Environmental Liberalism: A Framework for a Sustainable Higher Education

Environmental Liberalism: A Framework for a Sustainable Higher Education Matthew Thomas Mawson Graduate Centre for Environmental Studies The University of Adelaide ph. 08 8303 5899 fx. 08 8303 4383 mthomas@arts.adelaide.edu.au There exists in current higher education rhetoric a convergence of liberal and utilitarian ideologies, evident in the calls for generic skills in graduates, and the notion of lifelong learning. This paper presents a critical examination of this ideological convergence and establishes how it can form the foundations of a sustainable higher education. Building on John Dewey's pragmatic vision for socially and democratically empowered citizenry, it is shown that this framework, called "environmental liberalism", provides a more authentic form of environmental education. Moreover, it does so within the existing disciplinary structures, and therefore represents a useful professional-based environmental education. It is argued that this form of liberal educational reform represents an essential step towards our common goal of ecological sustainability. Introduction It remains apparent that continued environmental degradation requires remedial action, and that our efforts have often been inadequate in addressing the notion of ecological sustainability. Education has been emphasised in many of international forums as essential in the attainment of sustainable modes of living, from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to the IUCN's vision for a sustainable future. Unfortunately, there has been insufficient emphasis placed on the higher education sector, where the introduction of environmental education has been limited. Although there are increasing numbers of environment-related subjects and courses, universities are continuing to produce graduates with no experience of how their careers and modes of living may be contributing to the environmental crisis. Indeed, our current forms of environmental education are limited to a few specialist areas, such as "environmental law" or "environmental engineering", and a generalist areas such as environmental studies or environmental management programs. As David Orr argues, it is often the most highly educated people who are responsible for environmental mismanagement. He continues: modern education has certainly better equipped us to dominate nature rather than dwell in harmony with it and to understand things in fragments rather than think broadly about systems and ecosystems (ibid. p.4). Orr perceives a challenge for educators in developing "mindsets and habits that enable people to live sustainably on a planet with a biosphere" (ibid. p.4). He argues for a change in the purpose of higher education, away from purely professional development towards a

broad social and environmental purpose. The broadest function of education, in any formulation, has been described as increasing the survival prospects of the group. This first principle of education is one that is largely ignored in our current society, yet perhaps more than any other time in our history, we need to embrace this fundamental purpose. In order to achieve ecological sustainability all education must acknowledge both the social and environmental implications of the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. If we are concerned about changing the way we view and treat our environment, then we must integrate environmental and social purpose into all forms of education, and most importantly professional education. To this end, a sustainable higher education is necessary element of ecological sustainability. There is a convergence between the current utilitarian higher education ideology and a neoliberalism evident in the recent policy rhetoric in Australia, the United Kingdom and the US. Whilst there are a number of problematic elements in this proposed return to pragmatic liberalism, this subtle shift in ideological orientation may just provide the impetus and framework for a sustainable higher education. This paper will provide an overview of this ideological convergence, and illustrate how it can lend support to a new form of environmental education. A framework for this form of environmental education is developed here, and is given the name environmental liberalism. By supporting a form of professional education which facilitates graduates understanding of the social and environmental contexts of their chosen professions, environmental liberalism forms an essential element of the maturation of environmental education, and further realisation of its potential in achieving ecological sustainability. A Convergence of Liberal and Utilitarian Educational Ideology During the last decade, an important debate has occurred around the current professional focus of higher education. In response to the economic and professional boom of the 1980s, commentators as diverse as influential educationalist Allan Bloom, and the then US Secretary of Education William, J. Bennet, called for a return to the virtues of a liberal educational ideology. Bloom perceived the existing education system as promoting singularly the virtues of highly specialised technical training, and quite explicitly denouncing liberal ideologies. Bloom argued that this mechanistic utilitarianism of professional education was resulting in a failed democracy and impoverished souls of students. Criticisms of the narrow utilitarian focus of higher education on the acquisition of "useful" professional skills and knowledge were by no means new, had been put forward since the first adoption of the utilitarian ideal in the nineteenth century. Oxford University reformer Benjamin Jowett argued in the mid-nineteenth century that students who had taken studies with no connection to any profession, but merely served to open and enrich the mind, would be found to be much better in professional life than those who specialised at an early age. Furthermore, during the 1980's a new moral aim was added to higher education, whereby the professional was expected to have not only the skills of their particular trade, but also a wider understanding of the world, and the social role of profession. There exists already a strong foundation for the convergence of liberal and utilitarian ideologies within the present governmental higher education policy frameworks of both Australia and the United Kingdom. However, the type of liberalism found in these documents is highly conservative. Recent higher education review and policy documents make explicit a need for a change in focus of higher education away from a narrow utilitarianism. The final report of The Review Committee on Higher Education Financing and Policy, (the so called West Review), attempts to clearly define the current role of higher education, and provide some strategic vision for the next century. Entitled Learning for Life, the report builds upon a

growing focus on lifelong learning, and states that the original three-fold purpose of higher education, to preserve, transmit and expand on the domain of knowledge, must be replaced by a role amenable to our current knowledge-based society. An outcome-orientated purpose for higher education is conceived, which is to furnish each graduate with the following attributes: the capacity for critical, conceptual and reflective thinking in all aspects of intellectual and practical activity; technical competence and an understanding of the broad conceptual and theoretical elements of his or her fields of specialisation intellectual openness and curiosity, and an appreciation of the interconnectedness, and areas of uncertainty in current human knowledge; effective communication skills in all domains (reading, writing, speaking, and listening); research, discovery and information retrieval skills and a general capacity to use information; multifaceted problem solving skills and the capacity for teamwork; and high ethical standards in personal and professional life, underpinned by a capacity for self-directed activity This purpose for higher education presents a significant move away from a closed discipline or profession based education that seeks to impart or transmit the relevant technical skills and knowledge. Whilst there is some illusion to a broad societal purpose of higher education, the West Review still frames higher education solely in terms of the individual. By concluding that the higher education sector should "enable its graduates to emerge with the skills and knowledge to that will meet the economic, social and environmental challenges of the twenty-first century" no broad social purpose is made explicit. The final report of the National Review Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education in the UK, (the so called Dearing Report), makes a slightly less conservative convergence between liberal and utilitarian ideology. It is stated that the purpose of higher education is: to inspire and enable individuals to develop their capabilities to the highest potential levels throughout life, so that they grow intellectually, are well equipped for work, can contribute effectively to society and achieve personal fulfilment; to increase knowledge and understanding for their own sake and to foster their application to the benefit of the economy and society; to serve the needs of an adaptable, sustainable, knowledge-based economy at local, regional and national levels; to play a major role in shaping a democratic, civilised, inclusive society. Whilst less individualistic in its construction, this definition of purpose also embodies a conservative neo-liberalism. Personal growth is established as paramount, and placed as a necessary condition for continued economic and social functioning. Indeed, repeated references are made to the economy, and "society" is even subjugated to the economy through the implication of order. This definition of purpose for higher education also embodies the current catch phrase of "lifelong learning", itself a testament to the emergence of a conservative form of liberalism. Lifelong learning has been the focus of much theoretical and policy exploration during the 1990s and the explosion of the concept exemplifies the current and continued search for reformation and redirection in higher education. However, as Bowers has suggested, the tenets of modernism deeply embedded within the current neo-liberal higher education reforms, serve to reinforce an individualistic consumer-driven lifestyle and a technocentric

approach to environmental problem-solving. Furthermore, as Jones suggests, conservative liberal education is seen to preserve a rigid distinction between high-status academic knowledge, and low-status practical knowledge and skills. The policy rhetoric that surrounds the push for lifelong learning embodies all that has been criticised in current forms of neoliberal ideology. As one recent document examining lifelong learning states: the key to economic and social improvement lies in having a population that is adaptable, flexible, well educated and attuned to the need for lifelong learning. Interestingly, this explication of lifelong learning makes the individual subordinate to a quasisocial purpose - the economy. As Apple states emphatically: the politics of official knowledge...cannot be understood in an isolated way. All of this needs to be situated directly in larger ideological dynamics in which we are seeing an attempt by a new hegemonic bloc to transform our very ideas of what education is for. This transformation involves a major shift - one that Dewey would shudder at - in which democracy becomes an economic rather than a political concept, and where the idea of the public good withers at its very roots. This ideology of economic democracy emerged as a new purpose of education in the 1960s. At this time the argument was put forward that education should be regarded as an investment that yields significant economic benefits through increasing the skills of the population, and accelerating technological progress. This economic role for higher education has continued through to the 1990s, and most probably beyond. The equation of the economy with a new morality, inherent in the current forms of neo-liberalism, further reinforces the arguments against the validity of the adoption of such ideology. It is possible to conceive this form of conservative neo-liberalism as an extension, or remnant of the underlying conservatism in higher education. Further, its utility in promoting environmental degradation is apparent, and is fundamentally incompatible with sustainable modes of living. Whilst the current convergence of utilitarian and liberal ideology re-establishes some form of broader social function for higher education, the underlying problems which render the current ideology incompatible with an ecologically sustainable higher education. A form of education that serves a social purpose is required, but is must be one where all staff and students form an element of a society that is more aligned to our ecological place in the biosphere. There exists a need to re-establish the fundamental premises upon which environmental education was built: the development of an environmentally aware, concerned and active citizenry such as was envisioned by Stapp et al at the birth of environmental education, and echoed in the Belgrade Charter and Tbilisi Declaration. I suggest that it would be more propitious to embrace the elements of the liberal ideology that break away from our current utilitarian bonds, and shape the emergence of a new liberalism to serve an environmental end: anenvironmental liberalism. Towards an Environmental Liberalism: Dewey's Vision for Education John Dewey perceived a form of education that integrated a professional and social purpose, and discussion of any pragmatic social liberalism can draw much from his thought. Dewey envisioned an education system that developed in the individual social and political literacy and competence, and contributed to the realisation of a truly democratic society. For Dewey, the greatest enemy to democratic practice was the separation of liberal education

for the elite, and vocational training for the masses. He stated quite explicitly that democratic societies must move forward towards a course of study that was useful and liberal at the same time. For Dewey, this mix of liberal and utilitarian educational practice involved a perception of education which centred around the "the process of forming fundamental dispositions...toward nature and fellow men [sic]". The purpose of education was the formation of a citizenry who had both appropriate vocational skills, and a strong democratic, social and moral understanding. The primary role of education for Dewey was to develop people in which benevolent impulse founded on a detailed ethical substrate met with intelligent reflection to produce conduct that is good. Furthermore, Dewey drew from the pragmatic tradition the re-framing of the individual, such that individual interests were curtailed in favour of the common good. Of further relevance to an environmental liberalism, Dewey states in My Pedagogic Creed that "education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform". He conceived a universal education that provided a moral framework, and instilled the knowledge and skills necessary for effective participation in society. Furthermore, education was seen as essential to creating empowered citizens whose functions and actions as elements of a society would be governed by the cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects of their education, towards a both moral and social end. It is evident that Dewey realised the far-reaching impacts of education, and held that its formative influence could be utilised to shape broad social change. These basic premises upon which Dewey's work was founded are essential to the formulation of a sustainable reformation of higher education. In a recent review of John Dewey's collected works, a number of other elements of his form of liberalism important to environmental education were highlighted. Central to Dewey's thought was the interconnected nature of science, education and society. To this end Dewey saw that science must acknowledge its social implications and responsibilities. Similarly, Dewey criticised the manner in which modern education tended towards the study objects in isolation of their social and ecological contexts. To this end, Dewey's framework for education involved study which was relevant and applicable to the society, not in terms of subject matter, but in terms of providing the knowledge, attitudes and skills for effective social participation. Dewey encapsulated these ideas in the notion of "occupation". In Dewey's vision for the democratic society, education and vocation formed an on-going symbiosis, resulting in a life of meaningful activity. An occupation involved both professional and social practice, and was a constant learning process. This idea is remarkably close to that of lifelong learning, although within the context of Dewey's thought, the emphasis lies with social rather than personal and economic benefit. Although Dewey's vision for a socio-democratic education cannot be given detailed analysis in this forum, the elements drawn out here provide a productive broad framework for a sustainable education. Dewey's vision of a pragmatic liberal education involved learning which aimed to produced a benevolent and empowered citizenry, orientated towards to common social good. Further, for Dewey education must be situated in, rather than abstracted from, its broader social and ecological contexts. There has been some considerable activity, both theoretical and practical, in relation the realisation of liberal ideologies within environmental education. As early as the mid 1970s environmental authors such as Roderick Nash called for a move towards a broad and fundamental environmental focus for a liberal general education. During the 1990s there has been some reintroduction of the idea of utilising of a liberal ideology to develop a cross-curriculum environmental education, with a prime example being David Orr's suggestion of a liberal

rational for incorporating environmental concerns into the curricula of higher education. However, this driving force for an environmental liberalism still comes from the environmental and environmental education movement, and there is currently very little mainstream support for an environmental focus to educational reform in higher education. Indeed, as D'Urso states, the environmental crisis is curiously neglected by socio-cultural theorists of education. Environmental Liberalism: The Framework for a Sustainable Environmental Education and its Implications for Practice Environmental liberalism seeks to re-establish a broad social purpose for higher education. This social purpose necessarily includes an ecological orientation, and equates ecological integrity with social exigency. As with other forms of liberal education, a focus on citizenship skills is an integral element, and seeks to integrate a utilitarian ideology with a social liberalism. To this end, higher education is subtly re-conceptualised to include both professional and social development, with an explicit ecological foundation. This new ideology attempts to create a social democracy founded upon a closely-knit and empowered citizenry who are able to enact social change towards sustainability. Environmental liberalism is encapsulated by an extension of Dewey's form of educational liberalism, where social purpose is inextricably connected to a broad environmental end: that of a sustainable mode of living. Environmental liberalism describes an essential objective of higher education as the development of environmental citizenry skills and the empowerment of learners to act in a socially and environmentally beneficial manner. This particular path towards sustainability in higher education is chosen as the journey has already been begun. The move from a conservative neo-liberalism towards a more authentic radical environmental liberalism is not nearly as difficult as the move from the staunch educational conservatism of the post-war era, or indeed a jump to a completely new ideological formulation of the university. The rhetoric of social purpose in higher education has been established, all that is needed is a number of subtle, though deeply meaningful shifts in priority, and concerted effort towards practical realisation. Fundamental to this goal is the restructuring of the established educational value system from the current economic and vocational focus by returning to a more basic social, cultural and environmental orientation. Here we must no longer necessitate the equation of economic improvement with individual, social and planetary well being. It is essential that emphasis is again placed on measures of wealth - not merely in terms of an economic, consumer driven and hierarchical vocational hegemony - but in terms of personal growth and satisfaction, community and environmental health and effective socio-democratic participation. Environmental liberalism must reinforce the focus of community and culture inherent in Dewey's vision. Here, the development of citizenry skills must be orientated towards affecting change towards sustainability and the democratic social empowerment, which Dewey speaks of, is essential to this goal. Thus a new radical and environmental liberalism forms the foundation for a sustainable higher education. An important element, played-down by critics of liberalism such as Chet Bowers, is the way in which this ideology fundamentally challenges the conservatism inherent in stratified quasidemocratic societies. As Marginson has argued, the hegemony of traditional power and knowledge structures is facilitated through a conservative educational form in which orthodox and rigorous academic disciplines, didactic pedagogy, and unreflective curricular are utilised. It is the residue of this type of subtly authoritarian conservatism that has become embedded in current moves towards a conservative neo-liberalism. In direct contrast to this form of education is the radical and pragmatic liberalism of Dewey, whose ideological foundations of education are made manifest through not only technically, but also

generically, socially and morally educated and empowered citizens who shape a communitybased democracy towards a negotiated common good. Equating sustainability with social exigency necessitates an environmental focus in our higher education. However, the lack of sustainability in our present societies requires that this environmental focus as social function is in fact socially critical and reform orientated. Currently, there is little more than an overtly utilitarian approach to the environment in higher education, whereby technical environmental knowledge and "solutions" define the parameters of learning. This has been illustrated above, in the examination of the current status of environmental education in Australian higher education. This orientation must be replaced by a perspective that places sustainability as a fundamental element of education, and one that requires an active, behavioural and affective approach to its attainment. Just as Dewey's liberalism attempted to develop empowered social beings, an environmental liberalism must strive to develop citizens who align their actions around socio-environmental concern and whose "occupation" is towards a common good of ecological sustainability. Current higher education is highly compartmentalised into a disciplinary matrix that directly relates to professional training. This disciplinary matrix, itself a product of a utilitarian ideology of higher education, does serve an indispensable function in our current society. However, as Olson states, this compartmentalisation results in the establishment of a hierarchy of educational practices separating the vocational, general and social. The argument presented here is that a more holistic perspective is needed, which integrates vocation and education. Further, there is a need for a breakdown of the authority of the individual, and a re-conceptualisation of the interconnections between elements of human societies, and the social systems with the biosphere. A successful framework for a sustainable higher education must adopt a symbiotic relationship, where education is not denigrated to a means towards a vocational end. Similarly, much can be said for a reconceptualisation of professional and vocational practice where it is seen not as an end in itself, but as an element of a broader conception of one's life, and role in society. However, such reform does not necessitate a breakdown in the disciplinary structure of higher education, but rather calls for a realignment of purpose within these existing disciplinary strictures. At the present, the best chance of establishing a sustainable higher education is through the introduction of a pragmatic environmental liberalism built around the strength of the current disciplines. Conclusion Although environmental education has developed considerably over the last three decades there is more than ever a pressing need for the inclusion of an environmental orientation in all professional education. This paper has outlined a new form of educational ideology that serves to create a much-needed potent form of environmental education. This environmental liberalism builds on the current convergence of utilitarian and liberal ideologies. Through the realisation that environmental concern is a pressing social concern, an environmental orientation must be included in any pragmatic liberalism that seeks to place professional education in a social and cultural context. This environmental liberalism challenges the current forms of conservative neo-liberalism, and draws on the thought of John Dewey in relation to a social purpose for education that extends far beyond personal and societal economic growth. The strength of this form of liberalism is that it is easily achievable within our current educational systems, and requires us to take only a few steps further, rather than begin a new journey. The next parts of this journey involve the realisation of this ideology through the development of suitably aligned curricula, and the placement of professional education in social and ecological contexts.

References