This paper begins by suggesting that issues of social and ecological justice are not mutually exclusive. They are tied together through the logic of domination which is, in turn, sustained by oppositional value dualisms such as man/ woman, human/nature, and white/non-white. As such, we suggest that environmental education must deal with the shared logic of domination as opposed to any individual dualism. The body of this paper attempts to respond to this challenge through an exploration of ecofeminism and then an expansion of several components of what might be included in an ecofeminist pedagogy. This exploration focuses on three potential areas of change for environmental education—relationship, structure, and practice—by examining the more concrete aspects of dialogue, ecological design theory, the Earth Charter, and assessment.

(…) Those advocating for ecofeminist pedagogy emphasize the role of dialogue in enacting new relationships between humans, and between humans and morethan-human nature (Gardner & Riley, 2007; Houde & Bullis, 1999; Li, 2007). Genuine dialogue, according to Buber (1965), is like an embrace, a moment when two come together and, without loss of self, are able to hold each other simultaneously with an open heart and mind. It is built on respect and a deep sense of the intrinsic value of the other being. This is a relation of the both/and, an acknowledgment of the immediate presence of both deep interdependence and the unique autonomy of each being. This is a relationship held together by humility. Blenkinsop (2005) proposes that a teacher who is prepared to engage in dialogue with students will push, support, and challenge students in whatever direction he/she feels will be most helpful for the student, while at the same time acknowledging that students respond out of their own free will. When ecofeminists speak of transformed relationships, they are presupposing that these relationships are based on an acknowledgement of human interdependence with each other and the rest of nature (Merchant, 2005; Warren, 2000). Kheel (1993) suggests that disengaging from patriarchal discourse allows us to hear fuller stories as we listen to nature, hearing voices that have been muted under patriarchy. Ecofeminists seek, in Buber’s language, for authentic dialogue based on respect for, and communion with, other beings.

Clearly an ecofeminist pedagogy calls for a radical relational shift in education: a shift towards something that is more dialogical, where the human (teacher and student), the community, and the more-than-human come together and engage with each other in more robust and equitable ways than is currently the norm. This is a pedagogy where learning takes place in a more expanded, including outdoor, environment in which students can experience relationship and build community between themselves, their locale, and the rest of nature. This shift in both the place of education and the definition of and relationship between teacher and learner allows the natural world space to play the more prominent role of active dialoguer, even co-teacher, in an educational practice that is in, for, and through relationship. This notion of authentic dialogue, along with both a growing implicit thread of experiential education, and a critical philosophical stance, are three key components of an ecofeminist pedagogy.(…)

– – – – –

Harvester, L., & Blenkinsop, S. (2010). Environmental education and ecofeminist pedagogy: Bridging the environmental and the social. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 15, 120-134. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ942810.pdf