures that have learned to live within the sustainable limits of their bioregions.
  The double bind that characterizes the efforts to represent Dewey’s “pragmatic naturalism” as a
guiding environmental philosophy, which would require  ecologically-centered cultures such  as the
Hopi, Cree, and Zapotec  to reject their traditional forms of knowledge in favor of Dewey's approach
to growing in the ability to reconstruct experience, can be traced to his misunderstanding of tradition.
Eldridge and Rorty reproduce Dewey’s mistake of equating traditions with habits, which Dewey
describes as “behavior (that) is confined by channels  established by prior behavior…and monotonous
regularity.21   Dewey further explains the limitations of habits (traditions) in the following way:
“habits reduce themselves to routine ways of acting, or degenerate into ways of action to which we are
enslaved just in the degree in which intelligence is disconnected from them.”  “Routine habits,” he
continues, “are unthinking habits.” 23 Habits, as dispositions, must be continually reconstructed
through the use of intelligence (experimental inquiry). It is important to note that he placed the
emphasis on the formation of new ideas.  As he wrote in The Quest for Certainty, “knowledge which
is merely a reduplication of ideas of what exists already in the world may afford us the satisfaction of a
photograph, but that is all.” 24
    Rorty reproduces Dewey’s misunderstanding of the nature of tradition in his arguments for a
liberal democracy where ironist individuals engage in the process of “self-creation.”25  Traditions, or
122
what Rorty refers to as “common sense,” are viewed as limitations on this process.  Repeating another
mistake of Dewey’s, which is to place habits and intelligence in opposing categories, Rorty states that
the “opposite of irony is common sense,” which is his code word for tradition.  Common sense, as he
puts it, “is the catchword for those who unselfconsciously describe everything important in terms of
the final vocabulary to which they and those around them are habituated”26
   Michael Eldridge summarizes Dewey’s view of tradition by stating that Dewey held that “our
inherited ways of knowing and doing are inadequate to the task of relating existence and value,” and
that Dewey’s primary aim was to “make out present beliefs, attitudes, and organization more
intelligent than they would otherwise be.” (italic added)27  The chapters written by Kelly Parker, Larry
Hickman, and the other contributors to Environmental Pragmatism omit any reference to the nature of
tradition and its role in carrying forward intergenerational knowledge and values that have a smaller
ecological impact.
   The word “tradition”  encompasses all aspects of cultural life that are re-enacted over four
generations.  It took Edward Shils 330 pages to describe the characteristics of traditions that are
largely a taken-for-granted part of daily experience: the many patterns and technologies that we rely
upon, how traditions change from within and from outside forces, how some traditions should not have
been constituted in the first place while others change too slowly to fit current sensibilities, how other
traditions disappear and are only recognized in hindsight as important to civil society—and the
impossibility of recovering traditions once they are gone, the anti-tradition traditions that have as one
of their chief goals the overturning of all traditions..28 The point of bringing Shils’ more complex and
accurate account of our dependency on traditions, as well as the dependency of  Dewey, Rorty,
Eldridge, and the contributors to Environmental Pragmatism on taken-for-granted traditions, is that it
helps clarify how Dewey and his followers overstate the efficacy of experimental inquiry.  It also
foregrounds the importance of intergenerational knowledge that, in many instances, represents
alternatives to the consumer and technology dependent lifestyle now being globalized.  To cite just one
example of the importance of intergenerational knowledge that has special significance in terms of
ecologically sustainable communities, the vast knowledge that indigenous cultures have of the plants
and animals within their bioregion, particularly their knowledge of the medicinal qualities of plants,
can only be explained as being accumulated and refined over generations of experience.  It is also the
outcome of careful observation of how the plants are part of larger ecosystems, and the consequences
of ingesting them—which involves intergenerational knowledge (traditions) that do not fit Dewey’s
123
more truncated and progressively oriented experimental method of inquiry.  Jared Diamond’s personal
account of expressing his doubts about the safety of the mushrooms that his Fore companions (a tribe
in New Guinea) gathered in order to stave off hunger, which led to him being lectured about the 25
varieties of edible mushrooms and where in the forest they could be found, is a good example of the
importance of what the Fore considered common sense knowledge.29  Indeed, the test of Dewey’s
epistemology, as well as the coping skills of Rorty’s ideal ironist individual, would be to test them in a
similar situation, but without the benefit of local indigenous knowledge
   As the word tradition often evokes a knee-jerk response not dissimilar to how Dewey and Rorty
refer to it, it is important to cite a few examples of traditions shared within the dominant culture.  For
Dewey, Rorty, and the contributors to Environmental Pragmatism, as well as other people in the
literate tradition of encoding knowledge, writing from left to right on the page, spellings, use of
paragraphs and capital letters are examples of traditions.  Other traditions that are more easily revised
include recipes for the preparation of food, legal procedures, ways of preserving privacy in
communicating messages to others, rules that regulate games, and the writing of poetry—to cite just a
few of the traditions we re-enact, modify, and carry forward through a process of being socialized by
the previous generation.  Even cutting edge technologies represent the extension of traditions built up
over generations, and the rate of this technological change indicates how traditions of knowledge are
sources of empowerment—just as Dewey was empowered by traditional patterns of forming words
into sentences on a page, rather than having to rely upon his method of experimental intelligence in
order to avoid the constraints of habits—or common sense as Rorty would put it.
Beyond Experimentalism: Why Eco-Justice Should be at the Center of an Environmental
Philosophy:
         The double bind inherent in the globalization of the industrial mode of production and
consumption is now widely documented by studies of rapid changes occurring in the Earth’s
ecosystems. The melting of polar icecaps, global warming that is altering habitats and weather
systems, collapsing marine ecosystems, loss of topsoil (now estimated on a worldwide basis at 37
percent), and chemicals that are changing the reproductive rates of species, are on a scale that requires
asking a different set of questions than what concerned Dewey and his present interpreters.  The
assumption that the chief task is to use Dewey’ method of intelligence in participatory settings to
reconstruct the problematic sources of experience will not in itself reverse the downward trendlines in
the viability of natural systems.  Indeed, the root metaphors that Dewey relied upon to justify his
124
arguments that experimentally grounded ideas always lead to a progressive form of change also
underlies the Industrial Revolution that, in its digital phase of development, is now being
globalized—and which will only accelerate the deepening crisis.  Dewey’s method of experimental
inquiry, with its emphasis on the widest possible participation of the people affected by the problem
(such as health problems resulting from chemically contaminated workplaces and neighborhoods), has
a limited usefulness.  It can also be used in eco-management approaches to identifying the causal
relationships between human activities and changes in natural systems—such as the decline in salmon
populations and the contamination of ground water.
      But Dewey’s epistemology is totally inadequate for affecting the deep cultural changes that must
be made if we are to reverse the unsustainable human impact on natural systems.  In fact, the
globalization of his epistemology, which appears as a natural extension of the arguments of Dewey and
followers such as Rorty, will exacerbate the ecological crisis by undermining cultural diversity—and
thus the forms of knowledge and values that are the basis of less consumer dependent lifestyles. The
basis for this criticism can be seen more clearly if we consider whether Dewey’s view of the
educational process can be used to address what I shall call eco-justice issues.  First, however, it would
be helpful to reiterate several key features of his thinking about education.  His primary concern was to
educate students and adults in the method of intelligence, and thus to increase their efficiency (growth)
in the ongoing process of reconstructing experience.  This required replacing cultural diversity with his
synthesis of democratic decision making and experimental inquiry. To reiterate another point ignored
by Dewey and his followers, Dewey’s view of democracy requires a process of colonization,with his
interpretation of intelligence and participatory decision-making becoming the new standard of
progressive citizenship.
  One of the primary challenges today is to reduce our dependency upon consumerism and
technologies that have an environmentally disruptive impact.  This can also be understood as the need
to reduce the commodification of knowledge, skills, and relations—which represents the relentless
spread of industrial culture. The industrial approach to education, agriculture, entertainment, healthcare,
as well as every other aspect of daily life—from personal grooming to computer mediated thought and
communication—is part of a cycle that turns nature into a economic resource to be extracted,
processed, packaged and sold in shopping malls, and returned after a limited use to the environment as
toxic waste and landfill.
125
  Globalizing the consumer lifestyle, which is represented as enhancing the individual’s material
standard of living, is actually based on experimental modes of inquiry learned in universities and public
schools, and which is the basis of the new technologies—including the technologies used to manipulate
consciousness so that young people turn against their cultural traditions in order to embrace the new
consumer fads.  The rapid merging of scientific research and corporate values is only the latest
manifestation that the method of experimental inquiry that Dewey placed so much faith in can be used
in destructive ways.  Making eco-justice the primary focus of the educational process requires an
entirely different mind-set than what we now find being promoted in our universities and public
schools.  The need to take eco-justice issues seriously is based on both moral concerns as well as
ecological imperatives.  That is, if we do not undertake radical educational reforms that replace the
current emphasis on promoting forms of education that expand the economy with regenerating the
capacity of cultural groups to live in more self-sufficient and interdependent ways we will continue to
experience the rapidly diminishing capacity of ecosystems to support life as we know it.
       The four aspects of eco-justice most relevant to considering the nature of the educational reforms
that must be undertaken include the following:  (1) the need to eliminate eco-racism that occurs at the
level of neighborhoods and communities, as well as across national boundaries; (2)  the need to reduce
the disparity of wealth between the North and South, and which results, in part, from resource
extraction and the policies of the World Bank and other international agencies that are designed to
integrate non-Western cultures into the world economy; (3) the need to strengthen the attenuated
traditions within communities and cultural groups that enable them to live less consumer dependent
lives; (4)  the need to pursue lifestyles that ensures that future generations will inhabit viable
environments that allow them to live morally coherent and symbolically rich lives.
       Dewey recommended educational reforms that reflected the challenges of his era—as he
understood them.  His followers are recommending essentially the same educational reforms,
supplemented by the small group who are addressing the ecological crisis by making the case that
Dewey is not an anthropocentric thinker. However, if we take seriously the argument that consumerism
and the relentless search to exploit new markets for the new technologies are major contributors to the
ecological crisis, the nature of educational reform becomes radically different from how Dewey
understood it.  Reducing dependence on consumerism will lead to a reduction in the toxic waste and
thus to a reduction in levels of illness among marginalized ethnic groups who have had chemical plants
and waste dumps placed in or close to their neighborhoods.  It will also lead to a reduction in the
126
extraction of resources from Third World cultures, and in the pressure to integrate them into the global
economic system.  And it will improve the prospects of future generations.
  The alternative to the present cycle of creating greater dependence upon consumerism, as Ivan
Illich and others have been telling us, is to foster the skills, knowledge, and relationships that enable
individuals, families, and communities to be more self-reliant.  But this involves nurturing the forms of
knowledge that our public schools and universities have relegated to low status by omitting them from
the curriculum.  It also involves recognizing that Dewey’s experimental form of intelligence is only one
of among many—and not necessarily the most important one.  Knowing how to grow vegetables and
prepare a meal—along with the ceremonial practices that transform the meal from an ordinary
individually centered experience into one that creates a sense of connectedness to a larger whole,
possessing the skills to make or repair something (e.g., clothes, furniture, dwelling), developing
personal talents in the expressive arts and sports, knowing the medicinal qualities of plants and the
spiritual disciplines that have proven to be an effective part of healing, and so forth, have a smaller
ecological impact than the industrial approaches glamorized in the media and in our educational
institutions.  The key point is that knowledge of meaningful activities and the development of skills that
contribute to more self-sufficient lifestyles are examples of traditions that are passed on through face-
to-face relationships.  They are kept alive and modified as part of the intergenerational experience of
the family and community.  Recipes are handed down as part of an intergenerational stock of
knowledge; so is knowledge of how to maintain a garden, play a game, write a poem, use certain plants
to ease an illness, build a dwelling (especially a vernacular dwelling that uses local materials, skills, and
meets the needs of the community), mentoring a child, and carrying on a conversation that may be
raised to the level of dialogue.  These traditions, as pointed out earlier, are not static.  If we observe
them being passed along we will notice how they are adapted in ways that fit the individual’s skills and
way of interpreting them.  These traditions represent encoded knowledge, in some cases wisdom, that
has been tested and refined over generations of experience—often in ways that reflect the influence of
the local landscape and life forms.  Some of these traditions may become rigid and out of touch with
changes in the environment and community—but this is because people fail to adapt them to the
changing circumstances or find special advantage in perpetuating traditions that were wrongly
constituted in the first place.  As Shils points out, traditions never perpetuate themselves; rather they are
perpetuated by living human beings—which opens the door to all kinds of abuse and misinterpretations.
127
  The challenge is to identify the traditions that contribute to morally coherent communities and
cultural identities—and that have a smaller ecological impact.  Many of the non-commodified forms of
knowledge, skills, and relationships within families and communities, and which vary among cultures,
do not fit Dewey’s narrow criteria for what constitutes the exercise of intelligence. Where
intergenerational knowledge involves refining and updating what has been proven in the past, Dewey
wants each generation to view ideas as “anticipatory plans and designs which take effect in concrete
reconstructions of antecedent conditions of existence.”30  This is a reasonable expectation for traditions
that are no longer useful or have served as part of a network of oppression.   But Dewey’s emphasis on
reconstructing traditions  does not take account of the multiple ways in which the non-commodified
aspects of daily life are passed along and renewed.  The problem with Dewey’s narrow definition of
what constitutes knowledge can be seen by comparing such statements as “knowledge which is merely
a reduplication in ideas of what exists already in the world may afford us the satisfaction of a
photography, but that is all”31 with the process of mentoring.  Mentoring is usually an intergenerational
relationship with many dimensions—passing on knowledge refined over generations of experience, the
accompanying narratives that contribute to the development of identities and character, demonstrating
the difference between a high level of skill and more formulaic work. It also involves going beyond
mastering what the mentor has to teach to expressing a higher level of talent that has elements of
originality.  It is not, in short, a relationship that fits the negotiating process that accompanies Dewey’
experimental approach to reconstructing experience.
  Dewey’s method of intelligence, as pointed out earlier, would be highly useful in educational
settings where the sources of environmental pollution need to be identified and corrected through
democratic procedures.  While incorporating Dewey’s approach to problem solving in the area of eco-
racism and in examining such issues as the connections between corporate values and the destruction of
local economies, an educational process that addresses other eco-justice issues would need to be based
on an understanding of the different ways knowledge is encoded and renewed in the life of the
community—and, most importantly, the differences in cultural ways of knowing.  Perhaps the most
critically important eco-justice issue that can be addressed through a radically reformed approach to the
curriculum is the need to reduce the current trend toward greater dependence upon consumerism to
meet daily needs, This has several curricular dimensions.  The first would be to have students document
the many ways they are dependent upon consumer products in the course of a day, and to also
document the multiple ways  consumerism is promoted through the media and through such other
128
channels of communication as the layout of shopping malls and design of buildings. Students would
also be encouraged to document the monetized relationships they have during a day.  This approach
sounds very Deweyian; but the other part of helping students understand the cultural alternatives to
commodified activities and relationships requires an understanding and appreciation of traditions that
goes against the grain of Dewey’s basic epistemological biases.   The second aspect of curriculum
reform would be to have students survey within their own neighborhoods and communities the range of
face-to-face, intergenerationally based activities, relationships, and forms of knowledge that have not
been commodified. The focus of this survey would include the dominant culture, as well the minority
cultural groups that many students are still rooted in.  There are several purposes for learning about the
non-commodified aspects of the diverse groups found in most neighborhoods that still retain traditions
distinctive of their mother culture,  which range from Latino, Indigenous, and Japanese-American to
Mennonites, Mormons, and other faith based groups.  The first is to understand, and, in many instances,
to valorize their traditions of intergenerational responsibility that contribute to morally coherent
communities, and that represent examples of individual, family, and communal self-sufficiency.  The
sense of being marginal in relation to the dominant materially oriented culture undermines the
intergenerational connectedness within many of these groups; thus the need to communicate a
recognition that their approaches to community that contribute to reducing the rate of environmental
degradation is vitally important. The second reason for learning about the non-commodified forms of
knowledge, relationships, and activities carried on within these diverse groups is that it will assist
students in recognizing alternative possibilities for living less consumer dependent lives.  Learning who
the mentors are in  different cultural groups and the nature of activities that develop personal talents
while creating a sense of community are essential to participating in the intergenerational life of a
community.
  The emphasis on involving students in the non-commodified activities has another implication that
cannot be taken into account by the followers of Dewey’s narrowly conceived epistemology.  As
pointed out earlier, Dewey did not recognize the profound differences in cultural ways of knowing and
mythopoetic narratives.  He divided the world’s cultures into two categories—those that adhered to
fixed ideas and values, and relied upon a spectator approach to knowledge; and those that relied upon
an experimental mode of inquiry.  For a philosopher who placed so much emphasis on the experiential
ground of inquiry, it is important to note that he did not take seriously the forms of community, moral
reciprocity, and wisdom of human/Nature relationships among the indigenous cultures that shared the
129
bioregion he grew up in.  Nor did he concern himself with whether his category of cultures mired in a
spectator approach to knowledge really made sense in terms of the Japanese, Chinese, and Islamic
cultures he visited.
  Contrary to Dewey’s position, which has not been corrected by Rorty or Eldridg, nurturing existing
differences in cultural ways of knowing becomes vitally important to reversing the downward trendline
in the viability of natural systems. One of the effects of globalization is to undermine cultures that
developed complex symbolic systems for understanding relationships within the human community,
and between the human and natural communities.  However, many of these cultures are now actively
resisting being drawn into the western system of technological dependency and corporate values.  On
the local level that is part of the student’s daily experience, there are many cultural groups that have not
entirely assimilated into the mainstream individually-centered, consumer dependent lifestyle.  These
cultural groups, many of which have been economically and politically marginalized, have a sense of
identity as a community because they carry on the intergenerational traditions of knowledge and moral
values.  These traditions may be so attenuated that they now exist only in the form of traditional foods,
ceremonies, and uses of herbal medicines.  But many of these cultures are struggling to keep alive their
language and thus their basic way of understanding relationships—and the attributes of the participants
in these relationships.  Many of the languages of indigenous cultures encode ways of understanding
relationships with the natural world that predated by thousands of years Aldo Leopold’s land ethic.32
     An eco-justice curriculum should introduce students to the range of cultural groups that are now
mixed together in urban and rural settings.  In addition to learning about differences in intergenerational
forms of knowledge, and how these forms of knowledge influence patterns of moral reciprocity within
their communities, students also need to consider the traditions that represent alternatives to the hyper-
consumerism that permeate every facet of the dominant culture.  Valorizing the non-commodified
traditions of these diverse cultural groups may help strengthen minority students’ identification with the
traditions of their parents, as well as provide students from the dominant culture with an understanding
of the alternatives to environmentally destructive activities and values.  The purpose would not be to
borrow from these cultures, which too often turns into the economic appropriation of their traditions.
Rather, it is to enable students to gain a different perspective on what remains of the non-commodified
traditions within the dominant culture.
     The failure of Dewey’s followers to recognize how taken-for-granted root metaphors that had their
origins hundreds (even thousands of years ago in the case of anthropocentrism and patriarchy) frame
130
current thinking can be seen in how a Deweyian approach to curriculum is understood.  In addition to
Dewey’s emphasis on the curriculum emerging from the ongoing experiences of the community, his
insistence that inquiry begins with a problematic situation (which he understood in terms of explicit
awareness) further limits what should be the focus of the curriculum.  The root metaphors that
unconsciously influence thought and behavior are not likely to be examined in an educational process
based on Dewey’s epistemology and taken-for-granted assumptions.  A good example of how a
Deweyian view of learning represents a surface approach to problem solving can be seen in the process
of eco-management where the scientific method and, in some instance, participatory decision making
are the modus operandi.  This approach seldom involves an examination of the root metaphors of
anthropocentrism, mechanism, progress, and economism that are the primary  sources of the problem.
When these root metaphors are not changed, the problem simply reoccurs at a later date, and on a larger
scale
  An eco-justice oriented curriculum needs to encourage students to examine how the taken-for-
granted root metaphors influence the areas of cultural experience that create the double bind where our
approaches to progress undermine the viability of natural systems.  In addition, students need to
examine how these root metaphors influence our understanding and use of science and technology.
Questions that will contribute to democratizing the uses of science and technology include the
following: How does modern science and technology differ from the ways of explaining, predicting and
controlling natural phenomena in oral cultures?  How do different technologies influence relationships
and the ability to live more self-sufficient lives?  How do the prevailing cultural assumptions influence
the kinds of technology that are developed?  Who benefits most from different forms of technology?
What traditions are displaced by different technologies, and do the displaced traditions result in new
forms of dependency?  What is the form of individualism required by different forms of technology?
Which technologies contribute to globalizing an ecologically unsustainable lifestyle?
  A similar set of questions can be asked about the culturally specific root metaphors that underlie the
practice of western science and it legitimating ideology:  What are the assumptions that underlie the
scientific method? What forms of knowledge and aspects of human experience is it unable to address?
Does the use of the scientific method to establish moral norms and to delegitimate the mythopoetic
narratives that are the basis of moral values exceed the explanatory of the scientific method of inquiry?
What was the role of science in the development of the Industrial Revolution, and is it now at the center
of current efforts to bring the most basic biological processes under the control of an industrial mode of
131
production and consumption?  What are the appropriate limits of scientific inquiry, and how can it be
determined when scientists cross the line that separates competent judgment and being an ideologue
and futurist thinker?  What can be legitimately explained by the theory of evolution, and when does it
become an ideology that gives the appearance of scientific legitimacy to processes of colonization and
the right of elite groups to further advantage themselves?
  These are difficult but necessary questions that also need to be part of an eco-justice curriculum.
Addressing these questions will help students gain a better understanding of how the high-status
knowledge that leads to greater dependency upon the products and processes of the industrial system
now moving into its digital phase undermines the face-to-face, intergenerational knowledge that
represents the alternative pathway that we must rediscover if we  are to reduce the impact of humans on
the environment. It will also help students recognize that science and technology cannot address issues
of personal meaning, moral relationships, and renewing patterns of self-sufficiency within communities
and cultural groups. Students may also gain insight into the role that mythopoetic narratives play in
helping people understand their place in the cycles of life, and in recognizing the limits of a life based
on hubris and misrepresentations of fundamental life sustaining relationships.   Dewey and his
followers might claim that his approach to education would also lead to deep inquiry into these
questions, but unfortunately his approach to problem solving never reaches the level of examining the
guiding cultural assumptions; and his emphasis on democratizing the process of inquiry took-for-
granted that the scientific mode of inquiry itself did not need to be problematized.  It should also be
kept in mind that Dewey argued against the mythopoetic narratives that could provide an alternative
perspective on the limits of science, technology, and the hubris of experts.  In effect, he aligned himself
with the progressive cultural forces that are, in the name of higher values of democracy, experimental
inquiry, and progress, accelerating the rate of environmental degradation.  To argue that he is an
environmental philosophy is a misguided effort that reflects the failure to question the assumptions that
Dewey took for granted.
        References
Apffel-Marglin, Frederique.  1997. “Counter-Developments in the Andes”  The Ecologist. Vol. 27, No.
6, pp. 221-224.
______________________, with PRATEC (editors). 1998. The Spirit of Regeneration: Andean Culture
Against Western Notions of Development. London: Zed.
132
Basso, Keith. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places; Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Bowers, C. A. 1993. Critical Essays on Education, Modernity, and the Recovery of the Ecological
Imperative. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
___________. 1929. Experience and Nature. New York: W. W. Norton.
___________. 1957 edition. Reconstruction in Philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press.
___________. 1958 edition. Art As Experience. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
___________. 1960 edition. The Quest for Certainty. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Dewey, John, and Arthur Bentley, 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.
Diamond, Jared. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Eldridge, Michael. 1998. Transforming Experience: John Dewey’s Cultural Instrumentalism.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Lansing, Stephen, J. Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of
Bali. Princeton: University of Princeton Press.
Lawlor, Robert. 1991. Voices of the First Day: Awakening in the Aboriginal Dreamtime. Rochester,
VT.: Inner Tradition.
Light, Andrew, and Eric Katz. 1996. Environmental Pragmatism. London: Routledge.
Nelson, Richard. 1983. Make Prayers to the Raven: A Koyukan View of the Northern Forest.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Sachs, Wolfgang. 1992. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed.
Shils, Edward. 1981. Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sapir, Edward. 1970 edition. Culture, Language, and Personality. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Walens, Stanley. 1881. Feasting with Cannibals: An Essay on Kwakiutal Cosmology. Princeton, NJ.:
University of Princeton Press.
Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
133
 Chapter 7  Why a Critical Pedagogy of Place is an Oxymoron
     There are many assumptions and values that science and environmental educators share with the
proponents of critical pedagogy and place-based educators.  The critical pedagogy theorist’s emphasis
on social justice issues and the place-based educator’s stress on student’s becoming active
participants in the interplay of their local communities and bioregions can easily be interpreted by
science/environmental  educators as natural allies in creating a more sustainable future.  That all four
groups have learned to take-for-granted many of the same cultural assumptions as well as the silences
promoted in their university education is yet another reason that the agenda of a critical pedagogy of
place appears so appropriate for supplementing the pedagogy and curriculum in environmental and
science education classes.  Among the key assumptions they share in common include thinking of
change as an inherently progressive force (what the critical pedagogy theorists refer to as
“transformations” and “transformative learning”), a deep seated ethnocentrism that is now masked by
abstract references to valuing cultural differences, a view of language as a conduit—which
marginalizes an awareness that words have a history and that their meaning needs to be continually
updated through what the anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, referred to as “thick description” (1973),
and that critical thinking always leads to overcoming oppression and environmentally destructive
practices.
       The other key assumptions reinforced in a university education take the form of prejudices that
can be traced back to the ideas of Plato that were, in turn, reinforced by Enlightenment thinkers and
most contemporary Western philosophers.   These prejudices relate to the way “traditions” are now
represented in most university classes—and especially in science-oriented classes.  Another prejudice
is that indigenous cultures are essentially backward and thus must be modernized by adopting the
Western model of development—including modern science.  One of the major silences in the
university education of critical pedagogy theorists, place-based educators, and science-oriented
educators is about the nature, importance, and diversity of the world’s cultural commons for living a
less consumer, more community-oriented lifestyle.  To make the point more directly, science and
environmental educators share many of the same assumptions that are taken-for-granted by the
proponents of a critical pedagogy of place and thus do not recognize that combining “critical
pedagogy” with “place” is a oxymoron.  According to the dictionary, an oxymoron is “ a rhetorical
figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined”.  When both groups—the
134
proponents of critical pedagogy of place and the science/environmental educators—find in each
other’s approach to educational reform the language that appears to represent common interests, they
may think that it is unnecessary to question whether the conceptual baggage (including the prejudices
and silences) of both groups leads to basic contradictions—or what I would prefer to call conceptual
double binds.
   Part of the conceptual baggage that critical pedagogy theorists never mention is that Paulo Freire
was a deeply Social Darwinian thinker, which can be seen if the reader goes to his description of the
three stages of human (cultural) development in Education for Critical consciousness (1974a English
language edition). There he describes the indigenous cultures living in the interior of Brazil as “men of
semi-intransitivity of consciousness who cannot apprehend problems situated outside of their sphere of
biological necessity.”  His categories for other cultures that have evolved to a higher stage of
development include “transitivity of consciousness”, “naïve transitivity”, and finally—“critically
transitivity of consciousness” which he identifies as the most evolved consciousness of critical
pedagogy theorists (pp. 17-19).  John Dewey, the other less quoted source of thinking that
environmental/science educators are more likely to have studied in their teacher education courses, is
also a Social Darwinian thinker.  His stages of cultural evolution can be seen in his many references to
“savages”, people locked in a “spectator” approach to knowledge, and the more evolved thinkers who
rely upon the experimental mode of inquiry for continually reconstructing experience.  Both Freire and
Dewey assumed that change is inherently progressive in nature, and both ignored the environmental
damage of their times.  Dewey, for example, refers to traditions (habits) “as routine ways of acting, or
degenerate in ways of action to which we are enslaved…” (1916, p. 5). Freire’s most famous
injunction for overcoming oppression can be found in Pedagogy of the Oppressed where he urges each
generation to rename the world of the previous generation (1974b, p. 76). And in The Politics of
Education, he states that “history makes us while we make it. Again, my suggestion is that we attempt
to emerge from this alienating routine that repeats itself” (1985, p.199).  Their misunderstanding of the
nature and complexity of traditions is reproduced in the thinking of the advocates of a critical
pedagogy of place, and is one of the reasons the latter group are unable to recognize the ecological and
community strengthening characteristics of many of the world’s cultural commons.
    A strong case can be made that even though the current generation of critical pedagogy theorists,
such as Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren, now suggest that the multicultural nature of the world must
be taken into account, and that we must address the economic basis of the ecological crisis, we can still
135
see in their writings the main themes of both Freire and Dewey—which is the need to transform the
world by relying upon an abstract Western epistemology that carries forward a number of
misconceptions and prejudices that can be traced back to Plato’s Republic.  Their emphasis on the
efficacy of abstract theory in leading to a better world reproduces Plato’s assumption that rational
thought, which only an elite can effectively engage in, is a more reliable source of knowledge than
narratives, embodied experiences, and the achievements of other cultures (Bowers, 2007a).  For
McLaren, the epistemological framework that should serve as a universal guide for addressing the
ecological crises is the Marxist analysis that he is now attempting to “green” (2005).  The silences and
prejudices found in the theories of Dewey and Freire—particularly their indifference to the importance
of the cultural commons as sources of resistance to the globalization of market forces as well as their
prejudice toward other cultural ways of knowing-- also continue to be reproduced in the thinking of
Giroux and McLaren—and to a lesser extent in the thinking of David Gruenewald. The problem for
science/environmental educators is that these are the same silences and prejudices that were part of
their own university education.   These shared silences and prejudices, along with the shared cultural
assumptions, are the most likely reasons that science/environmental educators do not recognize that a
critical pedagogy of place is an oxymoron.
        If one reads the writings of Giroux and, more importantly, McLaren, one finds recommendations
for educational reforms that are based on a clear understanding of how capitalism is contributing to the
development of a world monoculture, and to destroying the sustaining capacity of natural systems.
McLaren gets this part correct.  Whether the culturally diverse educators of the world will adopt his
“green revolutionary critical pedagogy” that is to lead to an ecologically sustainable socialist future is
more problematic.  The important point is that neither Giroux’s vision of the teacher as a
“transformative intellectual”,  McLaren’s revolutionary Marxist-oriented critical pedagogy, nor Joel
Kovel’s eco-socialist pedagogy (2002)  address the specific curriculum reforms that should be
undertaken.  Their writings contain sweeping generalizations about social justice, the need for
overturning oppressive practices—including capitalism. But they fail to explain how to introduce these
reforms in the world’s diversity of cultures that range from the Euro-centric to the Muslim, Hindu, and
the thousands of indigenous culture that make up the majority of the world’s population.  As many of
these non-Western cultures are well represented in urban areas across America, Canada, Great Britain,
as well as other Western countries, there is a need for these critical pedagogy and eco-socialist
theorists to explain how these cultural groups are to be educated to abandon their non-Western forms
136
of consciousness, and to adopt the supposedly emancipated consciousness of Freire, Giroux, and
McLaren.
     If we were to do an empirical study of whom science/environmental educators rely upon most for
their understanding of how to adapt a critical pedagogy of place to their approach to teaching and
curriculum, I suspect that the person they would cite as the most influential would be David
Gruenewald.  The essay they are likely to cite as providing the best understanding of a critical
pedagogy of place would be a “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place” (2003).  If the
reader lacks a knowledge of the historical roots of double bind thinking encoded in the languaging
processes that are largely taken-for-granted, including how the silences and prejudices that have
characterized Western philosophy since the time of Plato are still being perpetuated in universities,
they are likely to think that Gruenewald has achieved a synthesis that avoids the problem of critical
pedagogy of place being an oxymoron.
           A key word that has been missing in the writings of Freire, and his many followers around the
world (including McLaren’s reductionist and thus non-culturally grounded and non-embodied use of
the word) is “conservatism”.  Gruenewald attempts to soften the emphasis of critical pedagogy on
continual transformation, which is the goal of Freire’s critical pedagogy, by stating that the “ question
of what needs to be conserved takes on a special significance to a pedagogy of place” (p. 10). His
acknowledgement that not everything needs to be transformed and decolonized was a result of an hour
and a half telephone conversation with me, which he acknowledges the “Notes” section of the paper.
Had he not had this conversation, his effort to explain the need for place-based educators to balance
“decolonization” with helping local communities to learn how to “reinhabit” their place would have
left the reader with the idea that both critical pedagogy and place-based education have essentially the
same reform agenda.  His reference to the need to be aware of what needs to be conserved puts him
outside the mainstream of critical pedagogy thinking.  Unfortunately, Gruenewald does not
acknowledge that conserving involves, among other things, an awareness of the ecological importance
of the many forms of intergenerational knowledge, skills, and patterns of interdependence and support
that can also be understood as traditions.  As pointed out above, a constant theme in writings of Freire,
Giroux, McLaren, and Peter Roberts is that traditions need to be the main focus of the universal
project of decolonization and emancipation. Gruenewald’s reference to conserving thus represents a
radical departure from the emancipatory agenda of critical pedagogy theorists, but he fails to recognize
137
that many of his readers will impose their stereotypical and reductionist understanding on his use of he
word.
    While Gruenewald makes a verbal genuflection in the direction of making  awareness of what
needs to be conserved part of his understanding of a pedagogy of place, he never goes on to identify
what needs to be conserved.  That is, like the other critical pedagogy theorists, there is no specificity to
the recommendation—and this silence has to do with their collective lack of a deep understanding of
cultures.  To put it another way, Gruenewald shares with the other critical pedagogy theorists a lack of
awareness of how a “thick description” of the local intergenerational knowledge should be a core
creature of place-based education.  The result is that the reference to knowing what needs to be
conserved does not eliminate the problem of a reform agenda that is based on oxymoron thinking.
  A careful reading of Gruenewald’s essay reveals that the agenda of critical pedagogy, which he
refers to as “decolonization”, is his primary concern—and that “reinhabitation” turns out to be a
context-free metaphor that has “God-word” standing that is beyond questioning.  Unfortunately, he
adopts from others an explanation of “reinhabitation” that justifies the transformative mission of
critical pedagogy.  He quotes the definition given by Berg and Dasmann,that reinhabitation means
“learning to live-in-place in an area that has been disrupted and injured through past exploitation”. He
also quotes David Orr’s explanation that “the study of place…has significance in reeducating people in
the art of living well where they are” (Gruenewald, p. 9). What is important to note is that both
quotations fail to acknowledge that there are aspects of the cultural commons that do not require “re-
education” and learning to live in non-environmentally destructive ways.  Gruenewald’s reliance on
the word “reinhabitation” further strengthens the likelihood that science/environmental educators
continue to ignore the importance of the cultural commons that have a smaller ecological impact.
Unfortunately, educators are ill-prepared to re-educate the people who possess the economic and
political advantages that have allowed them to exploit the environment—though recent experience has
demonstrated that students can participate with other environmentally activists in forcing corporations
and other environmental malefactors to modify their behavior.
     Learning to participate in these collective environmental restoration efforts  should be a key part
of place-based education. However, what is not recognized in Gruenewald’s ideologically driven effort
to make place-based education dependent upon the critical pedagogy of decolonization ( a word that
has its roots in a Marxist analysis) is that most environmental activists rely upon a more general
understanding of critical reflection that can be traced back to the ideas of Socrates.  Indeed, critical
138
reflection, over the centuries, as not always been used to achieve social justice. It has been relied upon
to solve a wide range of problems, such as how to identify and punish people who were drifting from
the orthodoxies of the Catholic Church, how to introduce social reforms that would contribute to
greater social justice in society, how to market products that the public was unaware of needing, and
how to ensure that the adoption of a new technology would not undermine the intergenerational
knowledge essential to a morally coherent and mutually supportive culture. A specific example of the
exercise of critical reflection that was not informed by the change-oriented interpretation that the
critical pedagogy writers take-for-granted (except for the Bowers’ influenced qualification that
Gruenewald makes) is how a First Nation culture in Canada relied upon critical reflection in sorting
out the cultural issues involved in adopting computers in their approaches to education.  For them,
critical reflection involved examining what needed to be changed and what needed to be
conserved—and it was a process that combined critical reflection and democratic decision making that
took two years to work through.
       Gruenewald’s efforts to incorporate a concern with balancing a decolonizating educational agenda
with an awareness that conserving must also be taken into account in placed-based education brings
into focus another aspect of the conceptual baggage that is part of critical pedagogy thinking that few
educators think critically about.  Gruenewald, like Freire, McLaren, and Moacir Gadotti (Director of
the Paulo Freire Institute in Brazil) reproduce a tradition that can be traced back to one of Plato’s
contributions that Western philosophers have been happy to sustain: namely, the idea that there is such
a thing as “pure thinking”.  That is, the idea that thinking, when rationally based, is free of the
influence of the cultural epistemology encoded in the metaphorical language of the cultural
group—and upon which the “thinker” relies and generally takes for granted.
           The current manifestation of this phenomenon was best described by Alvin Gouldner when he
wrote that “ the culture of critical discourse is characterized by speech that is relatively more situation-
free, more context or field ‘independent’. This speech culture thus values expressively legislated
meanings and devalues tacit, context-limited meanings.  It’s ideal is ‘one word, one meaning’ for
everyone and forever” (1979, p. 28). This proclivity of relying upon abstractions that have been
melded together into a theory can be seen not only in Gruenewald’s reliance on the words
“decolonization” and “reinhabitation” but also in Gadotti’s claim that environmental educators should
foster a “planetary consciousness” and that this form of consciousness can only be created as the
environmental educator disrupts the process of cultural transmission by encouraging students to
139
discover this consciousness for themselves.  This is to be achieved, according to Gadotti, by
encouraging students to undertake “the grand journal of each individual into his interior universe and
the universe that surrounds him” (2000, p. 9). While Freire would not go along with this subjective
approach to emancipation from the processes of cultural transmission, Gadotti’s  proposal is not
fundamentally different from Freire's argument that each generation can only achieve the fullest
expression of their humanity as they rename the world of the previous generation-- a proposal that
ignores the differences in cultural ways of knowing that often were and still are the basis of living
within the limits and possibilities of their bioregion.
            McLaren also reproduces the Platonic pattern of representing abstract thinking and theory as
more legitimate than context-dependent forms of knowledge--which I will explain more fully in terms
of Geertz’s idea of “thick description.  For example, McLaren reduces the discussion of what needs to
be conserved in America’s political and environmentally degraded circumstances into a word game
where one abstract definition is played off against another abstraction—and in the process reproduces
another part of the Platonic legacy that Western philosophers have perpetuated.  Namely, the
marginalization of other cultural ways of knowing, including the nature and ecological importance of
their cultural commons. In his usual style of misrepresenting the ideas of people with whom he
disagrees, McLaren (along with Donna Houston) writes that “we may have found some more common
ground with Bowers if not for his insistence on boiling everything down to a linguistic struggle over
whether the word transform or the word conservative is the more appropriate political term” (2005), p.
204). By ignoring the extended discussion in my earlier book, Mindful Conservatism (2001) that was
based on a thick description of the biological, linguistic, cultural, psychological, and environmental
processes that are unavoidably conserving, and that represent the conservative ideas of Edmund Burke,
Michael Oakshott, and such environmental conservative writers as Wendell Berry, Vandana Shiva,
and Masanobu Fukuoka, he represents both the words conserve and transform as having a universal
meaning and thus free of cultural contexts.  If one examines the key words in Gruenewald’s article, we
find the same proclivity of assuming that words have a universal meaning.
    Let me be more specific here. The context-free use of language that characterizes both how
critical pedagogy and place-based education are supposedly complementary  processes is key to
understanding why, when fused together, a critical pedagogy of place is an oxymoron.  The quotations
that Gruenewald borrows from Berg, Dasmann, and Orr represent only a partial understanding of how
people inhabit place. And their representation of how people need to be “reeducated in the art of living
140
well” represents an example of context-free thinking. If Berg, Dasmann, Orr, and, for that matter,
Gruenewald, had engaged in a thick description of what all is constituted in inhabiting place they
would have found that the nature of place-based education has a more complex agenda than that of
decolonization and reinhabitation.
       According to the anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, thick description is what enables one to know the
difference between (to use his example) an involuntary wink of eye and a wink that is intended to send
a message.  That is, thick description involves examining the history of prior relationships, issues of
gender and class, personal biography, and all the other background cultural patterns that may have
influenced the nature of the message that was being sent.  Another example is when feminists
challenged the prejudices inherent in genderized language by doing a thick description of their history
of achievements, patterns of discrimination, various forms of exploitation—and even the mythopoetic
narratives that represented them as inferior to men. Thick description involves challenging the
abstractions that carry forward past misconceptions, prejudices, silences, and stereotypes that are
encoded in metaphors such as decolonization, critical inquiry, emancipation, individualism, tradition,
woman, planetary citizen, American, Canadian, British, Muslim, and so forth.
    Why a critical pedagogy of place is an oxymoron can be seen if a thick description of how
different cultural groups inhabit place is undertaken. This would require a thick description of the
cultural traditions and practices of the nearly 6000 linguistic groups still surviving (with many on the
verge of extinction), as well as all the ethnic groups that mix and mingle with other groups in urban
areas.  Recognizing this huge task, which can be undertaken if the science/environmental educator focus
on local people and local places, can lead to profoundly different pedagogical practices that go beyond
the assumption that all people need to in learn how to re-inhabit on a sustainable basis the local
bioregion.  A thick description of the relationship between people and place may reveal the patterns of
environmental abuse, as well as the ideology and techno-science developments that are major
contributors to degrading the environment.  But it may also lead to an awareness of many aspects of the
local cultural commons that have been carried on for generations, and that represent alternatives to the
consumer/industrial culture that is being globalized.  The intergenerational knowledge that sustains
many of the cultural commons that strengthen patterns of mutual support within communities and that
have a smaller ecological impact represent patterns of habitation that do not need to be “decolonized”.
   A different vocabulary than that of critical pedagogy theorists is required in describing (doing a
thick description of) the many expressions of the local cultural commons that represent sites of
141
resistance to the hyper-consumer dependent lifestyle required by the industrial system of production and
the incessant pursuit of profits.  A thick description of the cultural commons carried forward by different
ethnic groups, such as their approach to the preparation and sharing of food or their traditions of mutual
support, would bring out the complexity existing within the community’s mutual support systems as
well as their historical continuities.  Making explicit these traditions (some of which may perpetuate
forms of discrimination) may also being out the degree to which there is an awareness of how the
cultural commons are being enclosed—that is, being incorporated into the market system of production
and consumption.  Women in Third World cultures who have had the traditional responsibility of
identifying the seeds for the next year’s planting are aware of how the introduction of the Green
Revolution, with its reliance on chemicals and excessive use of water, are clearly aware of how their
traditional knowledge was the basis of a subsistence existence that is now being threatened by the
double bind of becoming increasingly dependent upon a money economy when their income is so
severely limited.
  Other aspects of the traditions of the cultural commons, what can be referred to as the
intergenerational knowledge, skills, and systems of mutual support, include the narratives, approaches to
the creative arts, ceremonies, civil liberties and systems of reintegration into community, craft
knowledge, and so forth.  The cultural commons of some groups include racist, gender, and age-related
forms of discrimination and exploitation—which should be reformed by recovering the social justice
traditions of the culture rather than driven by a Western ideology.  We need to remember that the
Woodrow Wilson ideal of making the world safe for democracy, which corporations and the World
Trade Organization have reframed as making the world safe for achieving a global capitalist economy, is
part of the West’s messianic tradition that has its roots both in messianic Christianity, and in liberating
ideologies that perpetuate the same disregard that Plato and other Western thinkers such as John Locke,
Descartes, Adam Smith, John Dewey, Paulo Freire have shown toward the possibility that other cultures
may have developed in ways that do not degrade the environments they depend upon.
  Overcoming the oxymoron agenda of an critical pedagogy of place can be done if
science/environmental educators understand their role as more complex than educating students to
transform the local practices that are degrading the natural systems that future generations will depend
upon.  In suggesting how thick description should be an integral part of the educational process, it is
important to identify another problem that is rooted in most approaches to educating science and
environmental educators.  That is, while there is a difference between the scientific method and the
142
scientists who think and communicate in the language of their cultural group, the professors who control
the courses that science and environmental educators take as part of their professional studies too often
do not themselves possess a deep knowledge of culture and thus do not require this of their students.
The double bind here is that if science and environmental educators adopt a pedagogy based on a critical
pedagogy of place, they will be dealing with cultural issues for which they have little or no
understanding.
     And when becoming an agent of cultural decolonization and re-inhabitation they may be moving
down the slippery slope of scientism that we now find being promoted by highly acclaimed scientists.  I
am referring here to E. O. Wilson who claims in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998) that
before the rise of Western science people were locked in a cognitive prison, that the brain is a machine,
that religions are adaptive behaviors and should now be replaced by the theory of evolution, and that
scientists are best prepared to determine which cultural practices and values should be allowed to exist.
Francis Crick, in The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994) promises that scientists will soon be able to
explain the nature of human consciousness—including why some people become outstanding musicians
and mathematicians.  And Lee Silver, in Remaking Eden (1997) claims that the next challenge facing
scientists will be to create a class of “Gene Rich” humans who will over time occupy their own niche in
the process of human evolution.  The less known scientists responsible for intelligence tests and the
eugenics movement also must be kept in mind when considering how scientists often reproduce the
misconceptions of their culture.  The example of the many scientists who introduced into the
environment thousand of chemicals without knowing how they would interact on each other or on the
reproductive systems of humans and  other organisms—all in the name of progress—must also be kept
in mind.  The scientist’s lack of a deep knowledge of cultures, including how the languaging systems of
different cultures carry forward the misconceptions (and in many instances the wisdom) of the past
should be a major concern of science/environmental educators who take on the role of that a critical
pedagogy of place assigns them.
  Given this warning, I would like to suggest an approach that addresses what is missing in the
critical pedagogy approach to place-based education. As suggested earlier, the cultural and
environmental commons began with the first humans walking the savannas in what is now called Africa.
While environmental scientists and various conservation groups are attempting to conserve and restore
what remains of the environmental commons, there are cultural commons that also exist in every
community—but again in highly attenuated conditions where what remains are under constant threat of
143
being enclosed (being privatized by individuals and corporations, monetized, turned into a new
consumer product or service).
  The pedagogy that strengthens the local traditions of intergenerational knowledge, skills, and
patterns of mutual support that enable members of the community to be less dependent upon
consumerism, and thus to have a smaller ecological footprint, requires the teacher and professor to adopt
the role of the mediator, and to engage students in thick descriptions of the differences between their
experiences in various cultural commons activities and experiences in the industrial/consumer culture.
The mediator, unlike the critical pedagogy-oriented teacher, does not set out to decolonize or emancipate
students from the intergenerational knowledge and skills that the critical pedagogy theorist has relegated
to the realm of silence or has prejudged as backward.  Rather, it is to encourage students to identify and
to give voice to their experiences in the various cultural commons in their community as well as the
corresponding industrial/consumer activities.  The mediator does not give the answers in advance and
does not assume at the outset that the teaching moment is also a moment of transformation.  Rather the
purpose of the mediator is to engage students in the process of thick description that leads to acquiring
the language necessary for exercising the communicative competence required in the democratic process
of deciding what needs to be resisted, fundamentally changed, or conserved and intergenerationally
renewed.
   Thick description can begin in the early grades by having students discuss the differences they
experience in oral and print-based thinking and communication.  Encouraging students to engage in a
thick description would lead to giving voice to the differences in relationships, patterns of moral
reciprocity, feelings, patterns of thinking, what cannot be made explicit in both modes of
communication, and so forth. In effect, it leads to making explicit what may otherwise be taken-for-
granted and thus not recognized as either problematic or as a life and community-enhancing pattern.
Later, thick description may focus on the differences between an assembly-line experience and a craft
endeavor, between developing a talent that leads to participating with others in one of the creative arts
and becoming a consumer of artists whose works are part of the market system, between possessing the
language necessary for identifying one’s civil liberties and the experience of accepting the right of
government and corporations to keep every aspect of daily life under constant surveillance, between
growing a garden and being dependent upon foods flown in from the far reaches of the world, between
acquiring the skills necessary for helping a neighbor and working at an unfulfilling job in order to hire
someone else to make the repair, between work that is returned and work that is paid, between relying
144
upon intergenerational knowledge of healing practices and relying upon industrialized medicine,
between living more self-reliant and community centered lives and being the autonomous individual
required by the market systems of production and consumption, and so forth. The differences between
the cultural commons and the market dictated relationships exist in both rural and urban environments.
A fuller account of how different aspects of the cultural commons and forms of enclosure can be
introduced at different stages in the educational process can be found in the online book, Transforming
Environmental Education: Making the Cultural and Environmental Commons the Focus of Educational
Reform, which can be accessed by going to <www.http://cabowers.net>.  The online Handbook
(Bowers, 2007b) that can be found at the same online address explains in greater detail the
teacher’s/professor’s role as a mediator between the sub-culture of the local cultural commons and the
subculture of the market/consumer dependent lifestyle.
   The mediator, regardless of level of schooling (including home schooling), needs to encourage
students to do a thick description of how different aspects of the cultural common impact natural
systems—as well as a thick description of narratives and other aspects of the cultural commons that
contribute to degrading natural systems and to oppressing, marginalizing, and exploiting other members
of the community.  The latter may take the form of doing a thick description of the higher values to
which the community also subscribes (perhaps the social gospel or other sacred texts) and the
community practices that contradict these higher values.
  To reiterate the key reason that a critical pedagogy of place is an oxymoron is that the linguistic
tradition of relying upon abstractions, including abstract theories that encode many of the same taken-
for-granted assumptions that underlie both the idea of universal decolonization and the market liberals’
efforts to universalize the West’s consumer dependent lifestyle, fail to take account of the
intergenerational traditions of habitation that still exist in communities.  Places have a long and
culturally varied history, while the language of a critical pedagogy of place has a specific history that
carries forward the tradition of ignoring the diverse ways in which more ecologically centered cultures
and community practices have contributed to long-term habitation of place.
  One has only to recall the generalizations of Dewey, Freire, and Gadotti that reveal their respective
one-true approaches to reconstructing experience, emancipation, and achieving a planetary
consciousness to recognize that their prescriptions for change are based on a culturally uninformed
theory that is intended to be universalized.  Unless science/environmental educators are knowledgeable
about how universal prescriptions too often become a cultural colonizing agenda they should be wary
145
of ignoring the inherent contradiction in a theory that leads to understanding “decolonization” only in
terms of Western cultural assumptions, and that represents “reinhabitation”  as an excuse for educators
to ignore the different expressions of the local cultural commons that students need to help revitalize.
Even though Gruenewald makes an effort to balance the transformative agenda of critical pedagogy
with an awareness of what needs to be conserved, he still falls short of clarifying the nature and
importance of the local cultural commons—and the pedagogy that is required for helping students
recognize the differences between commons and market based experiences.  Unfortunately, the
assumptions underlying critical pedagogy are now so widely taken-for-granted among educators in
nearly all subject areas that the silence about the need to acquire a deep knowledge of culture, that of
the teacher as well as the culture of others that are to be decolonized, is likely to be ignored by
science/environmental educators who identify with a critical pedagogy of place.
   References
Bowers, C. A. 2001.  Mindful Conservatism: Rethinking the Ideological and Educational Basis of a
Sustainable Future. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
___________. 2006. Transforming Environmental Education: Making the Cultural and Environmental
Commons the Focus of Educational Reform.  Eugene, Oregon.
<www. http://cabowers.net>
___________.  2007a. “Philosophy, Language, and the Titanic Mind-Set”. Language and Ecology.
Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 1-15.  <www.ecoling.net/journal.html>
___________. 2007b. Handbook for Faculty on How to Introduce Cultural Commons and Ecojustice
Issues into Their Courses. Eugene, Oregon. <www. http://cabowers.net>
Crick, Francis. 1994. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Freire, Paulo. 1974a. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: The Seabury Press.
__________.  1974b.  Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
__________.  1985. The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation. South Hadley, MA.: Bergin
& Garvey.
146
Gadotti, Moacir. 2000. “Pedagogy of the Earth and Culture of Sustainability.”  Sao Paulo, Brasil. Instituto
Paulo Freire.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1979. The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of a New Class.  New York: Seabury
Press.
Gruenewald. David. May, 2003. “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place.” Educational
Researcher. Vol. 32, No. 4. pp. 3-12.
Kovel, Joel. 2000. The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? London: Zed.
Books.
McLaren, Peter. 2005.  Capitalists & Conquerors: A Critical Pedagogy Against Empire. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
McLaren, Peter, and Houston, Donna. 2005. “The ‘Nature” of Political Amnesia: A Response to C. A.
(Chet) Bowers.” Educational Studies. Vol. 37, No. 2. pp. 196-204.
Roberts, Peter. 2000. Education, Literacy, and Humanization: Exploring the Work of Paulo Freire.
Westport, CT.: Bergin & Garvey.
Silver, Lee. 1997. Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Change the American
Family. New York: Avon Press.
Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Chapter 8 The Double Bind of Environmentalists Who Identify Themselves  as Liberals
           Paul Krugman’s ends his new book, The Conscience of a Liberal, with a startling statement.  While
claiming to be an activist with the energy of a progressive, he makes the claim that “to be a liberal is in a
sense to be a conservative” (p. 70).  The reader is partly prepared for this seeming contradiction by the
opening paragraph of his last chapter,“The Conscience of a Liberal”, where he states that one of the
seeming paradoxes of America in the early twenty-first century is that the agenda of liberals is essentially
a conservative one: to restore the middle class, to defend social security and Medicare, the rule of law and
democratic principles.  The agenda of today’s conservatives, as he puts it, is to reverse the achievements
of Roosevelt’s New Deal and to promote the free enterprise system—no matter what the human cost.
147
What George Lakoff referred to as the “Essential Guide for Progressives”, which is the sub- title of his
book Don’t Think of an Elephant, also contains the same view of conservatives.  But unlike Krugman, he
sees no paradox in identifying as liberal progressives the advocates of conserving our traditions of civil
liberties, and the environment.
         Unfortunately, both Krugman and Lakoff reproduce today’s formulaic thinking that represents
the anti-democratic and anti-social justice agenda of President George W. Bush as the expression of
modern conservatism.   And both reinforce the widely held misconception that Adam Smith’s
principle of laissez-faire, with its magical “invisible hand”, is one of the conceptual and moral
foundations of today’s conservatives—when it is a foundational belief of today’s market liberals.
While both Krugman and Lakoff also agree that the success of conservatives can be traced to what
they refer to as the conservative think tanks, such as the CATO, American Enterprise, and Hoover
Institutes, they fail to question whether they have correctly labeled the political agenda of these
institutes.
        For anyone who has read the writings of early theorists of classical liberalism such as  John Locke,
Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill—as well as the writings of philosophical conservatives such as
Edmund Burke, Samuel Coleridge (pejoratively identified as one of the “Romantics” when he was
actually a critic of the dehumanizing impact of the Industrial Revolution), the authors of The
Federalists Papers, Michael Oakeshott and T. S. Eliot, the current use of political labels by self-
identified liberals and conservatives is evidence of something fundamentally wrong with our
educational system—especially our universities.  Not to be outdone by Krugman, Lakoff, and other
commentators who are mislabeling America’s retreat into the hell hole of friend/enemy politics, is
the handy work of self-identified conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh who demonstrates a similar
disregard for the fact that words have a history.
     As most Americans are also unaware that words have a history, and that they can carry
forward over many generations both the misconceptions as well as the wisdom of past thinkers, they
are easily influenced by Limbaugh and the other faux conservative voices that have gained a strong
foothold in the media.  Thus, many people readily accept that the recent Supreme Court Justice
appointments bent on reversing previous Supreme Court decisions are conservatives—because that
is what journalists and political pundits tell them.  That the doctrine of “original intent” is really part
of the market liberal strategy for reversing laws that regulate business practices on the grounds that
this function of government was not provided for by the men who wrote the Constitution will also go
148
unrecognized.  In effect, the faux conservative media voices, including otherwise intelligent
observers of the American political scene such as Bill Moyers who also mis-identifies the market
liberal agenda of President George W. Bush and his base of supporters, have taken on the role of
educators of the nation as to which agenda fits under which political label. Unfortunately,
universities largely have abdicated their responsibility for introducing students to the history of
liberal and conservative thought. Without this background knowledge, which many academics also
lack, the meaning of words such as liberal, progressive, tradition, conservative, become context free
metaphors that can be reframed without any form of accountability other than what fits the interests
of groups seeking to impose their agenda on others.
 Ironically, while liberals such as Krugman and Lakoff are unconsciously complicit in
reinforcing the current misuse of our political vocabulary, the institutes they identify as the seed beds
of modern conservative thinking such as the CATO, American Enterprise, and Hoover Institutes,
identify themselves in a way that acknowledges their classical liberal lineage. According to the
mission statement of the Hoover Institute, its primary purpose is to promote “the principles of
individual, economic, and political freedom” and “private enterprise”.  The American Enterprise
Institute makes an identical claim on its website to defend the same classical liberal principles; but
puts them in this order: “the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited
government, private enterprise, individual freedom and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense
and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.  The mission statement of the CATO
Institute, which had a budget last year of 22.4 million dollars, includes what the institute explicitly
acknowledges as its “market-liberal” agenda of promoting “limited government, individual liberty,
free markets, and peace”.  Its mission statement includes the observation that seems to have escaped
the attention of liberal commentators who continue to identify the CATO institute as a conservative
think tank.  To quote directly: “ ‘Conservative’ smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to
preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism –the most
progressive, dynamic, and ever –changing system the world has ever known –as conservative”.
 The use of the label “neo-conservative” and now “neocons” is yet another example of
formulaic word play.  Awareness of the history of this group, which now justifies the invasion of
Iraq, defends extraordinary rendition and the use of torture, and is promoting war with Iran, should
originally have led to their being tagged with the label of market liberal—and, more recently, as anti-
democratic extremists. Given their current political and economic agenda labeling them as neo-
149
Fascists would not be too far off the mark.  Two early books that were  mislabeled as examples of
neo-conservative thinking included George Gilder’s Wealth and Capitalism (1981) and Michael
Novak’s The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982).  Neither one addressed the ideas of
philosophic conservative thinkers such as Burke and Oakeshott.  Other early spokespersons for what
was mistakenly referred to as neoconservatism, such as  Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and
Norman Podhoretz, attacked what they considered as the social engineering approach of their former
liberal colleagues. They revived the laissez-faire liberal argument for reducing the role of
government in providing programs that enabled people to escape from poverty and limited
opportunities. The true responsibility of government, as William Kristol would later put it, is to
promote the “politics of liberty” and the “sociology of virtue”.  What he and other neoconservatives
meant by these high-sounding phrases is that the government should eliminate the anti-poverty
programs and, in their place, promote the social uplifting potential of capitalism.
The inability of our leading intellectuals to recognize the travesty in labeling this group as
neoconservatives is now being repeated on a daily basis in the media.  Every effort of the Bush
Administration to dismantle our checks and balances system of government, and to turn the previous
functions of government over to capitalists who place their own interests above those of the public,
is identified with conservatism. The practices of extraordinary rendition and Presidential signing
statements, along with putting in place the technology for achieving a total surveillance society, are
similarly represented as carrying out the true mission of conservatism in an era of total warfare with
the external enemies of the American way of life.
This current Orwellian political discourse serves two purposes.  For many Americans who
experience the rapid rate of cultural change as a threat to life as they know it, the constant references
to the conservatism of the present administration is reassuring—even if they do not understand the
political system that is at the end of the slippery slope President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are
leading them down.  In effect, the market liberal and anti-democratic extremists gain much of their
support from this largely non-reflective segment of society.  And as the term conservative becomes
increasingly associated with an anti-social and anti-ecojustice agenda, advocates of social justice
continue to identify themselves as liberals without questioning the double bind this puts them in.
 The double bind that few liberals recognize is that the deep, largely taken-for-granted
cultural assumptions that underlie Western liberalism are, with only a few exceptions, the same
assumptions that gave conceptual direction and moral legitimacy to the Industrial Revolution that
150
has now entered the digital phase of globalization.  These assumptions underlie the liberal’s
penchant for equating change with progress, for representing the autonomous individual as the
highest expression of human development, for thinking of the environment as needing to be brought
under rational control, and for imposing their way of thinking on what they regard as the less
developed cultures of the world. What is seldom recognized is that the Industrial Revolution required
the autonomous individual who, in lacking the intergenerational knowledge and support of
community, would be dependent upon consumerism to survive.  Similarly, the driving force of the
Industrial Revolution was the constant quest for progress in developing new technologies and
markets. The Industrial Revolution also depended upon advances in science and technology in order
to further exploit the Earth’s natural systems..  The liberal view of other cultures as needing to adopt
the Western model of development also fits what the Industrial Revolution required. 
Yet there continue to be differences between how liberals understand the nature of progress.
A useful way of identifying these differences is to identify liberals working to alleviate poverty and
various forms of exploitation as social justice liberals.  Liberals who use  critical inquiry to develop
new technologies and to exploit new markets should be labeled as market liberals. The former were
and continue to be critical of the exploitive nature of the free enterprise system, while the latter were
and still are willing to let the “invisible hand”  supposedly  operating in the free market system
distribute the benefits to the deserving—which usually means those who are already privileged.
Given these differences, and they are hugely important, the two groups of liberals nevertheless share
a common set of silences and prejudices.  Already mentioned is their shared prejudice of the
knowledge systems of other cultures—particularly indigenous cultures.  They also share a very
narrow and thus basic misunderstanding of the nature and importance of cultural traditions.  In
effect, they both fail to recognize the misconceptions of the Enlightenment thinkers who only
identified oppressive traditions, and did not understand the intergenerational knowledge and skills
that enabled communities to be more self-sufficient and to have complex symbolic lives.  And both
social justice and market liberals fail to understand that language is not simply a conduit in a
sender/receiver process of communication, but instead is metaphorically layered in ways that
reproduce past misconceptions in today’s taken-for-granted patterns of thinking.  This latter
oversight accounts for how both social justice and market liberals are continually embracing
whatever is represented as a progressive step forward—and not asking about which traditions  vital
to the well-being of community and to a sustainable future are being lost.
151
There are many unrecognized assumptions that are shared by students on university
campuses who identify themselves as conservatives and the professors whom they regard as
subverting the American way of life.  Again, the failure to recognize the shared assumptions and
silences can, in part, be traced to the failure of universities to engage students in a discussion of the
writings of the early political theorists whose influence continues to today.  The misunderstandings
resulting from this lack of historical knowledge are particularly evident when the beliefs and values
of the self-identified conservative students are compared with the market liberal agenda promoted by
the CATO and American Enterprise Institutes.  Indeed, they turn out to be nearly identical—though
some of these students balk at the idea of open debate as advocated by the American Enterprise
Institute.  As most university faculty embrace social justice liberalism they see no reason to
introduce students to the thinking of philosophical conservatives or to the ideas of classical liberal
thinkers.  And the few social justice faculty who are introducing their students to the writings of
environmental writers such as Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, Wendell Berry, and Vandana Shiva fail
to clarify for students that these are essentially conservative environmental thinkers.  By not
engaging students in discussions of the different forms of conservatism, including the faux
conservatism of President George W. Bush and his religious, corporate, and military base of support,
students are more likely to accept without question Lakoff’s designation of environmentalists as
liberal progressive activists. And they will continue to perpetuate the silences and prejudices that
have been an aspect of liberal thinking since the time of the Enlightenment—which will keep them
from recognizing that revitalizing the diversity of the world’s cultural commons will be a necessary
part of achieving a sustainable future.
The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control, which reflect the consensus
thinking of 600 scientists from more than 100 countries on the nature and causes of global warming,
brings into focus another aspect of the slippery slope that both the market and social justice liberals
are greasing.  As the melting of the permafrost in the northern latitudes release the vast quantity of
methane gas that is an even greater contributor to global warming than carbon dioxide, as the
glaciers that are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people disappear, as the
temperature of the world’s oceans rise and as the oceans absorb more CO2 that  contribute to their
increased acidity, as droughts and changes in weather patterns forces the migration of plants,
animals, and people, and as more of the world’s major fisheries near collapse, the convergence of the
slippery slope leading to environmental catastrophe with the slippery slope leading to a fascist form
152
of government become a more likely possibility.  What is not usually recognized is that the
emergence of fascism between the two world wars resulted when democratic institutions became so
weakened that they were no longer able to address the sources of economic and social unrest.
People have demonstrated time and again that they prefer order over chaos, and they have often
embraced the strong political leader who, as the supreme “decider”, does away with the seemingly
endless debates which are at the center of the democratic process.  The convergence of economic
unrest resulting from the globalization of the market liberal agenda with the deepening ecological
crises could easily lead to a repeat of this earlier history.
Both market and social justice liberals carry forward the silences and prejudices that have
been part of the legacy of Enlightenment thinkers—indeed some of these silences and prejudices can
be traced back to the thinking of Plato who invented the idea of pure thinking that supposedly is free
the of cultural influences carried forward through narratives.  These include the intergenerational
knowledge, skills, and activities that enable members of communities to live more self-sufficient and
thus less money and consumer dependent lives. Working to conserve the diversity of the world’s
languages and thus the diversity of knowledge of local ecosystems is yet another critical area of
concern that is not being given adequate attention by social justice liberals who, unlike Krugman,
refuse to consider anything that is associated with the word conservatism—partly because they lack
knowledge of the many forms of conserving that are an inescapable part of daily life-- and partly
because the word conservatism is now associated with authoritarian politics and the pursuit of
economic self-interest.
There are many other analogs than those associated with the ideas and policies of market
liberals that need to be considered in determining the different meanings of the word “conservatism”.
Briefly, learning to think and communicate in the language of one’s cultural groups conserves its
many taken-for-granted patterns of thinking and values.  Our DNA is also a powerful conserving
force that influences the most fundamental aspects of our biology.  The taken-for-granted nature of
most of our cultural knowledge and values is also an inescapable aspect of what can be referred to as
embodied conservatism.  And then there is temperamental conservatism which is expressed in a
preference for certain foods, wearing certain clothes, having certain friends, and so forth. These
different expressions of conservatism are largely part of our embodied experiences, and are different
in fundamental ways from conservative ideas of how societies should be organized and governed.  In
order to conserve the gains in social justice and civil liberties it is important to keep in mind that not
153
all of conservative ideas, such as those advocating the right of states to enforce racist policies, the
cultural tradition of child brides, honor killings, and poll taxes, should be carried forward.  On the
other hand, the current practice of using the word to stigmatize individuals and groups who are more
aware of the traditions that are the basis of their mutually supportive and intergenerationally
connected communities should not be continued.
In order to make more informed judgments of about the different expressions of
conservatism—judgments about what should be supported and what should be resisted—we need to
expand our political vocabulary.  In addition to rectifying our use of political terminology so that
labels accurately reflect the beliefs and practices of different groups, we need to follow the practice
of different religious groups who use adjectives that identify the religious group’s specific
orientation or the tradition it is part of.  Examples include the distinction between Orthodox and
Reform Judaism, Greek Orthodox Christians and Evangelical Christians, moderate and
fundamentalists Muslims, and so forth.  The adjectives are not always as accurate as we would like,
but they avoid the problem of including a wide range of interpretations and agendas under a single
rubric.  The distinction between market and social justice liberals is an example that has been
introduced here.  Other examples might include environmental conservatives and indigenous
conservatives. The problem of relying upon a single rubric can be seen in Thomas Frank’s reference
to the Christians in Kansas who support President George W. Bush’s efforts to dismantle the
separation of powers and the Constitution as conservative.  Referring to them as members of the
religious right would have brought into focus their political agenda, which included abolishing
abortion, gays, separation of church and state, and equal opportunities for women and other
previously marginalized groups.  Journalists and media pundits need to use the label of extremists if
it accurately represents the political agenda of certain individuals and groups. For example, Vice-
President Richard Cheney and David Addington need to be identified as extremists.  And there is a
need to use the label of fascist when it accurately fits the ideas and political agenda of an individual
or group.  It is important to note that few graduates of our universities possess a knowledge of the
core ideas and practices shared by different fascist regimes, and thus are unable to recognize political
trends that are moving the society in that direction.
Most of all, we need to avoid the intellectual laziness that characterizes so much of our
formulaic use of conservative and liberal.  There is an urgent need for the more reflective people to
criticize our universities for their failure to educate students about the history of ideas we now refer
154
to as ideologies—including the need for them to understand which ideologies are contributing to
overshooting the sustaining capacity of the Earth’s natural systems.  If we can’t get this figured out
we will continue to be caught in the double bind of promoting the globalization of the consumer
dependent lifestyle while at the same time searching for the technologies that will slow the rate of
global warming partly being caused by consumerism. And our difficulties will be further
exacerbated if the current misuse of our most prominent political language continues to marginalize
the awareness that in this era of political uncertainties and deepening ecological crises we need a
political discourse that addresses what needs to be conserved.
References
Gilder, George. 1881.  Wealth and Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
Krugman, Paul.  2007. Conscience of a Liberal. New York: W. W. Norton.
Lakoff, George. 2004.  Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.
White River Junction. VT.: Chelsea Green.
Novak, Michael. 1982. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Chapter 9 The Real Failure of University Faculty
The current debate about whether university faculty indoctrinate students with liberal ideas, as
well as the lack of a public outcry about the recent attacks on judges for not making decisions in line
with the White House’s political agenda, suggest that the real failure of university faculty is being
overlooked.  A basic misunderstanding about what the terms “conservatism” and “liberalism” stand
for, both historically and in today’s context, is shared by students who label themselves as
conservatives, as well as by the self-labeled liberal faculty who are concerned about conserving
species, habitats, and the threats to our traditions that are the basis of a democratic form of
government.  This misunderstanding also underlies the public’s mislabeling of “conservative” think
tanks and organizations that are funding the current attack on higher education, as well as the media
pundits and journalists who are, in their reporting, passing on the misconceptions they acquired
during their years in university classrooms.  Labeling Vice President Richard Cheney as a
155
conservative and, in another newspaper account, as a “market-liberal conservative” are just one of
many examples that could be cited.
The real failure of university faculty has been in not enabling students to understand that words
have a history—especially the words that make up our political vocabulary.  Words such as
conservative and liberal carry forward in a highly condensed manner ideas, values, and silences that
earlier emerged from complex debates and writings.  The current charges about indoctrination in the
classroom might serve a more useful purpose if students had been asked to read and reflect on the
writings of such conservative thinkers as Edmund Burke, Samuel Coleridge, T. S. Eliot, Michael
Oakeshott, James Madison, and Clinton Rossiter. Writers concerned about conserving species,
habitats, and the diversity of the world’s cultural commons that represent alternatives to a consumer-
dependent lifestyle, such as Wendell Berry, Vandana Shiva, and G. Bonfil Batalla, should also be read
and discussed. Students should also be knowledgeable about the so-called conservative thinkers who
supported more problematic agendas, such as John Calhoun and Leo Strauss.
In addition, students should have been asked to read the writings of classical liberal thinkers
such as John Locke, Adam Smith, John S. Mill, as well as the writings of Herbert Spencer who used
Social Darwinism to explain the significance of winners in a free-market system.  More contemporary
liberal and libertarian thinkers such as Friederich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and the self-mislabeled
neoconservative writers such as William Kristol and Michael Novak should be evaluated in terms of
what they want to conserve beyond that of the free market systems and a reduced role for
government—which are classical liberal priorities.
The list of conservative and liberal thinkers might vary, but the exposure to the core ideas
and values of both traditions would lead to a more informed and thus less formulaic way of thinking
and, hopefully, to a reduced level of recrimination in today’s political debates.  The self-identified
conservative students, media pundits, and think-tank intellectuals might then be recognized as
pursuing a political agenda has its roots in the liberal tradition that goes back to Locke and Smith.
Their real goal, which is not to conserve the diversity of the world’s traditions of community self-
sufficiency, but to change them in ways that enable corporations to expand markets and to exploit
further the environment, might also be more widely recognized.
Widely shared knowledge of what separates the tradition of conservatism from the tradition
of liberalism that so many professors identify with and promote in their classes (e.g., the assumption
that the individual is the basic social unit, that change is progressive, that the Western way of thinking
156
is the most culturally advanced, etc.) might lead more faculty to be aware of the mixed messages they
convey to their students. While their liberalism is based on many of the same assumptions that
underlie the excesses of the industrial culture they criticize, they also communicate to their students
their concerns about the current efforts to overturn the traditions that genuine conservatives have
historically viewed as essential to the civil rights of the current and future generations.  The
undermining of the separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, key provisions of the
Constitution, as well as the efforts to reverse the gains in the areas of civil rights, economic support for
marginalized social groups, the legal protections won by environmentalists, and what remains of
civilian control of the military, are sources of deep concern on the part of many faculty who identify
themselves as liberals.  So little is understood about the complex and varied history of conservative
thinking that these professors use the language of liberalism to argue for conserving what is now under
threat from powerful political groups who call themselves conservatives but are working to bring more
aspects of daily life under the control of market forces—even as these market forces are outsourcing
jobs, cutting back and even eliminating retirement and health benefits.
     The word conservative has a pejorative meaning for most liberal faculty, while many of the
faculty who identify themselves as conservatives are either reactionary (wanting to go back to an
ethnocentric curriculum that was problematic in the first place) or are proponents of the “invisible
hand” that supposedly governs the winners and losers in free-markets, as well as which ideas will
prevail.   The misuse of the term conservative, as well as the widespread inclination to associate it with
European traditions of conservatism, make it difficult for these liberal faculty to ask their students to
consider what needs to be conserved in this era of ecological uncertainty and political regression—as
well as what needs to reformed or changed entirely.
        The irony that characterizes the current furor over so-called conservative concerns about liberal
indoctrination in the classrooms of America is that both the majority of liberal faculty as well as the
self-labeled conservative students support different facets of the modern social agenda—with the
liberals supporting the social justice agenda that emphasizes individual opportunity in a secular
consumer dependent society while the faux conservatives  support an economic agenda that requires
the destruction of intergenerationally connected and culturally diverse communities.  The aspects of
the modern agenda these two groups share in common are now coming under attack by religious
extremists who are also caught in the double bind of supporting the economic system that is
undermining the moral absolutes they have extrapolated from the written accounts of narratives,
157
experiences, and spiritual insights of ancient tribal cultures.    At least the libertarian CATO Institute
recognized the mindlessness that is so widespread in our political debates when it put on its website
that only in America is its political agenda identified with conservatism.
One more failure that characterizes a university education in America is that few students
will graduate with an understanding of the characteristics of a fascist society—and how fascism has
emerged within weakened democratic societies.
Chapter 10  Rethinking Social Justice Issues Within an Eco-Justice
      Conceptual and Moral Framework
As the social justice issues of class, race, and gender have been the dominant concern of
many educational studies faculty over the last decades, it is now time to ask whether the recent
evidence of global warming, changes in the chemistry of the world’s oceans, and the increasing
shortage of potable water should lead to developing a new strategy for ameliorating these long
standing sources of injustice and poverty.  Given the amount of time devoted to discussing class,
race, and gender issues, as well as the number of books that focus on these issues, little has actually
been achieved in affecting the systemic changes required for marginalized social groups to
participate on more equal terms in the public arenas of politics, economics, and educational
opportunities.  Corporations in the United States continue to shape governmental policies that
deepen the economic plight of marginalized groups that live at the bottom of the wage scale, while
raising the cost of drugs and medical care beyond what they can afford.  Overall, the democratic
process itself has become degraded by corporate and other special interests to the point where
millions of people continue to be mired in poverty and hopelessness.
The recent acceleration of economic globalization and the deepening of the ecological crises
that are now impacting people’s daily lives suggest that a radical rethinking of how to address social
justice issues is needed.  The growing awareness of these global developments, which includes the
near total collapse of the free market system, a weakened labor movement and rapid rise in
unemployment, the decline in the size of the middle class, and a need to change the ecological
impact of all citizens (even that of the poor who have not been educated about how to live less
158
environmentally destructive lives), means that the old assumptions about achieving a more socially
just society have to be re-examined.
Social justice thinking has largely been framed in terms of middle class assumptions about
individualism, progress, a world of unlimited exploitable natural resources, and education as a
source of individual empowerment.  The ultimate goal of achieving greater social justice for
marginalized groups has been to enable them to participate on equal terms in the areas of work,
politics, and the culture of consumerism.  The guiding priorities of ecojustice-based educational
reforms are, on the other hand, both more global in terms of analysis and accountability, and more
local in terms of educational strategies that reverse the process of deskilling that is part of the
destruction of community systems of mutual support that began with the rise of the techno-scientific
based industrial culture. These priorities can be summarized as eliminating environmental racism,
resisting the forces that are colonizing Third World cultures and exploiting their natural resources,
revitalizing the local cultural and environmental commons that are sites of resistance to the
expansion of the industrial/consumer dependent lifestyle, adopting a lifestyle that does not degrade
the prospects of future generations, and developing an ecological consciousness that respects of the
right of natural systems to renew themselves.
Basing daily life on ecojustice criteria means taking account of the impact of the consumer
dependent lifestyle that is being promoted in our public schools and universities by asking whether it
is largely responsible for the economic and cultural colonization of Third World societies, as well as
the environmental racism that exposes minority groups to the toxic chemicals that the
industrial/consumer oriented culture relies upon.  Ecojustice thinking also brings into focus the need
to consider the existing community-centered alternatives to the deskilled individual lifestyle that is
increasingly dependent upon consumerism—even as the sources of employment become more
uncertain because of outsourcing to low wage regions of the world, and the drive to increase profits
by replacing workers with computer driven machines.  As the life-sustaining ecosystems become
more degraded, there is also the question of whether the current industrial/consumer oriented
lifestyle that is taken-for-granted by many educational advocates of social justice is undermining the
prospects of future generations.  Other concerns of ecojustice thinking include the need to undertake
educational reforms that address our responsibility for leaving future generations with sustainable
ecosystems, which also means recognizing the right of non-human forms of life to reproduce
themselves in sustainable ways.
159
While the environment is being degraded to the point where the scarcity of  protein, water,
and energy is driving up prices, thus further impoverishing the already poor, the advertising industry
is spending billions of dollars a year in order to perpetuate the public’s addiction to consuming the
latest fashions, technologies, and forms of entertainment.  Public awareness of the environmental
changes that scientists are warning about is further obfuscated by the big box stores and shopping
malls that stock their shelves with a super abundance of consumer products—thus further
perpetuating the illusion of plentitude.  Glitz, easy credit and an indifference to the dangers of going
deep into debt, are just part of the culture that now dominates the majority of the people’s lives—that
is, those who are have not lost their well paying jobs, health and retirement benefits, and are now
reduced to a minimum wage lifestyle. The poor and marginalized-- ranging from single mothers,
urban minority youth, migrant farm workers, and a wide range of people whose skin color and lack
of educational background  disqualifies them from other than menial forms of labor in industrial
food outlets and other low paying service industry jobs, are too focused on meeting the most basic
needs of food and shelter to be aware that there are community-centered alternatives to the
industrial/consumer lifestyle they have been excluded from participating in.  As Barbara Ehrenreich
pointed out in a recent interview with Bill Moyers, the poor live so close to the edge that going
without pay for the couple of weeks it takes to find a more high-paying job is unthinkable.  In effect,
poverty restricts even this most basic option that the middle class can take for granted.
The central priorities of ecojustice advocates do not have their roots in abstract theory.
Rather, the traditions of intergenerational knowledge and patterns of mutual support that enabled
people to live in ways where market forces do not dominate everyday life have been around since the
beginning of human history.  They are still present in every community across North America and in
other parts of the world.  Historically, these traditions were known as the commons; that is, what is
freely shared by the members of the community-- which also includes local decision making.  The
norms that governed the cultural and environmental commons were passed along orally and differed
from culture to culture.  The Romans were the first to establish a written record of the commons,
which they identified as the local streams, woods, fields, animals, and so forth.  The cultural
commons, which include the intergenerational knowledge and skills necessary for gathering,
preparing, and sharing food, the medicinal properties of plants and where to find them, narratives of
courage and of hubris, the rules that governed community members who violated local norms of
justice, the sharing of technological skills and craft knowledge, the mythologies and prejudices that
160
regulated who had privileged positions in the community, and so forth, have only recently been
identified as part of the commons.  The cultural commons also include the voluntary associations
that are sources of mutual support within the community, as well as groups that come to together to
promote agendas that range from providing safe bicycle lanes within the community to supporting
the peace efforts of national politicians and providing aid to people in other parts of the world that
have experienced a natural disaster. Unfortunately, the intergenerational sources of empowerment
and community self-sufficiency are now being threatened by the market-liberal traditions of private
property, anomic individualism, the expansion of the industrial approach to production and
consumption, the growing hegemony of the capitalist ethos, and the rise of corporate power.
While the causes of the economic crises that is spreading around the world are systemic as
well as a function of human greed, it is important to note that the main focus of the media,
politicians, and public is on regaining the jobs that will enable people to return to their previous
consumer dependent lifestyles.  That is, there is little discussion of community-centered alternatives
that are here being referred to as the cultural commons—and thus little discussion of how the
political economy of the local cultural commons can become part of the basis for meeting the daily
needs for food, housing, medical care, education.  If attention were to be given to the lifestyles of
people who are more fully engaged in their local cultural commons it would become clearer that they
rely less upon a money economy and thus are less exposed to the exploitive forces that are inherent
in the industrial governed market place.  The voluntary simplicity movement has demonstrated that
the political economy of the cultural and environmental commons leads to a different understanding
of wealth—on that takes account of skills, mutual support systems, and community well-being.  Yet,
it is important to recognize that there is still a need for meaningful forms of work that contribute to a
living wage.  The combination of local decision making, which is a key feature of many local
cultural commons, and the spread of such developments as micro-banks and the pooling of local
resources for housing projects and other community infrastructure needs, are also evidence of the
need to combine thinking about local self-sufficiency and ecological sustainability.
The relationships between the local cultural commons found in every community today and
the industrial/consumer culture have not been mutually supportive.  Indeed, the people who promote
the expansion of the industrial/consumer dependent lifestyle, and thus the accumulation of capital,
view the largely non-monetized cultural commons as potential markets to be exploited.  Their goal is
to replace intergenerational skills and patterns of mutual support with new technologies that must be
161
privately owned and with expert systems that represent as sources of backwardness the traditional
values and forms of knowledge--such as civil liberties, patterns of returning labor, mentoring,
knowledge of how to live lightly on the land, etc. that have been the strength of many cultural
commons.  At the time the environmental commons in rural England were being transformed during
the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, the process of limiting free access and use on a none
monetized basis, as well as overturning of local decision making, was referred to as “enclosure”.
That is, the enclosure of the environmental commons involved the introduction of private ownership
and integration into a money economy, which often led to decision making being transferred to
distant owners—and later to corporations that made increasing profits the primary criteria for
exploiting the natural environment.  Now that we can recognize the cultural beliefs and practices,
which now include cyberspace, as part of the cultural commons that enable community members to
be less dependent upon a money economy, it is possible to recognize the many ways in which
different aspects of the local cultural commons are being enclosed by today’s market forces—as well
as by ideologies, technologies, prejudices, and silences.  Public schools and universities continue to
be complicit in reinforcing the cultural assumptions that further undermine the viability of the
cultural commons even as environmental scientists are working to conserve what remains of the
environmental commons.  Many social justice oriented faculty continue to reinforce many of the
same cultural assumptions that gave conceptual direction and moral legitimacy to the
industrial/consumer dependent lifestyle even as they criticize the exploitive nature of capitalism.
These shared assumptions include the idea of the autonomous individual, the progressive nature of
change, an anthropocentric view of human/nature relationships, and the drive to impose these
assumptions on other cultures under the rubric of “development”, as well as the same silences about
the local community sources of self-sufficiency and mutual support. (Sachs,1992).
While the diversity of the world’s cultural commons currently represent sites of resistance to
economic globalization, it is important to avoid romanticizing the cultural commons. In many
cultures, including the local communities across North America, the cultural commons also include
narratives and traditions that perpetuate different forms of discrimination and economic exploitation.
That is, the stoning to death of the woman who seeks to marry outside of her tribe, the market liberal
ideology that equates social progress with an economy that makes survival of the fittest the ultimate
test of individual success, and the various forms of racial, class, and gender prejudices also have
their roots in the traditions of some cultural commons.  Ironically,  these non-monetized traditional
162
beliefs and practices (which have dire economic and social consequences for those who are the
subjects of discrimination) were and still are generally sustained in communities which may also
possess networks of mutual support that reduce reliance on consumerism—and that have a smaller
ecological footprint.
The local cultural commons should not be regenerated and supported just because they
represent alternatives to the industrial/consumer oriented culture that is being globalized--and that
put at further risk the possibility of achieving a sustainable future.  Rather, the different traditions of
the cultural commons need to be examined in terms of whether they support traditions of civil
liberties, moral reciprocity in the treatment of all members of the community as deserving the right
to an equal opportunity to develop their personal talents and to making their contribution to
regenerating the life supporting cultural commons.  Challenging the traditions of the cultural
commons that are sources of exploitation and marginalization should also be part of a more global
and ecologically informed ecojustice pedagogy.
As pointed out in the online Handbook for Faculty Workshops on How to Introduce Cultural
Commons and Ecojustice Issues Into Their Courses, (2007), the unique characteristics of the cultural
and environmental commons require a radically different approach than the current emphasis on
making individual emancipation, promoting the students’ construction of their own knowledge, and
making higher test scores the primary focus of educational reform.  There are a number of unique
characteristics of the cultural commons that an ecojustice pedagogy needs to take into account.  The
first is that most of the traditions that members of a community participate in on a daily basis are
taken-for-granted, such as the tradition of English speakers using the subject-verb-object pattern of
oral and written communication, assuming they are innocent until proven guilty before a jury of
peers, and that language is a conduit in a sender/receiver process of communication—to cite just a
few of the taken-for-granted patterns of daily life.  The taken-for-granted status of most aspects of
the local cultural commons is important for several reasons.  In being part of tacit, contextual, and
largely taken-for-granted experience, they are mostly excluded from the curriculum of public schools
and universities.  And in being excluded from the curriculum at all levels of the formal education
process, and in being largely taken-for-granted by members of the community who are at the same
time being constantly indoctrinated with the message that change is essential to progress, the loss
(that is, enclosure) of different traditions of the cultural commons go unnoticed—except for the
people who are consciously carrying forward one of the traditions of the cultural commons, such as
163
weaving, protecting civil liberties, utilizing craft knowledge and skill, participating in local theater,
and so forth.
 The taken for granted nature of the individual’s embodied experience of the cultural
commons, which may include racist and gender forms of discrimination, is just one of the
characteristics of daily experience that requires a different approach to teaching and learning than is
found in current approaches that are based on many of the same cultural assumptions (or what I have
referred to elsewhere as root metaphors) that underlie the industrial/consumer oriented culture that is
overshooting the life sustaining capacity of natural systems.  The emphasis on explicit forms of
knowledge, which is reinforced by reliance on print based knowledge, testing, and supposedly
objective knowledge, marginalizes the importance of helping students recognize the difference
between their experiences in the cultural commons and in the market/consumer oriented culture.
Another bias in current approaches to education that can be traced back to Plato’s argument
that “pure thinking”  leads to universal truths that are more reliable than thinking grounded in
embodied/culturally influenced experiences.  The Western theorists who followed in this tradition of
assuming that abstract words are a more accurate source of knowledge also were unaware of nature
and ecological importance of their local cultural commons.  Indeed, they held in contempt the forms
of face-to-face, intergenerationally shared knowledge and skill, and relegated them to low status
knowledge. This tradition is still evident in the thinking of current educational reformers who
assume that words such as individualism, democracy, tradition (which reproduces the Enlightenment
assumptions of being a source of backwardness and special privileges), intelligence, progress, and so
forth, have a universal meaning.  These educational reformers continue to ignore how the analogs
that frame the meaning of these metaphors carry forward the misconceptions of earlier thinkers (P.
Freire, 1974; H. Giroux, 1988; D. Gruenewald, 2008).  This pattern of thinking further marginalizes
an awareness of the embodied experiences in the different community traditions that are being
referred to here as part of the cultural commons.  One of the consequences of the silences about the
nature and complexity of the cultural commons, as well as the constant reminder that traditions are
impediments to progress, which are being reinforced in most areas of the public school and
university curriculum, is that students enter adulthood without an awareness of the different
economic and ideological forces that are enclosing what remains of the cultural commons.  For most
of them, the industrial/consumer culture is the arena in which they will personally succeed or
164
fail—and the outcome of their individual quest remains disconnected in their thinking from the rapid
rate of degradation of the world’s ecosystems.
There is now a major body of writing that addresses both the various ways in which public
schools reproduce the culture’s traditions of class and other forms of discrimination, as well as the
reforms that need to be undertaken in order to achieve a more equitable society.  Criticism of
prejudicial language, silences in the curriculum, preconceptions about the potential (or lack thereof)
of already marginalized students, tracking and other systemic forms of discrimination, have been the
mainstays of educational foundation and educational studies courses for the past several decades.
While there have been some social justice gains, particularly in the areas of race and gender, there
remains much to be done—especially since the changes resulting from economic globalization and
the global warming will have the greatest impact on minority groups whose economic gains have
been, at best, both minimal and fragile.  Critiques of the beliefs and values that have kept people of
color, women, and other people restricted by other class barriers have actually been critiques of the
reactionary traditions of found within some cultural commons. Unfortunately, the theories that
framed these critiques were not informed about the complex nature of the cultural commons. Indeed,
the phrase “cultural commons”  has not been used (D. Gruenewald and G. Smith, 2008). The main
consequence of this lack of understanding is that the aspects of the cultural commons that hold out
the prospect of finding community-centered alternatives to the negative impact of the industrial
culture have not been part of the well intended efforts to use the schools to eliminate the sources of
poverty and injustice.
The use of a sociological interpretative framework seemed ideally suited to bringing into
focus economic, political, and educational inequities. Unfortunately, it has led to ignoring the
questions that would have arisen if a more anthropologically informed interpretative framework had
been relied upon.  Awareness of a deep understanding of cultural differences could easily have
brought into question how notions of individual freedom and equality could be reconciled with the
importance that has been given in recent years to avoiding cultural colonization. For example, the
Western ideal of individual freedom and the diversity of non-Western cultures do not easily fit
together. Another limitation of the sociological interpretative framework is that it keeps the focus of
analysis and recommendations for reform on human to human relationships, with the human/nature
relationships being ignored. The evidence for this claim can easily be substantiated by reading the
most influential educational writers who have influenced how the analysis of class, race, and gender
165
has been framed—writers such as Samuel Bowles, Herb Gintis, Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, and
Peter McLaren.  Recently Bowles and Gintis have been writing about the commons, and McLaren
has now turned attention to explaiing how Marxism can guide educational reforms that address
issues of sustainability (P, McLaren, 2005).  The key point is that today’s educational discourse on
class, race, and gender continues to ignore, with only a few exceptions, the implications of the
ecological crises for the very social groups they want to emancipate.
The use of the cultural commons as the conceptual framework for analyzing the various
forms of discrimination, as well as for guiding educational reforms, has several advantages that a
sociological framework lacks. To reiterate: the cultural commons represent all of the forms of
knowledge, values, practices, and relationships that have been handed down over generations that
have been the basis of individual and community self-sufficiency—and that have enabled members
of the community to be less dependent upon a money economy.  While the previous discussion of
the reactionary and, in some cases, horrific practices of some of the world’s cultural commons needs
be kept in mind, there are other characteristics of self-sufficiency that existed prior to what Karl
Polanyi called the “Great Transformation” when the emergence of the industrial system of
production led to the enclosure of the environmental commons (K. Polanyi,2002 edition).  In Rebels
Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution (1995) Kirkpatrick
Sale summed up how the survival and global expansion of the industrial system of production and
consumption depended upon the enclosure of the cultural commons.  As he put it,
All that ‘community’ implies—self-sufficiency, mutual aid, morality in the market place,
stubborn tradition, regulation by custom, organic knowledge instead of mechanistic
science—had to be steadily and systematically disrupted and displaced. All the practices that
kept the individual from being a consumer had to be done away with so that the cogs and
wheels of an unfettered machine called the ‘economy’ could operate with interference,
influenced merely by invisible hands and inevitable balances” p. 38.
Sale does not refer to the community traditions of self sufficiency as the cultural commons, but he
accurately makes the point that the industrial/consumer-dependent culture requires the destruction of
the different forms of intergenerational knowledge, skills and mutually supportive relationships that
enabled people to live less money and thus less consumer dependent lives.  In effect, he is describing
how the success of the industrial system of production and consumption required the destruction of
the local cultural and environmental commons.  What is ironic is that the kind of individual required
166
by the industrial/consumer-dependent culture is the autonomous individual being promoted by many
of today’s educational reformers.  It is also important to note that the lack of intergenerational
knowledge that reduces dependence upon consumerism contributes to an important aspect of poverty
that is seldom discussed—even though it leads to the forms of poverty that threaten the individual’s
health and leads to other forms of insecurity.
Unlike the limited conceptual possibilities of a sociological interpretative framework and
vocabulary, the cultural commons is the phrase that encompasses the traditions of community that
are nested in larger social and ecological systems.  These traditions, as mentioned earlier, range from
local approaches to growing and preparing food as alternatives to industrialized system that is so
damaging to the ecosystems to  intergenerational approaches to healing that differ from the highly
monetized and industrial approaches of today’s medicine (which are increasingly becoming
dependent upon patenting indigenous knowledge of the medicinal properties of plants) (V, Shiva,
1996). Depending upon the local communities and cultural traditions, the intergenerational
knowledge also includes the creative arts passed on through mentoring that differ from the star
system of commercialized music and visual arts, as well as  narratives of the labor, feminist, and
civil rights movements rather than the mind-numbing television sit-coms that serve to hook viewers
to the multi-billion advertising industry. The traditions of civil rights that go back to the Magna
Carta of 1215 are also part of the cultural commons. Unfortunately, they are now being enclosed by
the growing alliance between market liberal dominated governments, corporations, universities, and
the military establishment.  A more fine grained analysis of the differences between the cultural
commons and the industrial/consumer-dependent culture that is now being globalized would involve
a discussion of the differences between community mentors and university trained experts who have
an ego and economic investment in imposing theory-based solutions on people’s lives, between face-
to-face and computer mediated communication, between community traditions of reciprocity where
work is returned and work that has to be paid for, between developing personal interests and skills
and being a consumer of other people’s talents, as well as between the embodied experiences of
being in the natural environment and the embodied experience of sitting in front of a computer
screen with its often violent simulation games that deaden the capacity for empathy and moral
responsibility.
There are two other characteristics of the cultural commons that have special significance.
The first is that they exist in every community and can only be fully recognized by an in-depth
167
description of the cultural patterns that unconsciously influence the embodied experience of
preparing and sharing a meal, playing a game, telling a story, writing poetry, marching in an anti-war
demonstration, protesting experimentations and other forms of animal exploitation, working with
others in renewing habitats, and so forth.  The cultural commons are largely a taken for granted and
thus an unrecognized aspect of daily life—and can best be brought to attention through actual
participation and ethnographic/phenomenological descriptions rather than through abstract theory
and print-based descriptions.  The second characteristic that needs to be reiterated, especially in light
of the rate of global warming, is that what the industrial culture had to destroy, as Sale put it, are the
intergenerational traditions that have smaller adverse impact on the ecological systems that all forms
of life depends upon.
Most aspects of the cultural commons in Western countries rely to some degree on what has
to be purchased.  However, even this small degree of dependence makes a great deal of difference in
terms of meeting the criteria of eco-justice.  By being more intergenerationally connected, a
revitalized cultural commons reduces the need for a system of production that has to dispose of vast
amounts of toxic wastes (usually in the neighborhoods of the poor and marginalized).  It also reduces
the need to exploit the resources of Third World cultures and to integrate them into a global market
system. As these cultures are able to regenerate their own cultural commons they are able to resist
more effectively the West’s efforts to colonize them in the name of development, democracy, and
modernization—god-words that are based on Western assumptions about individualism, progress,
and the messianic drive to impose a consumer dependent lifestyle on other cultures.   The lifestyle
that is more oriented toward cultural commons skills and activities of mutual support, and less on
consumerism that is degrading the environment and thus the prospects of future generations, meets
yet another concern of eco-justice advocates.  In possessing the skills and participating in the
community systems of mutual support, the individual is more likely to resist the market-oriented
ideology that equates the exploitation of species and habitats with progress.  This characteristic of
the cultural commons meets the last criteria of recognizing that natural systems have a right to
reproduce themselves as part of the layered nesting of interdependent ecosystems—and not to be
reduced to an economic resource.
This list of the ecologically sustainable and morally coherent characteristics of the cultural
commons brings out what is missing in most of the educational discourse on how to eliminate
discrimination in the areas of class, race, and gender.  It also brings into focus the viable alternatives
168
for addressing the estimated one billion lives that exist on one dollar a day—and are mired in the
culture of poverty marked by a lack of food security and adequate housing.  As global warming
accelerates in the next few decades, as the world’s oceans become less reliable sources of protein,
and as droughts and severe weather systems contribute to mass migrations of people, the lives of the
poor will become more desperate as they expand in number.  The double bind of relying upon
sources of energy to keep the industrial system expanding (thus accelerating the rate of global
warming) will intensify the willingness of corporations to outsource production facilities not only to
low wage regions but to regions that still have easily accessed sources of energy.  As the ecological
crises deepens, and the seemingly unrelenting drive to continue expanding profits in an increasingly
stressed world becomes more difficult, it will be the people who continue to occupy the bottom rung
of the economic/political/educational hierarchy who will continue to suffer the most.
The irony is that the ancient pathway of human development that still exists in  rural and
urban communities, and that represents an essential part of a post-industrial alternative, continues to
be ignored—even by the few educational theorists who are beginning to recognize the ecological
crises.  What now has to be avoided is the endless repetition that there is an ecological crises and that
capitalism is primarily responsible.  Thoughtful people already understand the connections between
the two phenomena.  Instead, advocates of social justice need to explore the pedagogical and
curricular implications of how to introduce students, including the already marginalized students, to
the life enhancing possibilities that exist in the cultural commons of their local communities—and
that are part of the cultural commons of the dominant culture that protect the rights of various
minority cultures. There is a direct connection between the enclosure of the traditions of civil
liberties that are the basis of democracy and the growing dominance of corporations, market liberal
politicians, religious fundamentalists, and the military establishment that views its mission as
protecting the global interests of market liberals.  There is also a connection in America between the
number of marginalized groups who suffer the most deaths and catastrophic injuries from military
actions that result from the logic of economic globalization.  Knowledge of how to protest against
the various forms of economic and political oppression is also part of the cultural commons—which
includes the narratives of past protest movements, strategies that have proven most successful, and
even songs and the iconography associated with past peace movements. The current drive to install
total surveillance systems of a country’s citizens as a defense against terrorism further undermines
169
their civil liberties, and will be used by police to identify the leaders of movements protesting
various forms of social injustice—including environmental activists.
Pedagogical and Curricular Implications
The future prospects of the poor and marginalized are inextricably tied to the future prospects
of the cultural and environmental commons.  With the outsourcing of work, automation that reduces
the need for workers, and downsizing in order to improve corporate profits, the prospects of upward
mobility that has been the hallmark of past generations, though unevenly realized, are being rapidly
diminished.  Given this reality, placing greater emphasis on educational reforms that help to
regenerate the cultural commons should not be interpreted as meaning that all students, regardless of
social class and racial background, should not acquire the knowledge that will enable them to find
work that is meaningful and that supports a basic standard of living.  Just as most aspects of the
cultural commons require some degree of dependence upon the industrial system of production and
consumption, public schools and universities need to ensure that the students at the bottom of
economic and social pyramid have the opportunity to learn what is required for careers and
employment that are non-exploitive.  At the same time, changes need to be introduced at all levels of
the educational system that will enable students to learn about the community-centered alternatives
that contribute to the transition to a post-industrial future—namely, the cultural commons.  In
discussing the unique characteristics of a pedagogy and curriculum that introduce students to the
ecological and community sustaining importance of the cultural commons, it is important to keep in
mind that we are in a transition phase of cultural development.  Thus, the following discussion of
pedagogical and curriculum reforms must also be viewed in this light.
If we consider the basic tension between the industrial/consumer-oriented culture and the
characteristics of the cultural commons that strengthen mutual support, the development of skills and
personal talents, and ensures moral reciprocity among all members of the community, it becomes
clear what the role of the classroom teacher/professor should be.  Instead of promoting the high
status forms of knowledge and values that contribute to the further expansion of the
industrial/consumer oriented culture, the role of the classroom teacher and university professor
should be that of a mediator who helps students become aware of the fundamental differences
between participation in the cultural commons and the culture of industrial production and
consumption.  Being a mediator requires an understanding of what students are most likely to take-
for-granted as they move daily between participation in the two sub-cultures.  The pedagogical task
170
is to encourage students to name what would otherwise be taken for granted.  Naming taken-for-
granted patterns of thinking and behavior, as we learned from both the feminist and civil rights
movements, is the first step to making them explicit--which is essential for developing
communicative competence.  Like the mediator in labor disputes, the teacher’s mediator role
precludes giving students the answers about which aspects of the cultural commons as well as the
industrial/consumer-oriented culture that need to be rejected or renewed.  The techno-scientific basis
of the industrial culture has made many important contributions to improving the quality of human
life, and now has the potential to help reduce our carbon footprint.  Thus, the task of being a
mediator should not be reduced to that of an ideologue who has pre-conceived answers, and who
enforces the silence about what her/his ideology cannot explain.  Similarly, ideology should not
guide how the students are to think about their embodied experiences within the cultural and
environmental commons.
The initial step in teaching and learning that fits the model of a mediator is to encourage
students to describe their embodied/culturally influenced experience as they move between the two
sub-cultures.  There are specific questions that students need to be reminded to ask:  Does the
experience in a cultural commons activity contribute to the development of personal skills and the
discovery of talents?  Does it contribute to a sense of community self-sufficiency and mutual
support?  Does it require exploiting others who are less advantaged?  What is its impact on natural
systems?  Does it contribute to an awareness of what needs to be intergenerationally renewed and of
the need to be able to mentor others?  Does it lead to different forms of empowerment, such as the
ability to exercise communicative competence in resisting further forms of enclosure of skills and
patterns of mutual support that result in an increased dependency upon a money economy?   What is
its ecological footprint?  These same questions need to be explored by students as they participate in
various aspects of the industrial/consumer-oriented culture.
Examining the differences between preparing and sharing a meal with others and eating in a
fast food outlet, between face-to-face communication and reading, between gardening and being
dependent upon industrially prepared food, between participating in one of the creative arts and
being a consumer of commercially promoted artistic performances, between developing skills
associated with a craft that extends one’s talents and purchasing what has been industrially produced
(increasingly in a low-wage region of the world) will quickly become apparent.  And this awareness
of differences, if framed in light of the ecological crises and the changes resulting from economic
171
globalization, is essential to the recovery of local democracy that has been one of the hallmarks of
the diverse cultural commons that have not been based on ideologies and mythologies that have
privileged the few over the many.
Another responsibility of the teacher/professor’s mediating role is to ensure that students
become aware of the narratives that provide an account of various social justice
movements—starting with the earliest beginnings of the traditions of civil liberties in the West--such
as habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial by a jury of peers, the franchise, separation of powers, and
an independent judiciary.  The narratives that provide an understanding of the labor movements that
struggled to achieve safe working conditions, a living wage, and the right of workers to organize
politically, should also be part of the curriculum.  The feminist as well as the civil rights movements
also should be part of a commons-oriented curriculum.   Again the tensions between the cultural
commons and the industrial/consumer-oriented culture that are now being globalized, and that are
major contributors to the ecological crises, will inevitably come out—and be a major focus of class
discussions.
The ecological crises, as well as the increasing number of the world’s population that is
moving from a subsistence existence into one of dire poverty, make it particularly important that the
teacher/professor introduce students to the history of different ways in which the cultural commons
are being enclosed  The following questions will bring into focus different forms of enclosure: How
did the Western philosophers’ reliance on unacknowledged culturally influenced interpretative
frameworks (which can also be understood as root metaphors that frame the historically layered
process of analogic thinking) contribute to the enclosure of the cultural commons?  How has the rise
of Western science contributed to the enclosure of local knowledge of healing, agricultural practices,
reliance on local materials, and so forth?  What role have various religions played in strengthening
the cultural commons and, on the other hand, in representing the exploitation of the commons by
market forces as carrying out God’s plan for those who are to be saved?  What were the intellectual
influences that marginalized the importance of the worker’s skills, their control of the tempo of work
and use of technologies?  What are the current techno-scientific and market forces that are
threatening the diversity of seeds, and local knowledge of how to adapt agricultural practices to the
characteristics of local soils, weather patterns, and so forth?
In addition to introducing, particularly as the students move into the upper grades and onto
the university, the various histories of different forms of enclosure, the role of being a mediator also
172
requires that students be introduced to how different cultures have sustained their cultural and
environmental commons while at the same time ensuring that their local markets did not dominate
the patterns and values of everyday life (W. Sachs, 1992; W. Sachs, 1993).  Knowledge of the
intergenerational traditions of other cultural approaches to the cultural and environmental commons
will enable students to gain a better perspective on whether the current myth that equates the
Western scientific-technological and market driven approaches to creating greater dependence on
what is industrially produced and consumed should be the basis of development in other cultures.
There is a need to enable a large percentage of the world’s population that is mired in poverty to
obtain a decent standard of living and to enable them to experience more than a life of drudgery and
stunted development.  The critical question is whether the further enclosure of the diversity of the
world’s cultural commons will achieve this end.
To this point, the discussion of the teacher/professor’s role as a mediator between the
students embodied/culturally nested experiences in the local cultural commons and in the workplace
and shopping malls of the industrial culture has been general in nature.  It is now necessary to
address how to engage students from a variety of backgrounds that make them especially vulnerable
to the prejudices currently perpetuated by the educational system’s emphasis on the high-status
knowledge that perpetuates poverty and deepens the ecological crises.  As mentioned earlier, every
culture has its distinct intergenerational traditions of preferred foods, approaches to the creative arts,
healing practices, ways of understanding moral reciprocity, craft knowledge, narratives of past
achievements and leaders, mentors in various arts and crafts, understanding of what constitutes
social justice, and so forth.  For example, if one goes to the largely Hispanic community in San
Francisco they will find that many of the walls of buildings that previously were used to advertise
cigarettes and liquor have been reclaimed as part of the cultural commons.  Giant murals now depict
past struggles, important cultural leaders, and visions of what the future should hold for Hispanic
communities.  The same reclaiming of this part of the cultural commons can be found in Detroit and
other major cities.  Other examples of the cultural commons can be seen in the community gardens
where traditional foods are grown, in the local poets, artists, writers, and musicians who are willing
mentors of the community’s youth.  There are elders and people who take responsibility for keeping
alive the oral history of the group, just as there are living traditions of how assist the especially
vulnerable to the problems of extreme poverty, old age, and hopelessness.  The nature of these
cultural commons vary from community to community, from ethnic group to ethnic group.  As the
173
cultural commons of these ethnic and marginalized groups are nested in the cultural commons of the
larger society, with its traditions of civil liberties, traditions of achieving legal redress of
discriminatory practices, and of affecting changes through an admittedly flawed democratic process,
it is important that these traditions also be recognized as essential aspects of what marginalized
students should claim as their cultural commons.
The starting point in a commons-oriented curriculum is to have students conduct a survey of
their local cultural commons, as well as the aspects of the larger cultural commons that they have a
right (in spite of past exclusions) to participate in.  The survey should involve learning who the
elders and mentors are, who the keepers of the community memory are, what forms of cultural
commons activities exist—such as playing chess, painting, writing poetry, musical performances,
gardening, working with wood and metal, volunteerism, political action groups, etc.  In a word, the
survey should cover the activities and relationships within the community that are less reliant upon a
money economy—and that lead to the development of skills and interests that contribute to a less
damaging ecological footprint.
After the survey has been undertaken, the process of learning to make explicit the differences
between their embodied/culturally nested experiences with different activities within the cultural
commons and in the world of industrial work and consumerism can begin.  This process of learning
to recognize differences that otherwise are taken-for-granted as the students move between the two
sub-cultures, and to name them, provides the linguistic and conceptual basis for the communicative
competence necessary for resisting further forms of enclosure by market and scientific/technological
forces. Resistance may take the form of overcoming the silences about the nature and importance of
the local cultural commons being perpetuated by public schools and universities.  It also may take
the form of resisting the false promises of developers who want to attract the large commercial
enterprises that will eliminate the small shop keepers and service providers—as well as the open
physical spaces that enable members of the community to connect with the natural world, and to
have community gardens and places for children and others to play and to escape the pressures of the
media and the temptations of the shopping malls.  Communicative competence is also necessary to
giving voice to what aspects of the techno-scientific/industrial culture needs to be abandoned as
ecologically unsustainable—and which aspects can make a contribution to improving the lives of
people while still having a smaller ecological footprint.
174
One of the failures of the educational theorists who have been writing about the need for
educational reforms that address the seemingly intractable problems of class, race, and gender
discrimination is that they have continued to use the metaphors of “individualism”, “progress”,
“emancipation”, “intelligence”, “tradition’, etc., that carry forward the analogs formed in the distant
past by theorists who ignored cultural differences, the nature and importance of the cultural and
environmental commons, and that there are ecological limits.  In effect, the arguments for addressing
the issues of race, class, and gender have been based on a metaphorical language that has been
frozen over time, and that continues to put out of focus the intergenerational relationships and
knowledge that provide alternatives to the form of individualism that is dependent upon
consumerism to meet daily needs.  Reliance upon the metaphorical language that gave conceptual
legitimacy to the rise and current globalization of an industrial/consumer dependent lifestyle can also
be understood as yet another unrecognized example of how language continues to colonize the
present by past ways of understanding (Bowers, 2008, pp. 33-39).
 Learning to participate in what remains of the local cultural commons, and in developing
new skills and non-monetized relationships will have the effect of expanding how intelligence is
understood—from that of an individual attribute that is subjectively centered to understanding that
intelligence is communal, intergenerational, and enhanced through participation with others, and
with the environment. As the communal and intergenerational nature of intelligence may be the
source of prejudices and environmentally destructive lifestyles, it is important for teachers/professors
help students  recognize the forms of intelligence that are destructive of human possibilities and well
as the ways of thinking that are informed by today’s understanding of social  and ecojustice. This has
been part of the curriculum that has been addressing various forms of discriminatory relationships
and patterns of thinking.  Too often this process of clarification has, at the same time, reinforced the
idea that critical thinking is the expression of individual autonomy.  Making the student’s culturally
influenced embodied experiences in the local cultural and environmental commons an integral part
of the curriculum will help to reconstitute how individualism is understood—from that of being
autonomous and essentially alone to recognizing that one of the unique characteristics of life is being
in relationships that constantly lead to a redefinition of self that reflect changes in the social and
environmental context. “Tradition”, which still carries forward the reductionist thinking of the
Enlightenment writers, will also cease to be an abstraction that misrepresents the complexity of daily
experience in both the cultural commons and in the industrial/consumer oriented culture.  Instead of
175
thinking that change always is a progressive force, the embodied experiences within the cultural
commons will lead to a more complex and critically informed understanding of which traditions
need to be carried forward and renewed, and which traditions need to be rejected as environmentally
destructive and as sources of injustice.
 One of the metaphors that is in special need to being associated with new analogs is
“environment”’ which is now understood as the background within which human experience takes
place or as an exploitable resource. If the teacher/professor explains, and has students test out in
terms of their own embodied experiences, how different environments can be understood as
ecologies—and that ecologies include both the interactions and interdependencies within natural
systems as well as within cultures (and the interdependencies between culture and nature) they are
more likely to be aware of the different ways in which their activities impact the sustainable
characteristics of natural systems.  Students still rooted in the beliefs of their indigenous heritage
already possess this awareness, but students who have been uprooted from their cultural traditions
(which may not have been ecologically centered in the first place) will need to develop this
awareness.  And this awareness will be essential to slowing the rate of environmental degradation
that will impact them the hardest in coming years.
The challenge now is for the proponents of educational reforms that address the issues of
class, race, and gender to recognize that an approach to achieving social justice for the millions of
marginalized students cannot be based on the same deep cultural assumptions that created the
industrial/consumer-oriented culture that is largely responsible for the injustices that continue to
stunt the potential of students.  This challenge will be particularly difficult to address as few of
today’s proponents of educational reform have given attention to how language helps to organize
their patterns of thinking in ways that reproduce the silences and cultural assumptions of past
theorists who contributed to today’s double-bind patterns of thinking.  The problem is that the
double bind thinking of these self-proclaimed social justice theorists continues to equate progress
with achieving greater equality of opportunity for marginalized groups to live a middle class
consumer dependent lifestyle-- while the world is moving closer to the ecological tipping point
scientists are warning about.
          References
176
Bowers, C. A. (2007) Handbook  for Faculty Workshops on How to Introduce Cultural Commons
and Ecojustice Issues into Their Courses. Eugene, OR.: Eco-Justice Press.
http://cabowers.net.
__________. (2008)  Toward a Post-Industrial Consciousness: Understanding the Linguistic Basis of
Ecologically Sustainable Educational Reforms. Eugene, OR.: Eco-Justice Press,
http://cabowers.net
Freire, Paulo. (1974) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Giroux, Henry. (1988)  Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning.  Granby,
MA.: Bergin & Garvey.
Gruenewald, David. (June, 2008) “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place”
Environmental Education Research. Vol 14, No. 3. pp. 308-324.
Gruenewald, David, and Gregory Smith (2008, editors) Place-Based Education in the Global Age.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLaren, Peter. 2005)  Capitalists and Conquerors: A Critical Pedagogy Against Empire.
Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Polanyi, Karl. (2001 edition) The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Sachs, Wolfgang. (editor) 1992. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power.
London: Zed Books.
_____________. (editor, 1993) Global Ecology: The New Arena of Political Conflict. London: Zed
Books.
Sale, Kirkpatrick. (1995) Rebels Against The Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial
Revolution.  Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
Shiva, Vandana (1996) Protecting Our Biological and Intellectual Heritage in the Age of Biopiracy.
New Delhi: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy.
177
Chapter 11   Suggestions for a State System-Wide Approach to Ecologically Sustainable
Reforms of Public Schools
       As more and more scientists are warning about the urgency of addressing the environmental
crises public school teachers and faculty in colleges of education need to be motivated to introduce
reforms in pedagogy and curriculum that will contribute to slowing the rate of environmental
change.  Most are unaware of the depth of the crises.  Nor are many aware that the cultural values
and patterns of thinking they reinforce in their classes are part of the same mind set that is deepening
the crises.  Scientists are now referring to a“tipping point” where changes in human behavior will not
reverse or slow the increasing rate of environmental degradation.  Educational reforms must go
beyond that of encouraging students to recycle and to think of themselves as stewards of the earth.
Educational reforms that focus on both the cultural roots of the ecological crises and reforms that
will strengthen communities in ways that reduce the human impact on natural systems must be given
legitimacy at all levels of government—from the Governor’s Office, the State Board of Education,
the State Department of Education, to the colleges of education throughout the state.  Only when
these levels of government signal that educational reforms for a sustainable future are a top priority
will professors and classroom teachers recognize the need to commit themselves to this collective
effort.
Conceptual issues that should guide reform in the areas of curriculum and pedagogy  (Einstein
identified the key problem of our age when he said that you cannot use the same mind set to fix the
problem that created it)
• Professors of education and classroom teachers must be able to recognize how the language
in the curriculum and in other learning situations carries forward the misconceptions and
biases of earlier thinkers who were unaware of environmental limits. They have
demonstrated the ability to recognize how language in the curriculum reinforced racial and
gender biases.  Now they need to be able to recognize the layered metaphorical nature of the
language—including how root metaphors such as mechanism, progress, and individualism
provide the conceptual framework that fails to represent the interdependent relationships
within communities and between humans and the regenerative capacity of natural systems.
178
They also need to recognize that words do not have a universal meaning and that the
diversity of the world’s cultures are based on different assumptions about the nature of
community, decision making, and human/nature relationships.
• Students need to be introduced to a more complex understanding of computers, one that
highlights the forms of knowledge and relationships essential to less environmentally
destructive lifestyles that cannot be digitized.  Thus, teacher education programs should
provide future teachers with a knowledge of the forms of knowledge and relationships, which
will vary from culture to culture, that cannot be digitized.  This will require understanding
the cultural differences between the spoken and printed word, as well as how the printed
word fosters an abstract way of thinking that too often fails to take account of differences in
cultural contexts and ways of thinking.
• Professors of education and classroom teachers must be able to introduce into their respective
curricula an understanding of how to engage students in revitalizing the intergenerational
cultural commons of their community. This is vital to strengthening local traditions of mutual
support, self-sufficiency, and patterns of decision making, while also reducing dependence
upon a level of consumerism that is a major contributor to the ecological crises.  It is
especially important that teachers enable students to recognize how participating in various
aspects of the cultural commons leads to the discovery and development of personal skills
and interests—and how these mentoring relationships differ from being a consumer of
industrially produced products and services.  Enabling students to recognize the differences
between the genuine contributions of the industrial/scientific/technologically based process
of production and consumption and what is destructive of community and natural systems is
also essential to democratizing the changes that will contribute to a more sustainable future.
• The curriculum reforms must include an historical understanding of the different ways that
the local cultural commons, as well as the diversity of the world’s cultural commons, are
being enclosed (that is, being integrated into the world economy that requires participation in
179
a money economy at the same time that automation and outsourcing are making employment
a less reliable as a source of income).
• Local sustainability councils made up of members of the community who possess knowledge
of sustainable living practices-- ranging from organic gardening, conserving water,
sustainable forestry practices, relying upon alternative sources of energy, planting edible
yards, carbon neutral practices, to how to provide environments for honeybees and other
pollinators—need to be created and organized in ways that that enable them to mentor
students in the knowledge and skills necessary for sustainable and toxic-free living.  These
councils will be able to pass on knowledge and skills that reflect the differences in the local
cultural commons as well as the differences in the local bioregions.
Organizational structure for implementing educational reforms that will contribute to an
ecologically sustainable future.
As a system wide approach to introducing reforms in teacher education and related programs
involves a wide range of innovations that must be adapted to the uniqueness of local communities it
is important that a full time coordinator who has responsibility for promoting ecologically
sustainable reforms needs to be hired. While the funding for this position might come from outside
sources, the coordinator needs to be located in the State Department of Education. The
responsibilities of the coordinator would include:
1. Oversee the development and dissemination of curriculum materials that address
reforms in the area of language, knowledge of local cultural commons, increasing
awareness of culturally and environmentally destructive practices, and the
development of communicative competence essential to democratic decision making.
2. Schedule workshops in different regions of the state for professors of education,
school administrators, and classroom teachers that introduce them to the curriculum
reforms—as well as how to coordinate school activities with local sustainability
councils and to enlist the support of community members who are already engaged in
cultural commons activities.
180
3. Develop a network of retired teachers who will serve as mentors to classroom
teachers, and who will help them understand how to introduce students to an
understanding of the many ways that the language in the curriculum and in the larger
society often carries forward the patterns of thinking that were constituted before
there was an awareness of environmental limits.
4. Provide training sessions for sustainability mentors who will help classroom teachers
in the areas of pedagogy and curriculum that will  introduce students to  the dynamics
of how language reproduces earlier ways of thinking and valuing, as well as an
understanding both the nature of the cultural commons and the cultural forces that are
undermining them.
A person should be hired as an assistant to the coordinator. The responsibilities of this person
would be to establish and maintain a website and a network for email communication that would
enable participants in the state-wide system to share ideas on sustainable educational practices
that others might find useful.  An essential purpose of this network would be to share with deans,
school administrators, and classroom teachers scientific reports on changes occurring in the
Earth’s ecosystems, as well as how these changes are affecting the lives of people.
Cautionary Observation:
Government leadership promoting educational reforms that address how to live more
ecologically sustainable lives, and that will ensure the prospects of future generations, may appear
initially as in conflict with the long-held tradition of academic freedom. The scale of changes that the
Earth’s natural systems are undergoing, and the human dislocations and further impoverishment that
will result for hundreds of millions of people is unprecedented in human history. Thus, it is
important to recognize that contemporary educational ideas and traditions that were constituted when
it was assumed that the quest for constant change was a moral and professional responsibility of all
members of the academic community has led to the idea that professors should pursue their own
scholarly interests, and to teach what they personally believe in. This tradition  now needs  to be
refocused in ways where academic freedom and critical reflection address how to reduce the
181
human/cultural impact on natural systems while at the same time working for a more socially just
future. In the recent past most members of the educational community refocused their freedom of
inquiry in ways that addressed social justice issues as well as the need to eliminate racism and
gender bias.  Now it is time to refocus the boundaries of academic freedom in ways that contribute to
a broad stakeholder based effort for ensuring an ecologically sustainable and culturally diverse
future.
Funding for a state-wide approach to educating for an ecologically sustainable future
        As individual efforts to introduce educational reforms for an ecologically sustainable future
have had little influence within colleges of education and within public school systems across the
country, there is a need for leadership. Hoepfully, the governors have already made ecological
sustainability a priority for government supported institutions. The reality is that current state of
inertia will only be overcome as governors, the state legislatures, State Departments of Education,
and  State Boards of Education support a closer alignment of educational reforms with the overall
goal of achieving a sustainable and socially just future for the diverse population.  Funds necessary
for implementing the above proposal should be given the highest priority.  The cost would include
the salaries for the coordinator and the person managing the website and internet communication,
workshops for a variety of groups in different regions of the state (including travel and other
expenses connected with conducting the workshops), and the development of curriculum materials.
Retired classroom teachers and university professors can be relied upon to help with these efforts. It
is likely that deans and superintendents of school districts will be able to find within their limited
budgets some level of financial support.  If the state were to put $250,000 over a two year period into
a state-wide approach to ecologically sustainable educational reforms, it should be possible within
this period of time to demonstrate the efficacy of the approach outlined above. More specifically, it
should also be possible within this period of time to learn how to engage local sources of support in
adapting curriculum reform to achieving greater self-sufficiency of local economies and mutual
support systems within communities, as well as the need for strengthening the knowledge base of
educators who lead workshops on how to introduce ecologically sustainable educational reforms. It
should also provide a clearer understanding of the future resources that will be needed for
introducing reforms into specific areas of the curriculum that support the gains already made in
raising academic standards.
182
This initial effort to promote reform on a state-wide basis would, in turn, attract the support
of foundations as well as the interest of other states in adopting this model.  To reiterate the point
that Einstein makes: not only do we need to avoid passing onto the next generation the mind set that
has contributed to overshooting the sustaining capacity of natural systems, we also need to keep in
mind that we do not have available to us the hundreds of years that it took to overcome the
misconceptions of the past related to gender and racial biases.  Global warming, changes in the
chemistry of the world’s oceans, and a myriad of other environmental changes that are already
contributing to the spread of poverty and to disruptions in the viability of local communities, are
occurring at a rate that is affecting the quality of life of the current generation—and will have a
much greater impact on the prospect of future generations.  Environmental changes, in effect, are
challenging us to face the reality that our world is at a turning point, and that our industrial system of
production and consumption can no longer protect us from the environmental consequences of
holding onto the old cultural myths—including the myth that educational reforms do not have to
address cultural roots of the deepening ecological crises.
Chapter 12   A Rationale and Guide for Deans of Colleges of Education on How to Introduce
Ecologically Sustainable Reforms in
Teacher Education and Other Programs
Colleges of education across the country will shortly be held accountable for meeting the
certification goals being promoted by the American Association for Sustainability in Higher
Education.  The rating system for certifying colleges and universities is called STARS
(Sustainability, Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System). It is a self-evaluation system for
determining progress toward sustainability goals in different sectors of the university:
administration, finance, education, research, and operations. Ninety colleges and universities have
already agreed to participate in this pilot program. One of the outcomes of the STARS system of
certification will be the growing number of students concerned about environmental degradation
who will enroll in institutions with the highest Stars rating. These students will be tomorrow’s
leaders in sustainable living.
The following guide for deans will facilitate the ability of colleges of education to
demonstrate leadership in meeting the STARS certification goals of the university, was well as the
183
potential certification criteria of other national organizations such as the Higher Education
Association’s Sustainability Consortium, the American College and University Presidents’ Climate
Commitment, and the Disciplinary Associations’ Network for Sustainability.
Environmental Challenges
 Deans and department chairpersons in colleges of education are now being confronted with a
new set of challenges. The need to reduce the environmental impact of our culture is being
documented by the steady stream of scientific reports on the declining state of natural systems.
These new environmental/cultural challenges will not reduce the importance of addressing
traditional social justice issues--including the pressures from local communities and the federal
government  These will remain important challenges, but the challenges we now are becoming
increasingly aware of, given the consensus of scientists, is entirely different—and have
consequences that are already set in motion on a global scale.
 Leadership is needed in preparing classroom teachers with the necessary knowledge and
pedagogical skills that will enable students to live a less consumer and thus less individualistic and
change-oriented lifestyle. One of the paradoxes that few faculty recognize is that the ideal of the
autonomous individual who has not learned the value of the intergenerational knowledge, skills, and
mutually supportive relationships that are the basis of greater community self-reliance, is the kind of
individual required by the industrial system of production and consumption.  Overcoming faculty
resistance to recognizing how many of the ideas and values that have guided their own approaches to
education contribute to the consumer dependent lifestyle that is one of the major contributors to
degrading the ability of natural systems to renew themselves will be a difficult challenge—especially
since many will claim that academic freedom protects their right to promote educational reforms
even though the reforms contribute to overshooting the sustaining capacity of natural systems.  The
dawning of a new consciousness, which the civil rights and feminist movements are still struggling
to achieve, requires both conceptual and moral leadership.  The same conceptual and moral
leadership will be required in transforming the long-held traditions of thinking in colleges of
education.
 Before spelling out the broader implications of basing educational reforms in teacher
education and other areas of study on ecologically sustainable ideas and values, it is necessary to
summarize the nature of the changes that the Earth’s natural systems are undergoing.  It is important
to keep in mind that this summary must take account of the realities of the world in which we now
184
live.  Changes in natural systems: The industrial system of production and consumption, along
with the decline in the ability of species and habitats to regenerate themselves, are increasing the rate
of global warming as well as changing the chemistry of the world’s oceans.  Degraded habitats in
oceans and in different regions of the world are leading to the disappearance of species (including a
rapid decline in the viability of the world’s fisheries). Other environmental changes include the
spread of deserts, the melting of glaciers that are the source of water for hundreds of millions of
people. The loss of topsoil, depletion of major aquifers, and the destruction of forests, are also major
sources of change already influencing the prospects of the current and future generations.  Increase
in world population and the spread of poverty:  Over the last hundred years the world population
has increased by five and a half billion people at the same time the natural resources have been
exploited in ways that have led to the impoverishment of more people. The current estimate is that
over 2 billion people live on less than two dollars a day.  For the different groups in American
society, the era of cheap food is over—which, along with the rising cost of fuel and other basic
services will force many people further into poverty. Changes in Lifetime Employment:
Economic globalization, along with the spread of the morally unrestrained culture of corporations,
will cause more people to outlive their savings in the increasingly privatized retirement programs.
The lack of health insurance now experienced by nearly forty-seven million Americans is the leading
cause of bankruptcy and homelessness.  Youth entering the job market will find that the outsourcing
of work to low wage regions of the world, even in highly skilled occupations, will limit their
possibilities—and thus their ability to educate their children, to own a decent house, and to save for
retirement.  The present plight of older workers will also be the plight of younger workers as the
government safety nets become further overwhelmed by the current shift in the distribution of wealth
in society.
The future is made even more uncertain by the current globalization of an industrial/consumer
oriented lifestyle.  While economic globalization is being viewed as the expression of progress, it is
increasing the rate of global warming and the depletion of the Earth’s natural resources.
Unfortunately, scientists and other experts have no way of knowing the regenerative capacity of the
natural systems that are being exploited at an accelerating rate.  How long with it take for various
fish stocks, such as the codfish once so abundant and the blue fin tuna now on the verge of
extinction, to recover?  Can the aquifers that are being mined as though they are an infinite resource
regenerate themselves within our lifetimes—or even the seventh generation from now?  Can the
185
world’s oceans reverse the acidic levels and warmer temperatures that are now contributing to the
death of coral reefs that nearly 25 percent of fish species depend upon?  What is the time frame for
regenerating the glaciers that are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people? Even
though we do not have the answers to these questions, more of the world’s governments have made
the adoption of the American consumer lifestyle their goal.  Many regions of the world are already
experiencing the degradation of natural systems that were assumed to be inexhaustible—such as
potable water, forest cover, topsoil, fisheries, petroleum, and other natural minerals.
  Globalization is dependent upon an increased reliance on Western technologies—especially
technologies that rely on microchips.  While there have been genuine benefits from the development
of computer-based technologies the increased reliance on these technologies has led to losses that go
unnoticed.  Many of the losses are the very traditions that would enable us to slow the rate of
environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources.  For example, as youth become
increasingly  dependent upon cell phones, and on Internet based relationships, learning, and gaming,
it is assumed that they are gaining more control over their lives—such as participation in a peer
culture of their choice, directing their own learning, and in pursuing their own form of entertainment.
The more time youth spend in the online culture the less likely they will become aware of the local
cultural commons that provide alternatives to being dependent upon the industrial/consumer-based
culture.  Instead of becoming increasingly empowered, they are, in effect, becoming more dependent
upon an economic system that is under stress from outsourcing, the increasing cost of basic materials
and transportation, and competition from regions of the world where wages are low and
environmental regulations non-existent.  As the ecological crises deepen they will be unaware of
how much of the intergenerational knowledge of how to live more mutually supportive and less
money dependent lives will have been lost.  While living in the Internet cocoon will continue to
isolate them from engaging in the renewal of the intergenerational knowledge, skills, and mutually
supportive relationships of the local cultural commons, they will still experience the shortages and
dislocations resulting from the twin crises caused by global warming and economic globalization
 Briefly, the cultural commons encompass those aspects of community life that are less
dependent upon a money economy and thus are less environmentally destructive.  The cultural
commons include the intergenerational knowledge, skills, and relationships that are relied upon in
the areas of growing and preparing food, expressive arts, craft knowledge and skills, narratives and
ceremonies, civil liberties, healing practices, games, and even language itself. Communities in every
186
culture are sustained in part by the intergenerational renewal of their cultural commons—which may
also include traditions that do not meet today’s social justice standards.  The important point,
however, is that the local cultural commons include relationships characterized by mutual support,
mentoring, and the development of personal talents and skills—all of which are fundamentally
different from being dependent upon what is industrially produced or that involve monetized
relationships. To reiterate a key point, as youth become increasingly dependent upon the new
Internet technologies the less likely they are to participate in the cultural commons of their
communities in ways that enable them to discover personal talents and skills that strengthen the
bonds of community.  And the less likely they are to be aware of how ideologies, technologies, and
economic forces are enclosing more aspects of the cultural commons—thus forcing them to become
increasingly dependent upon a money economy that is becoming less and less reliable.
Initial Awakening to the Importance of the Ecological Crises
Increasing attention is being given to reducing the human impact on the natural systems at all
levels of government--from the United Nations, federal, state, and even to city government,.  While
primarily motivated by the possibility of increasing their profit margins, businesses ranging from
mega corporations to small one-person operations are attempting to use energy more efficiently and
to be more mindful of reducing excessive waste. University presidents across the country are signing
declarations promising to exercise leadership in promoting ecologically sustainable reforms--though
most of the reforms are limited to recycling programs and to the introduction of more energy efficient
technologies.  While science faculty have made the environmental crises a major focus of their
research and teaching in the sciences, the situation is quite different in other areas of the university.
For example, in the social sciences and the humanities the reforms are being undertaken by a distinct
minority of faculty, and mostly consist of adding readings by environmental authors to existing
courses in the traditional disciplines. Exposure to environmental writers raises awareness of the many
ways in which the environment is being degraded, but it does not provide students with the practical
knowledge of the community-centered alternatives to consumerism and the so-called “progressive”
forces that are enclosing the world’s diverse cultural commons. The sustainability initiatives listed on
the website of the American Association for Sustainability in Higher Education bulletin@aashe.org
demonstrate once again how relying upon technological solutions is being viewed as more important
than the need for a fundamental change in consciousness.   What is happening in colleges and
departments of education is typical of the rest of the university. Just as in the sciences, the
187
environmental educators engage students in learning how to introduce such environmental issues as
the degradation of local habitats, the loss of species, and the industrial sources of environmental
damage into their public school classes. Introducing students to environmental authors can only be
found in  courses taught by a few faculty in the area of educational foundations.  The limited interest
in environmental issues by faculty in colleges and departments of education is illustrated by the fact
that of the over 10,000 faculty who attended the 2007 meeting of AERA in Chicago there were less
than 20 papers that focused on environmental issues, and less than 5 papers that addressed
educational reforms related to introducing students to the mutually supportive nature of the local
cultural commons.  The irony is that even though such groups as Real Estate organizations are
requiring their agents to pass a test certifying their  knowledge of the ecologically sustainable
characteristics of houses, the majority of faculty in colleges and departments of education continue to
frame the content of their courses and research in terms of the social justice priorities and
interpretative frameworks that were constituted before there was an awareness of the growing
ecological crises.
        The tradition of departmental autonomy has led education faculty to refrain from encouraging
colleagues in other departments to begin introducing ecologically informed curriculum reforms,
particularly in the teacher education programs.  However, there is evidence that a few environmental
educators are beginning to recognize that the destruction of the cultural commons has a direct
relationship to the environmental damage they are working to reverse, and are joining what can be
called the eco-justice network.  The environmental educators and educational studies faculty that
make up this network are spread across the country and number less than a 100 members.   An even
smaller number have participated in workshops that addressed how the language in various areas of
teacher preparation, and used by classroom teachers --including public school curricula--carries
forward the misconceptions of earlier times when there was no awareness of environmental limits.
These workshops helped to clarify how the deep taken for granted cultural assumptions that still
underlie the current digital phase of the industrial revolution that is now being globalized are also the
taken for granted assumptions that underlie what is being learned in most education classes.  These
assumptions, in turn, are being passed on to public school students.
       These workshops demonstrate why reforms in teacher education and other areas of educational
study that are based on a different paradigm cannot be initiated in any broad and lasting way by
individual faculty members.  Participants in the workshops, which were far too short to provide the
188
in-depth knowledge required to understand the connections between language, various forms of
cultural colonization, and the forces that are transforming the world’s diversity of cultural commons
into new markets, returned to their departments to find that few of their colleagues understood their
new insights and approaches to curriculum reforms. In some instances, they were met with hostility
as they were seen as no longer reinforcing the values and ideas that their colleagues associated with
progressive educational reforms.  In effect, the eco-justice/cultural commons orientation of the
workshops and publications brought into focus the difficulty of engaging in discussions with
colleagues who still take for granted the same cultural assumptions that underlie the modern
individualistic, progress-oriented mindset.
          The difficulty of an individual faculty member to bring about a major shift in the thinking of
colleagues has its roots in the unique culture of academia.  Perhaps the two most powerful
impediments to making this paradigm shift are the traditions of academic freedom and the
specialized language and values associated with different fields of study-- such as school
administration, educational psychology, curriculum, teacher education, educational studies, and so
forth.  The specialized language and interpretative frameworks that have their roots in a past when
environmental limits were not understood make it difficult for faculty to communicate with others
who are accustomed to thinking within specific traditions of inquiry. The need to adhere to what is
deemed politically correct in the larger society and across the fields of study in education generally
have limited the introduction of new ways of thinking.  In spite of the important role that academic
freedom has played in the past, this tradition remains one of the chief obstacles to engaging
colleagues in a serious and prolonged discussion of the educational reforms that must be undertaken.
Academic freedom should not be used as an excuse for dismissing the need to address the ecological
challenges we face. There are other major impediments to recognizing that what is being learned in
teacher preparation programs, and in the supporting areas of research and teaching, must undergo
fundamental changes.  These include the demands made by state and federal governments—and the
constant quest for innovations that further strengthen the modern paradigm that is ecologically
uniformed. Time to think deeply and to engage in sustained discussions of which traditions of
thinking within colleges of education need to be carried forward, reformed, or abandoned entirely is
severely limited by heavy teaching loads, committee meetings, pressure to publish, advising
students, and keeping current with their special field of interest.
189
Understanding the Leadership Role of Deans and Department Chairpersons in   Initiating and
Sustaining Ecologically Informed Reforms in Teacher Education
       Reform of education courses generally, and especially teacher education programs, will require
deans and department chairpersons to provide both conceptual leadership as well as the ability to
hold faculty accountable for working through the difficulties in making the paradigm shift that is
now required.  The major difficulty that both administrators and faculty face is that they were, with
few exceptions, educated to think within the conceptual paradigm that was based on assumptions
that did not take account of environmental limits.  To paraphrase Albert Einstein, we cannot rely
upon the same mind set that created the problem to fix it.  Understanding the shift in thinking that
must take place in colleges and departments of education requires thinking against the grain of so
many of the conceptual orthodoxies held by both education faculty and faculty in the sciences, social
sciences, and humanities.  The need for making a paradigm shift is, in effect, a university wide
problem.  The following is a brief sketch of the differences between the two paradigms.
Key ideas and assumptions that underlie the paradigm that most academics were
socialized to accept as leading to a socially just and progressive future.
• The individual is the basic social unit, and progress is defined in part by empowering
individuals to think for themselves and to create their own values.
• Change, especially when based on scientifically informed technologies and new ideas, is
inherently progressive.  One of the goals of the educational process is to contribute to more
change.
• This is a human-centered world, and one of the purposes of rational thought is to control and
exploit the natural environment in ways that improve the human condition.
• Language is a conduit in a sender/receiver process of communication, thus making it possible
to share objective knowledge.
• Individuals are capable of exercising rational thought in ways that are uninfluenced by the
assumptions of the culture into which they were born.
• Traditions , except for holidays and religious ceremonies, are generally impediments to
progress and to the realization of the individual’s fullest potential.
• Computers are a culturally neutral technology that enables students to access the world of
information necessary for the construction of their own ideas and  values.
190
• Multicultural awareness should be one of the primary goals in teacher education and other
areas of educational studies—and there is no conflict between understanding and
appreciating cultural differences and promoting the key values and assumptions that underlie
the modernizing mainstream culture of the West.
• The social justice agenda inherent in teacher education programs, and in other areas of study,
prepares students to experience equality of opportunity in the areas of work, politics, and
consumerism.
Key ideas and assumptions of that will lead to more ecologically sustainable cultures, and that
will help reframe approaches to teacher education, curriculum, learning theory, adminstration,
environmental education, and educational studies.
• The individual is nested in culture, and culture is nested in natural systems—thus the
individual must be understood as part of the interacting ecologies of interdependent
relationships.  In effect, the idea (and ideal) of the autonomous individual is a western
cultural myth.
• Language is metaphorical in nature and carries forward the patterns of thinking (the analogies
settled upon in the distant past) that were constituted before there was an awareness of
environmental limits and the diversity of cultural ways of knowing.  As the root metaphors
underlying Western culture influenced the selection of many of the analogies we still rely
upon, such as thinking of change as progressive in nature and a human-centered world,
today’s educational process continues to reinforce students for adopting the level of
intelligence (or unintelligence) of past thinkers.
• Intelligence, from an ecological perspective, is relational, participatory in ways influenced by
the information exchanges within the natural environment, influenced at a taken-for-granted
level by the layered nature of metaphorical thinking, embodied, and expressive of the
culture’s basic narratives.
• Tradition is a metaphor that carries forward the misconceptions of Enlightenment thinkers.
Actually, traditions represent all the ways of thinking, practices, and values of the culture that
have survived over four generations. Traditions are sources of empowerment, special
privileges and forms of exploitation, and are constantly changing—sometimes before there is
191
an awareness of the importance of what is lost, and sometimes too slowly.  People who hold
the idea that traditions do not change should be referred to as “traditionalists”.
• The cultural commons, which exist in all of the world’s communities, include the
intergenerational knowledge, skills, and patterns of mutual support that enable people to live
less consumer dependent lives—and thus to have a smaller adverse impact on the natural
environment.  If students learn to think of traditions as a source of backwardness and of
themselves as growing more autonomous, they will continue to ignore how their
embodied/culturally mediated experiences of  participating in the local cultural commons
differ from their experiences in the industrial/consumer oriented culture.
• Social justice issues need to be understood within the context of what reduces the
exploitation of the resources of other cultures, of what enables people to participate in the
cultural commons that strengthen mutual support while reducing their dependence upon a
money economy, and of learning to develop personal talents and skills through mentoring
relationships.
• Teacher education programs need to prepare classroom teachers to recognize that words have
a history and that they often carry forward the misconceptions and biases of the culture that is
overshooting the sustaining capacity of natural systems, to play the role of a mediator who
helps students recognize the differences in their cultural commons and consumer-based
experiences—and to help them acquire the language necessary for communicative
competence in resisting the further enclosure (monetizing and privatizing) of the cultural and
environmental commons.
         In effect both faculty and administrators will be challenged to rethink the conceptual
frameworks they acquired as part of their own graduate studies and subsequent socialization within
their specialized areas of inquiry and teaching.  This challenge is not an expression of my own biases
and subjective judgments.  Rather, it is being dictated by the different ecosystems that are being
degraded to the point where they can no longer sustain the North American consumer
lifestyle—much less the consumer dependent lifestyle that the hundreds of millions of people in such
countries as India and China are now pursuing.
         If there ever was a time for leadership it is now!  But the question that needs to be addressed is:
How can the dean and department chairpersons provide this leadership when they themselves may
192
not have a solid understanding of the ecologically and culturally problematic nature of many of the
deep cultural assumptions that are so widely taken for granted by their colleagues across the
country?  They can begin by convening  a meeting of the entire faculty for the purpose of hearing a
scientist explain the changes occurring in the world’s oceans, when humankind is likely to reach the
tipping point where the rate of global warming cannot be slowed by human effort, the consequences
that accompany the melting of glaciers and the release of methane now frozen in the permafrost that
is now beginning to melt, the loss of species, habitats, and topsoil, the shifts in weather patterns that
are contributing to droughts and the desertification of previously fertile lands.  This talk should send
the message that if there is going to be a sustainable future for their children, and for their children’s
children, fundamental changes must be introduced in the education of teachers—and in content of
curriculum materials.
The next step is to schedule a series of faculty discussions for the purpose of considering how
the basic assumptions that underlie the individualistic/progressive agenda contribute to overshooting
the sustaining capacity of natural systems and to undermining the cultural commons.  These
discussions also should consider not only the  implications of the ecologically informed assumptions
for introducing reforms in teacher education programs but lead to basic changes in pedagogy and
curricular decision making.
 Although some faculty will embrace this approach and will want to move forward by
revising their courses accordingly there will be forms of resistance that need to be recognized.   For
example, many faculty will be unwilling to engage in in-depth discussions, and will dismiss the
issues as irrelevant. Others may think that the pedagogical and curricular implications of the
assumptions that underlie an ecological way of thinking can be fully understood by participation in
only a couple of sessions.  After a few discussion sessions, they will return to their traditional
patterns of thinking.  One of the characteristics exhibited by even highly intelligent faculty is the
tendency to reduce the complexity of issues and ideas to simplistic representations that quickly can
be dismissed.  Another problem that often arises when new ideas are introduced is that too often
faculty will limit their interest to learning the new vocabulary and then show no interest in
understanding its fuller implications.
If faculty in colleges of education were already well informed about actual changes taking
place in the world’s ecosystems their responses would be of less concern..  And if they were more
accustomed to thinking within an ecologically and culturally informed paradigm they would be less
193
likely to engage in superficial discussions.  The following introduction to the complexity of issues
relating to an ecologically and culturally informed understanding of language, intelligence, and the
cultural commons, to cite just three examples from the preceding list, is meant to highlight the
danger of superficial and reductionist thinking that will ensure that no substantive educational
reforms will result.
For example, if education faculty begin to rethink the assumption that language is a conduit
in a sender/receiver process of communication they will find themselves addressing some of the
most critically important misconceptions shared by many classroom teachers and professors.  For
example, learning that language is not a conduit, but is based on metaphors whose meanings were
framed by earlier processes of analogic thinking that were, in turn, framed by the prevailing taken
for granted root metaphors of the culture, has broad and vitally important implications for both
teachers and the people who produce curriculum materials.  The implications are even more
profound for students who are being told that computer mediated learning (which reinforces the
conduit view of language) facilitates the construction of their own knowledge. The myth  that
language is a conduit hides how language carries forward the insights and, more often, the
misconceptions of earlier thinkers. When teachers fail to clarify that words have a history, and that
their current meaning was framed by earlier processes of analogic thinking that reflect both a
culturally specific tradition of thinking and the political struggles of an earlier time, students are
likely to assume that words provide a factual account of events and thus are the source of objective
knowledge.
  To put it more succinctly, not only does language carry forward the patterns of thinking that
both teachers and students may take for granted, it can also be understood as one of the more
powerful expressions of linguistic colonization of the present generation by past generations.
Relying upon the analogies settled upon at an earlier time may also reduce the students’ ability to
make an intelligent response to current relationships, such as thinking of women in the same limited
way that was taken for granted over the centuries.  The discussion of language presented here only
touches the surface of what teachers need to understand as they mediate between the past, present,
and future.
Other conceptual orthodoxies that do not take account of environmental limits, and that need
to be revised if pedagogical and curricular decisions are to be part of the solution rather than a
continuation of the problem, include how to understand intelligence in a way that not only takes
194
account of the influence of language, but also its participatory and relational nature. Most thinking
about intelligence, which is increasingly being based on a mechanistic model, is still predicated on
the assumptions of the French philosopher, Rene Descartes, and other western philosophers who did
not understand the deep symbolic foundations of their own culture and the radically different
symbolic systems of other cultures. The idea that intelligence is an attribute of an autonomous
individual (autonomous in the sense of being uninfluenced by the cultural assumptions carried
forward in the language she/he learns to think and communicate in) assumes that the thinker is an
objective observer of an external world. It also assumes that ideas originate along with other
mental/emotional processes in the brain.   An ecological interpretation of intelligence takes account
of a variety of relationships that influence the student’s intelligence. These include the ongoing
relationships with other people and the environment, the words and interpretative frameworks from
the past that carry forward the misconceptions that illuminate and hide what the individual will be
aware of, and a host of embodied and psychological influences.  These influences on intelligence
vary from culture to culture—and in no way correspond with the orthodox view that intelligence is
exercised by an autonomous individual who is the source of ideas, and so forth.  The pedagogical
implications of this more relational way of understanding intelligence, are in turn, complex and not
fully grasped in a short discussion session.
Similarly, understanding the nature of the local cultural commons and the forces that are
transforming it into new market opportunities that are ecologically destructive is also unattainable if
educators think it can be addressed in a couple of sessions.  Faculty participate daily in different
aspects of their local cultural commons. Unfortunately the failure of their own professors to make
explicit the many forms of mutual support, as well as the intergenerational knowledge that enables
people to be less dependent upon consumerism, has contributed to their lack of awareness of the
need to include in the curriculum an in-depth understanding of why revitalizing the cultural
commons, as well as conserving the cultural commons of other cultures, are essential to a sustainable
future.  Again, understanding the complexity of the cultural commons, including those aspects that
are sources of injustice, can be viewed as a career long endeavor—especially if students are to be
introduced to the history of the forces that are privatizing and monetizing what remains of the
cultural and environmental commons.  How should teachers help students become aware of the
differences between their experiences in the cultural commons and their experiences as a consumer
of what is ready made and that requires participation in a money economy?  What do students need
195
to understand about the nature of traditions in order to recognize the importance of some forms of
intergenerational knowledge and skill?  How does the teacher help them to develop the linguistic
basis of communicative competence that will enable them to resist the enclosure of such areas of the
cultural commons as the traditions of civil liberties and the narratives of past social justice
achievements?  What are the different silences in the curriculum that represent the process of
enclosure that are not being recognized?
These are just a few of the questions that demonstrate the need for faculty to make a long-term
commitment to rethinking whether the cultural assumptions they are reinforcing in their courses will
lead to the cultural changes that will help slow the rate of environmental degradation.  This
commitment, if it is to succeed must be a collaborative effort of the entire department and between
departments.  If not, students will be taking courses that are based on the same assumptions that gave
rise to the industrial/consumer oriented culture that is overshooting environmental limits, and in
other courses they will be encouraged to begin thinking of an ecologically informed approach to
pedagogy and curriculum—including the place of computers in the learning process.   The tensions
that will arise within departments as it becomes more evident that the ecological crises are impacting
people’s lives both here and in other parts of the world will require leadership from deans and
department chairpersons.  The following list suggests the way leadership can be expressed without
becoming dictatorial and an interference with the faculty member’s academic freedom.  Leadership
can actually facilitate faculty collaboration, especially when the faculty have a clearer understanding
that the deepening ecological crises not only threatens their own future but also that of already
marginalized groups.  As there is little possibility that faculty will begin to introduce ecologically
informed changes in their courses and programs if they do not take the ecological crises seriously, it
is necessary to emphasize again that the first step in exercising leadership is to have a scientist
present the consensus overview of the degraded condition of different ecosystems, as well as the
evidence of how these changes are impacting people’s lives. Taking this step will also communicate
to the faculty the priorities supported by the various levels of administration within the college and
university, and that these also are the priorities being promoted on a national basis by American
Association of Sustainability in Higher Education and the Higher Education Associations’
Sustainability Consortium,
196
Legitimate and Necessary Expressions of Leadership:
• Announce that a major priority of the college of education is to collaborate with other
divisions of the university in introducing curriculum reforms that  contribute to an
ecologically sustainable future (see the website of the American Association for
Sustainability in Higher Education bulletin.@aashe.org).
• Convening the entire faculty for the purpose of listening to the scientific evidence of
natural systems that are no longer regenerating themselves  at a level necessary for
sustaining life, or are undergoing changes, such as global warming, that are already
affecting the quality of life of billions of people.
• Convene the entire education faculty for a discussion of the cultural roots of the
ecological crises.  This session should provide an overview of how current thinking and
practices being reinforced in the various programs in the college are based on
assumptions that do not take account of environmental limits or how to live more
community-centered and thus less consumer dependent lives.
• Use discretionary funds in the budget for the purpose of collaborating with other
colleges of education in sharing the most effective ecologically informed approaches to
teacher education and to ways of thinking within other departments of the college.
• Ask that department chairpersons provide regular reports on the progress faculty are
making in engaging in discussions of the reforms that contribute to more ecologically
and culturally informed courses and publications.
• Remind faculty that in conducting searches for new faculty attention should be given to
the candidate’s educational background—specifically whether she/he shows evidence of
being able to question currently held assumptions and to engage in dialogue about the
reforms that need to be undertaken.
197
• If faculty in a department fail to consider the culturally and ecologically related
challenges in recommending the hiring of a candidate, then as a last resort the dean
should encourage that a further search be conducted.
• Encourage faculty who possess a better understanding of culturally and ecologically
informed educational reforms to establish collaborative relationships with faculty in
other parts of the university who are addressing similar concerns. The education of
most faculty in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities was based on the same deep
cultural assumptions that are ecologically problematic and may welcome discussions of
pedagogical and curriculum reforms that address the limitations in their own education
.
Summary
     While many indigenous cultures have understood for hundreds of years the need to adapt
cultural practices to what is sustainable over the long term, it has only been in the last thirty or so
years that the exploitation of the environment has become the concern of the American public. Aldo
Leopold and Rachel Carson were among the first to sound the alarm. Leopold explained the nature
of a land ethic but was unaware of the land ethic of the indigenous cultures that still inhabited the
region where he had his life-changing insight.  Rachel Carson’s concern with the life destroying
effects of the chemicals being introduced into the environment in the name of scientific progress
was yet another  wake-up call of major importance.  The various Earth Day celebrations and
international environmental conferences that followed focused mainly on issues of excessive
consumption, various forms of environmental degradation, and environmental justice issues.  Only
recently has attention been given to the taken for granted cultural assumptions—including how they
are linguistically passed on—that gave conceptual direction and moral legitimacy to the
industrial/consumer oriented culture that is a major contributor to global warming and to the decline
in the viability of other natural systems.  This needs to be taken into account when understanding
why few deans and department chairpersons possess an in-depth knowledge of the
conceptual/linguistic issues that need to be addressed in any effort to initiate reforms that are not
based on the old (ironically “progressive”) mind-set that is now beginning to be recognized as part
of the problem.
198
Deans and department chairpersons, like the rest of us, should view themselves as
participants in the beginning stages of discovering a post-industrial pathway that will avert what
Jared Diamond documents in his book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005).
Other cultures have found their own pathways.  Unfortunately, the intergenerational knowledge that
has sustained them for thousands of years is now being threatened by economic and ideological
globalization.  We can learn from their cultural commons without copying them, and learning from
them will help to remind us that making ecological sustainability a priority of educational reform
needs to be a collaborative effort.  The only thing that can be universalized is the danger of
ecological collapse now faced by all cultures—and it needs to be recognized that responsible
scientists are increasingly using the word “collapse”.   What deans and department chairpersons can
do, even if their own educational backgrounds do not provide for an understanding of the
cultural/linguistic issues that also are being ignored by faculty in other departments of the
university, is to keep reminding the faculty that both the ecological crises that scientists are
documenting and the cultural traditions that are major contributors to overshooting environmental
limits, must be in the foreground of reforming teacher education and in the supporting fields of
studies in colleges of education.
Chapter 12  What Should be Included in Teacher Education Programs in an
                                                Era of Global Warming
(Explanations of the connections between theory and classroom practice for the following can be found in
chapters available in the other online books by C. A. Bowers. Type C. A. Bowers in Google, go to online
articles and books, and then to the EcoJustice Press. The chapters also include a list of books that provided the
theory from which the pedagogical and curricular recommendations were extrapolated)
Basic theory in the following areas that will inform classroom practices:
1. An understanding of the culture/language/thought connections, such as the cultural origins of
metaphorical thinking, how metaphors carry forward earlier forms of intelligence, and how to
reframe key aspects of the dominant vocabulary in ways that are consistent with an ecological way
of thinking and acting.
199
2. An understanding of the overlooked characteristics of culture—its taken for granted nature
(including the connections between context and tacit understandings), the nature of tradition, the
diversity of ways of knowing, the cultural differences between orality and print, the differences
between cultures that are ecologically centered and those that are based on myths of progress and
possessing a special destiny.
3. An understanding of the cultural and environmental commons, including the diversity of the local
cultural and environmental commons, how to make them explicit through ethnographic
descriptions, how to recognize the community enhancing characteristics as well as sources of
discrimination, how to assess their ecological footprint and consumer reduction characteristics.
4. An understanding of the different ways in which the commons are being enclosed --that is,
transformed into commodities and markets, or eliminated entirely.  In addition to understanding the
different forms of enclosure, teachers should be able to engage students in a discussion of how
different forms of enclosure contribute to poverty, to undermining the community’s traditions of
self-sufficiency, and to degrading natural systems.
5. An understanding of the teacher’s mediating role in helping students recognize the differences
between participating in the intergenerationally connected cultural commons and being a consumer
and worker in the industrial system of production and consumption.
6. Understanding curricular decisions in terms of how they relate to addressing social and eco-justice
issues.
Understanding how earlier ways of thinking that were constituted before there was
an awareness of other cultural ways of knowing and environmental limits continue to
be reinforced in today’s classrooms.  This includes understanding the nature and
historical origins of the following root metaphors (interpretative frameworks that
have influenced cultural practices in a variety of areas and over hundred, even
thousands of years).
1.  Individualism
2. Progress
3. Mechanism
4. Economism  (reducing everything and relationship to an economic unit)
200
5. Anthropocentrism  ( a human-centered world)
6. Patriarchy
7. Language as a conduit in a sender/receiver process of communication
8. Evolution
9. Ecology
Understanding the how these interpretative frameworks (root metaphors) marginalize the
ability to recognize different aspects of culturally mediated experiences that are
especially critical today.
1. Ecological limits and the practices that are overshooting them
2. Other cultural ways of knowing and value systems
3. Traditions, including past achievements in the areas of civil liberties and social justice
4. Intergenerational knowledge and skills that reduce dependence upon consumerism and thus
the ecological footprint of daily life
Understanding the dynamics of how analogs established in the past frame the widely accepted
meaning of the following words, and how to engage students in the process of establishing
analogs that are informed by the student’s cultural background-- and informed by an
awareness of ecologically sustainable practices and values.   Students  should be encouraged to
identify analogs that are consistent both the with root metaphor of ecology and their own
cultural traditions.
1. Intelligence
2. Individualism
3. Freedom
4. Community
5. Tradition
6. Wealth
7. Environment
8. Ecology
9. Cultural commons
201
10. Environmental commons
11. Sustainable
12. Progress
13. Poverty
14. Subsistence
15. Conservatism
16. Liberalism
17. Globalization
18. Technology
19. Orality
20. Literacy
21. Wisdom
The explanation of how to identify the analogs that frame the current meaning of words shared by a
wide segment of the mainstream culture, how to trace back in time the sources of the analogs that
continue to frame the current meanings, how to identify the analogs of different cultural groups that
have not been entirely assimilated into the mainstream culture, and how to assess whether the new
analogs that are culturally informed lead to ecological thinking and behaviors, can be found in the
chapter titled “Toward an Ecologically Sustainable Vocabulary” which is in the online book Toward
a Post-Industrial Consciousness.
202
203