Educating for Eco-Justice and Community

by Chet A. Bowers

We believe in social justice. We support educational reform. Yet unless we reframe our approaches to both, says C. A. Bowers, the social justice attained through educational reform will only lead to more intractable forms of consumerism and further impoverishment of our communities. In Educating for Eco-Justice and Community Bowers outlines a strategy for educational reform that confronts the rapid degradation of our ecosystems by renewing the face-to-face, intergenerational traditions that can serve as alternatives to our hyper-consumerist, technology-driven worldview.

Bowers explains how current technological and progressive programs of educational reform operate on deep cultural assumptions that came out of the Enlightenment and led to the Industrial Revolution. These beliefs frame our relationship with nature in adversarial terms, view progress as inevitable, and elevate the individual over community, expertise over intergenerational knowledge, and profit over reciprocity.

By making eco-justice a priority of educational reform, we can begin developments in science and technology in ways that eliminate eco-racism;reverse the global processes that are worsening the economic and political inequities between the hemispheres;expose the cultural forces that turn aspects of daily life―from education and entertainment to work and leisure―into market-dependent relationships;uplift knowledge and traditions of intergenerationally connected communities; anddevelop a sense of moral responsibility for the long-term consequences of our excessive material demands.

In the tradition of Wendell Berry, David Orr, and Kirkpatrick Sale, Bowers thinks about our place in the natural world and the current economies to show how we can reform education and create a less consumer-driven society.

248 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2001

Reviews

[Aaron · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really cant stand this book so far. Im intriqued occasionally, but he seems to try to set himself apart by making very sweeping claims about other people's work (basing his attacks of Giroux and McClaren to one book or article each in his bibliography). His arguments and writing also seem to go nowhere and have little clarity. Beyond broad attacks on critical theory based on a limited number of resources, he also fails to present evidence of most of these attacks and simply assumes we should and will trust him. I would probably enjoy this book if he presented his argument building on other views and positions rather than trying to distinquish himself by attacking (not even questioning) almost everyone else. It makes it hard to agree with somebody who is attacking you. Im not looking forward to reading the rest of this book, but I will and hopefully Ill be able to get something from it. ugh.

[Kristin · Rating 3 out of 5]

his overal thesis is compelling and important, particularly for folks interested in social justice, environmental education, and place-based education. i agree with other reviewers who take issue with his critique of prominent educational theorists (Freire/Giroux/McLaren/Dewey); while i think it's important to recognize the cultural assumptions that undergirds their work, his critique is too sweeping and doesn't adequately account for some of the intricacies of their arguments. generally speaking, the book also feels repetitive at times - i think he could have made his central argument more clearly and concisely.

[Peaches · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though Bowers doesn't adhere to consistent punctuation rules or correct APA formatting, I found this an easy read with some practical application. He outlines aspects of curriculum in the broad sense, then gives specifics of how educators can interact with students, like the importance of eye contact and body language; however, as a practicing teacher, I'd love more curriculum examples besides questions to have students consider or explore. Where are the activities?!

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Radical. I totally enjoyed the arguments and his "take-no-prisoner" critique of big names within the field of critical pedagogy. I appreciate, and respectfully disagree, with aspects of nearly everything he says, but he certainly pushed me to think of things a little differently.