Capitalist society's failure to respond rationally to
climate change can be viewed as a failure of the educational
system.  After all, schools and universities should inform
the public about the imminent danger.  Therefore it is
interesting to read what those working in Higher Education
have to say about it.

I'd like to discuss three blogs about sustainability
education authored by G. Rendell from the watchdog web
site "Inside Higher Education".  The first blog, Teaching
Sustainability in 21st Century America
   
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/getting-green/teaching-sustainability-21st-century-america
begins with a few helpful general observations.
The following observation bears repeating:

"Two maxims on which I've relied for decades hold sway in
the teaching of sustainability, as in the teaching of most
anything.  The first is that as a teacher, a trainer, a
parent, any sort of authority figure, you're always
teaching; the only question is whether you're teaching
something you want the student to learn.  The second (and it
overlaps significantly with the first, especially in the
realm of social challenges/paradigms) is that if you're not
teaching/promoting/enforcing the solution, then you're
teaching/enabling/reinforcing the problem."

Then the first blog makes the more specific point that
teaching sustainability means teaching the long view versus
immediate gratification.

The second blog
   
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/getting-green/teaching-sustainability-21st-century-america-2
adds another specific point: sustainability education means
focusing on the good of society versus individual advantage.

The third blog
   
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/getting-green/teaching-sustainability-21st-century-america-3
names some of the obstacles to getting the sustainability
message across.  Many students do not see how deep the
problem is, they are not used to questioning the basic
structures of our society but instead consider these
structures as inevitable.

All three blogs are worth reading, but I'd like to
respond to the following paragraph from third blog:

"Maybe one of the reasons students have trouble envisioning
alternatives to our current market-driven society is that no
fully explicit set of values it's supposed to provide and
support has ever been made clear to them.  Of course, to
make explicit a set of values or objectives for a social
structure would be to imply that other social structures
could exist, and thereby to raise at least the potential
question of whether any of those alternatives might do a
better job.  For many of the students I interact with, the
question 'what's an economy (or a political structure, or a
society) for?' seems entirely nonsensical.  It is, of
course, a radical question.  But in the absence of radical
questioning, radical change is impossible.  And radical
change of some sort will be required if anything resembling
modern society is to long endure."

My Marxist upbringing suggests that the above paragraph is
based on a false premise.  It is wrong to assume that our
society is subordinate to some "value system" which, if
changed, will lead to a change in society itself.  Rather,
the inner structure of society is determined by very
material forces, namely, the control of the means of
production, and the value systems are constructed afterwards
to give justification and order to this unequal access to
resources.  Capitalism is enduring and successful because
those behaviors which seem reasonable on an individual level
to those who have no control of natural resources or the
means of production and therefore must sell their
labor-power, add up, on a social level, to preserving and
deepening their separation from the resources which they
should have access to as their birthright.

The fight for the protection of the environment is
therefore not only a fight for a different value system, for
a more sustainable conception of what we consider a "good
life."  It is also a very practical fight to change the
constraints which force people to recreate capitalism by
their daily activity.  Protection of the environment simply
does not fit into the patterns of activity which everybody
has to follow to stay afloat in capitalism.  Even our most
fervent wish to preserve a livable planet for our
grandchildren cannot overcome the material constraints,
refined over centuries, which have enabled capitalism to
survive despite the misery it creates.  Higher education is
one of the enabling institutions of capitalism; it makes
capitalism seem natural and inevitable to the population,
and it demonizes the socialist alternative.  Sustainable
behavior on a massive scale cannot be reached without
questioning capitalism, without addressing social injustices
and applying democratic scrutiny to the most important
economic decision, the investment decision.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to