13. Democratic ecopedagogy: Inclusive of more-than-humans within our postdigital world

Abstract

Various forms of environmental pedagogies have been criticized for encumbering an education for sustainability that coincides with capitalism and, worse, neoliberalism, that lacks the needed teaching to radically disrupt catastrophic environmental issues, including climate change. Coinciding with ecopedagogy, we propose democratic, bottom-up approaches for environmental pedagogies within an increasingly postdigital world – to deepen and widen reflexivity for environmental praxis by disengaging from positivistic binaries and breaking down hierarchies between humans and more-than-humans. After unpacking the needs, theories, practices and challenges of our argument, we take the example of ecopedagogy undertaken with digital recording devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.) as a means to develop transformation towards democratic inclusivity. The use of cellphilming provides possibilities of kinship development with more-than-humans through an affective and sensual performative aspect of autoethnography shared on social media. Within ecopedagogical terms, this would be the lowercased development that is grounded in globally all-inclusive, socio-environmental justice and planetary sustainability, including humans as part of Nature and the value of Nature beyond humans.  This chapter will contribute to the understanding and praxis of ecopedagogies in order to imagine/sketch/create an alternative and more effective teaching for a more vibrant and inclusive democracy. Kinship and belonging with the more-than-human can thereby encompass and expand upon the limited idea of anthropocentric citizenship proposed by contemporary democratic practices by engaging with the more-than-human. In part, we call for radically disrupting such normative democracy practices and citizenships (local-to-global) framings, that promote and are grounded by such practices.

Keywords: ecopedagogy, cellphilm, critical theories, postdigital, more-than-humans, radical democracy, posthuman, socio-environmental justice.

Résumé

Diverses formes de pédagogies environnementales ont été critiquées parce qu’elles encombrent une éducation à la durabilité qui coïncide avec le capitalisme et, pire, le néolibéralisme, et qui manque de l’enseignement nécessaire pour perturber radicalement les problèmes environnementaux catastrophiques, y compris le changement climatique. En coïncidence avec l’écopédagogie, nous proposons des approches démocratiques et ascendantes pour les pédagogies environnementales dans un monde de plus en plus post-digital – pour approfondir et élargir la réflexivité pour la praxis environnementale en se désengageant des binaires positivistes et en brisant les hiérarchies entre les humains et les plus qu’humains. Après avoir décortiqué les besoins, les théories, les pratiques et les défis de notre argumentation, nous prenons l’exemple de l’écopédagogie entreprise avec des appareils d’enregistrement numériques (smartphones, tablettes, etc.) comme moyen de développer la transformation vers l’inclusivité démocratique. L’utilisation de l’enregistrement cellulaire offre des possibilités de développement de la parenté avec des êtres plus qu’humains à travers un aspect performatif affectif et sensuel de l’autoethnographie partagée sur les médias sociaux. En termes écopédagogiques, il s’agirait d’un développement en minuscules fondé sur la justice socio-environnementale et la durabilité planétaire, incluant les humains comme partie intégrante de la nature et la valeur de la nature au-delà des humains.  Ce chapitre contribuera à la compréhension et à la pratique des écopédagogies afin d’imaginer, d’esquisser et de créer un enseignement alternatif et plus efficace pour une démocratie plus vivante et plus inclusive. La parenté et l’appartenance à ce qui est plus qu’humain peuvent ainsi englober et élargir l’idée limitée de la citoyenneté anthropocentrique proposée par les pratiques démocratiques contemporaines en s’engageant avec ce qui est plus qu’humain. Nous appelons en partie à un bouleversement radical de ces pratiques démocratiques normatives et des cadres de la citoyenneté (du local au global), qui promeuvent et sont fondés sur de telles pratiques.

Mots-clés : écopédagogie, cellphilm, théories critiques, postdigital, plus-que-des-humains, démocratie radicale, posthumain, justice socio-environnementale.

Resumen

Se ha criticado diversas formas de pedagogías ambientales por obstaculizar una educación para la sostenibilidad que coincide con el capitalismo y, lo que es peor, con el neoliberalismo, y que carece de la enseñanza necesaria para interrumpir radicalmente los problemas ambientales catastróficos, incluido el cambio climático. Coincidiendo con la ecopedagogía, proponemos enfoques democráticos de abajo hacia arriba para las pedagogías ambientales dentro de un mundo cada vez más postdigital, con el fin de profundizar y ampliar la reflexividad para la praxis ambiental al desvincularse de los binarios positivistas y derribar jerarquías entre los seres humanos y los más que humanos. Tras desglosar las necesidades, teorías, prácticas y desafíos de nuestro argumento, tomamos el ejemplo de la ecopedagogía llevada a cabo con dispositivos digitales de grabación (teléfonos inteligentes, tabletas, etc.) como un medio para desarrollar la transformación hacia la inclusión democrática. El uso de cellphilming proporciona posibilidades de desarrollo de parentesco con los más que humanos a través de un aspecto performativo afectivo y sensual de la autoetnografía compartida en las redes sociales. En términos ecopedagógicos, este sería el desarrollo en minúsculas, basado en una justicia socioambiental globalmente inclusiva y una sostenibilidad planetaria, que incluye a los humanos como parte de la Naturaleza y el valor de la Naturaleza más allá de los humanos. Este capítulo contribuirá a la comprensión y praxis de las ecopedagogías para imaginar/esbozar/crear una enseñanza alternativa y más efectiva para una democracia más vibrante e inclusiva. El parentesco y el sentido de pertenencia con los más que humanos pueden, por lo tanto, abarcar y ampliar la limitada idea de ciudadanía antropocéntrica propuesta por las prácticas democráticas contemporáneas al involucrarse con los más que humanos. En parte, hacemos un llamado a interrumpir radicalmente tales prácticas normativas de democracia y los marcos de ciudadanía (locales a globales) que promueven y están fundamentados en dichas prácticas.

Palabras clave: ecopedagogía, cellphilm, teorías críticas, postdigital, más-que-humanos, democracia radical, posthumanismo, justicia socioambiental.

Introduction

The acceleration of environmental crises, from climate change to deforestation and biodiversity loss, has intensified the need for educational frameworks that go beyond raising awareness. Environmental teaching often fails to inspire the kind of transformative actions necessary to address these deep-rooted ecological causes, effects, and challenges (Freire, 2000; Gadotti, 1996). For many educators, the ‘traditional’ environmental pedagogies that focus on superficial changes,^[1] such as recycling, planting trees, measuring carbon footprints, or water and energy conservation, are insufficient to be catalysts for sparking systemic shifts required for environmental justice, social justice, and planetary sustainability. The failure of these ‘shallow’ educational approaches largely lies in their alignment with capitalist, neoliberal ideologies that reduce environmental issues to individual profiteering and behavioural changes without addressing the systemic causes of environmental degradation. These include (sub)consciously entrenching ideologies that propagate Northern cultural and epistemological supremacy driven by military dominance, corporate greed, and rampant consumerism. Narrowing by over-emphasizing the focus on individual responsibility and gain overlooks the larger socio-political and economic drivers of environmental exploitation and reinforces the status quo, allowing for unabated environmental destruction.

Normative democratic systems emergent from industrialization largely maintain educational cultures that churn out what Apple (2004) characterizes as compliant and specialized learners for the labour market, who are obedient, consuming, and individualistic. Such economic systems have contributed to enhancing neoliberal consumption and exploitation policies and resulted in the post-industrial era now known as the Anthropocene^[2]. The argument of this chapter is that the scope of postdigital democracy in our human world can be widened by including more-than-human entities of Earth. What we propose requires both learners and teachers to widen democracy beyond humans in environmental teaching that explores how digital technologies can give the rest of Nature a ‘voice’ to determine our praxis. This approach reinvents Freirean pedagogy of democratic, participatory learning environments to extend beyond traditional anthropocentric boundaries. It also requires that learners deconstruct normative democratic practices by widening democratic participation and challenging anthropocentric worldviews via (post)critical consciousness through more inclusive digital learning practices. By (re)forming learning spaces that have these grounding tenets, we can create more inclusive and critical approaches to teaching for “democracy” and democratic approaches that resist the Pygmalion effect’s narrow focus on human exceptionalism.

We ground our arguments upon ecopedagogical work (Gutierrez & Prado Rojas, 1989; Torres et al., 2001; Misiaszek, 2018), Freirean-rooted environmental pedagogies for critically understanding the planetary scope of environmental crises as Rittel and Webber (1973) named them wicked problems, Levin et al. (2012) further labeled problems such as climate change as super wicked problems. Ecopedagogues teach for deepened and widened reflexivity of environmental ([super] wicked) problems for students’ praxis through planetary, non-anthropomorphic lenses – problematizing all of Nature’s humans and more-than-humans with humans as part of Nature (Orr, 1992).^[3]

Democracy and democratic teaching are foundations of Freirean pedagogy and, as such, ground ecopedagogies. The question we problematize in this chapter is how such democracy can be widened beyond humans, and exploring the possibilities that our digital worlds can aid in doing this, as well as the challenges. In short, how can technologies help in giving the rest of Nature beyond-humans a voice in environmental teaching, students reading anti-environmentalism, and their (anti-)environmental decision-making. In doing such work, we argue that teaching and research must utilize post-foundational, beyond-humans’ theoretical lenses (e.g., posthumanism, post criticality).

We focus on possibilities and challenges for rethinking education, democracy, and citizenship through ecopedagogy within our postdigital world in which Jandrić & Ford (2020) argue that our digital and analogue realities are becoming increasingly inseparable. We ask, how can democracy within the postdigital era be expanded planetarily for teaching towards achieving the ecopedagogical goal of “globally all-inclusive socio-environmental justice and planetary sustainability” (Misiaszek, 2022b, p. 5). We start by untangling the complex relationships between environmental pedagogies, ecopedagogy, decolonization, and prospects of postdigital inclusive kinship.

Ecopedagogy: A Freirean Approach to Democratic Citizenship

Environmental pedagogies have devolved over time, establishing distinct fields in education. Environmental Education (EE) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) are environmental pedagogies that have been in place for over 40+ years and also have been criticized for encumbering an education for sustainability grounded in solely economic development, and for lacking the needed pedagogy for fighting climate change (Blumstein & Saylan, 2007; Wardani et al., 2018; Bonnett, 2019; Payne, 2020; Misiaszek, 2022a).^[4] For example, environmental pedagogies often deprioritize-to-lack teaching through democracy approaches, focus on necessary (radical) transformation, and teach for students’ (post)critical literacy on anti-environmentalism (Orr, 2016; Aires et al., 2018; Forsman, 2020; Misiaszek et al., 2022; Misiaszek, 2023a). They limit “alternative,” non-dominant perspectives and pedagogical approaches (Misiaszek & Rodrigues, 2023; Young & Malone, 2023). In general, a majority are non-(post)critical – e.g., non-democratic, non-dialectic, and fatalistic – that have superficial approaches to teaching environmentalism and, in turn, have superficial learning outcomes (Misiaszek, 2024).

We ground ecopedagogical teaching and accompanying Freirean roots of democratic and dialectical teaching in our analysis of, and arguments for, the meaningful incorporation of Nature beyond humans in environmental teaching. Ecopedagogy is defined as:

[r]ooted in critical theories, originating from popular education models of Latin America and reinventions of the Brazilian educational scholar Paulo Freire’s work, ecopedagogies are transformational environmental pedagogies centered on ending socio-environmental injustices. Although ecopedagogies have multiple definitions, they are all grounded in critical thinking and transformability to construct praxis within social-environmental justice models (Gutiérrez & Prado, 2008; Gadotti & Torres, 2009; Gadotti, 2008c; Kahn, 2010). Ecopedagogies’ overall goal is for students to critically understand how environmentally harmful acts lead to oppressions for humans (anthropocentric aspects) and all else that makes up Earth (biocentric aspects), the politics of the acts, and how to problematize the acts to end socio-environmental oppressions. (Misiaszek, 2018, p. 9)

Ecopedagogies are differentiated from most environmental pedagogies by deeply integrating (radical) praxis from reflexivity in teaching and developing curricula.^[5] This is embedded in its Freirean foundations, as “Freire (2004) expressed that education is necessary for social progress because ‘human activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world’” (Misiaszek, 2012, p. 430). This reimagining of citizenship is essential for fostering a more inclusive and democratic approach to environmental governance that recognizes the rights and agency of all humans and all of Nature/Earth.

Ecopedagogy offers an alternative that emphasizes the importance of democratic participation, critical reflection, and the inclusion of the more-than-human in the educational process. Ecopedagogues seek to cultivate a sense of interconnectedness between humans and the natural world, fostering collective action that challenges existing power structures. This includes actively countering environmental lessons entrenched with neoliberalism. Its teaching seeks to empower learners to take meaningful action by critically reading the politics of environmental problems. This is labeled as ecopedagogical literacy (Misiaszek, 2023a) and coincides with Freire’s (2000) arguments that apolitical education is impossible – as well as the impossibility of apolitical research, knowledge, action, or almost anything else in our human world. Misiaszek (2020b) describes ecopedagogical literacy practices as:

[i]ncreasingly essential in our globalizing world, ecopedagogical literacy also includes reading the local-to-global politics of how these aspects are systematically hidden in (in/non)formal education that justifies socio-environmental oppressions and planetary unsustainability. Themes problematized include globalizations contested terrains, (non-)critical environmental pedagogies, othering (e.g., coloniality, racism, patriarchy, (non)citizenship), anthropocentrism, epistemological (de)legitimization, (eco)linguistics, and postdigitalism. Ecopedagogies must be transdisciplinary, trans-epistemological, critically comparative, problem-posing, and trans-theoretical toward constructing possible environmental solutions through democratic, dialectical teaching, to name a few key tenets. (Misiaszek, 2020b, p. 10)

Challenging the anthropocentric worldview that has long dominated Western thought is an essential aspect of ecopedagogy (Kahn, 2010; Misiaszek, 2024) for promoting more holistic and inclusive environmental approaches for students to recognize the intrinsic value of more-than-human entities.

Democracy planetarily widened includes how the rest of Nature is (sub)consciously (mis)understood for ‘our’ (i.e., humans’) ‘gains.’ This includes how ‘development’ and its ‘goals’ are (mis)taught. Misiaszek (2020) argues that unlearning ‘development’ that leads to socio-environmental oppressions and Nature’s unsustainability is required in environmental teaching. Ecopedagogy that prioritizes this is vital for environmental praxis to emerge and must include teaching ecopedagogical literacy “for critical reading and re-reading of development to better understand its connections to socio-environmental and sustainability issues” (p. 748). Misiaszek (2023a) argues that ecopedagogical literacy is more needed than ever before in our postdigital world, actively countering:

dialogue with foundations of false truths is not critical and will only lead false understandings and misguided actions. An environmental example would be trying to discuss global warming without agreeing that rising temperatures are occurring or even that Earth is spherical in shape (i.e., “flatEarth” conspiracies), making the more ‘common’ argument of being caused by human actions or not impossible to critically discuss. (Misiaszek, 2023a, p. 610)

Freire’s emphasis on authentic dialogue from students’ subjectivity grounded on truth-seeking is central to democracy within ecopedagogical spaces and planetary widening of democracy.

Through dialogue, learners are encouraged to engage in critical discussions about the socio-political dimensions of environmental issues, reflecting on their own positionality and the ways in which their beliefs and actions are shaped by dominant ideologies. Such democratic dialogue must be with the rest of Nature and with recognizing humans as part of Nature (i.e., world-Earth de-distancing [Misiaszek, 2020b]). Engaging in such critical dialogue actively counters citizen versus non-citizen exclusionary practices aligned with socio-historical oppressions and limiting citizenship to only humans. Ecopedagogy, such as through constructs of planetary citizenship (see Gadotti, 2008a, 2008b; Gutierrez & Prado Rojas, 1989), fosters a more inclusive and democratic approach to citizenship that recognizes the interdependence of all more-than-human entities. This will be further explored by the pluralization of citizenships (local-to-national-to-global-to-planetary citizenship spheres) and the intersectionality between citizenships.

It is important to note that ecopedagogies are rooted in Freire’s work, but also in continuous contextual reinvention that Freire himself emphasized (2000) and Gadotti (2008b) first emphasized in ecopedagogical work. Reinventions of Freire’s work must be respectful to their essence (Morrow, 2019; Misiaszek, 2022c; Dickmann, 2022). This includes reinventing ecopedagogy through Indigenous/Southern ways of being and thinking for democratic community building, as well as globally and planetarily widening the “community.”

Ecopedagogical reinventions must also have the goals for a respectful and democratic life within the World and Earth overall and must also take into consideration what has been achieved so far and build upon socio-cultural pedagogical antecedents. This coincides with Carr (2022) stating that “cultivating the eco in (the) pedagogy, and democratizing the environment while critical of normative democracy, it is difficult to simply boycott or ignore the system that is in place” (p. 85). Therefore, one must keep in mind that ecopedagogies’ aim “to engage in critical praxis to reinvent societies – indeed, this reinvention might include both traditional and modern processes” (Misiaszek & Misiaszek, 2016, p. 29). Misiaszek’s argument above must be read by problematizing development versus Development, in which ecopedagogical teaching counters dominant, unsustainable Development for development as the goal. The ultimate goal of development is achieving ecopedagogy’s goal – globally all-inclusive socio-environmental justice and planetary sustainability. As such, development occurs planetarily – within the fuller biocentric context of a kinship with more-than-humans.

Ecopedagogues teach toward a form of ecological/planetary citizenship that challenges the hierarchical power relations and ideologies that have historically placed humans above the more-than-human (Gutierrez & Prado Rojas, 1989; McLaren, 2013; Torres, 2014; Misiaszek, 2020b; Korsant, 2022). This expanded notion of citizenship is essential for fostering a more inclusive and democratic form of living with the environment in the sharing and caring of Earth (Korsant, 2022). Misiaszek (2023b) emphasizes an inclusive, socio-cultural path and poses the following question for ecopedagogues: “[H]ow can ‘citizenship’ be taught for not only opposing these ideologies but also reinventing ‘citizenship’ for meaningful global-to-planetary inclusion without exception?” (p. 117). Ecopedagogies help to promote a more just and sustainable approach to environmental governance by challenging these exclusionary ideologies.

In this context, ecopedagogues draw on Freire’s concepts of praxis, which emphasize the importance of teaching for deepened and widened reflectivity and theorizing to carry out more just and sustainable actions. Freire’s vision of democracy is rooted in the idea that learners should be actively engaged in questioning and challenging the world’s power structures that affect them and others. In his later works, he expanded the need for such reflexivity to include all of Nature (Freire, 2004; Freire et al., 2014). As Freire (1985) argued, education should be a tool of liberation, enabling individuals to participate in the creation of a more just and equitable society. In the context of environmental teaching, this means fostering a more participatory and democratic approach to sustainability that empowers learners to act in addressing socio-environmental injustices and planetary unsustainability.

Ecopedagogies for Democracy: A Decolonial Approach

Ecopedagogy functions across both the Global South and Global North, focusing on its potential to decolonize education, redefine democracy, and expand the concept of citizenship to include the more-than-human. Ecopedagogy takes on particular significance in the Global South, where education has historically been more shaped by colonial legacies (Appadurai, 1996; Fanon, 2002; Giroux, 2009; Lugones, 2010; Mignolo, 2011; Santos, 2018) including environmental teaching (Roberts & Parks, 2007; Kahn, 2010; Misiaszek, 2014; Finzer, 2015). Colonialism has long positioned Nature as a resource to be exploited for economic gain (i.e., objectified nature), often at the expense of Indigenous, Southern, and other subalterned communities, including their local ecosystems. Consequently, Northern politics have too often instilled hidden curricula in (environmental) teaching occurring in the Global South, to not disrupt Northern hegemony by profiteering from the obtained resources and subsequent weakened environmental state. This is while noting socio-environmental inseparability (i.e., environmental violence inherent connections to social oppressions). As well, banking education must be instilled to reach such perverse ends. Freire (1985, 2000, 2004) criticized ‘banking models’ of education as an enemy of democracy, and the need for ecopedagogy follows this line of reasoning. To exemplify this, Gadotti and Torres (Torres et al., 2001; Gadotti, 2008a, 2011) argued that non-democratic tendencies of Brazilian society emerged from the lack of democratic experiences caused by years of banking education and coloniality, stressing the need for ecopedagogy and truly democratic citizenship education.

Neocoloniality has accomplished very similar perverted actions with neoliberal globalization. The exploitation and extraction of natural resources in the Global South have been driven by hegemonic interests that rationalize socio-environmentally violent actions according to neoliberal ideologies of following the Global Market. Most often, these lead to oppressive actions such as the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the destruction of ecosystems. Planet-wide, this intensifies (super) wicked environmental problems, including global warming.

Many Indigenous knowledge systems often emphasize relationality, or the idea that humans are part of a larger ecological community, rather than separate from or superior to the rest of Nature. An ecopedagogical goal is helping to disentangle sustainability solely from Western, anthropocentric notions of vertical relationality between beings and Earth overall. This goal is parallel to how inter-being-relationality is explained by Vásquez-Fernández and Ahenakew pii tai poo taa (2020):

Respectful inter-being-relationality is not like ‘sustainability;’ it is something else, it is more, and it overflows current conceptions of sustainability. It is the constant tension and negotiations between all persons (human, non-human, more-than-human, other-than-human) who could be our kin. We envision achieving our desire futures through practicing respectful relationships within-and-with the Land. Desired futures, in plural, because there is not just one desired future for all. (p. 68)

Take, for example, decoloniality, as an important pedagogical tool for teaching toward inter-being-relationality. Various scholars utilize decolonial lenses to analyze and disrupt anthropocentrism (Plumwood, 2003; Mignolo, 2011; Braidotti, 2013; Gough & Gough, 2017; Santos, 2018; Sund & Pashby, 2020). Ecopedagogies, that are innately de(neo)colonizing pedagogies (Misiaszek, 2012, 2022a), can utilize decolonial teaching to disrupt the repetition of the unending cycle of extraction, bio-destruction, ecocide, oppression, injustice and anthropocentrism that a socio-cultural politics of (un)sustainable economics (un)intentionally and intrinsically promises.^[6] The important issue is making certain that such pedagogical tools are being utilized to thicken and widen democracy globally, helping to actively disrupt thin(ned) democratic (environmental) teaching and thin(ned) democracy overall.

Ecopedagogy’s decolonial essence demands teaching to be done through globally-inclusive epistemological framings – aligned with Santos’ (2016) arguments for ecologies of knowledges and filling epistemological/disciplinary absences with emergences that include epistemologies of the South. Widened global and planetary democracy emerges from the diversity of knowledge and ways of knowing beyond dominant ones – i.e., epistemologies of the North. Emphasizing the need for such teaching, Santos argues that neither liberation nor sustainability can emerge from epistemologies of the North because they are rooted in the oppression of coloniality, patriarchy, and capitalism. By centering Indigenous/Southern epistemologies and promoting more relational approaches to sustainability, ecopedagogy challenges the (neo)coloniality, including using global environmental exploitation as a neoliberal tool.

These arguments are essential for both the Global South and the Global North, as well as in any other ways that the human world is socio-historically categorized – i.e., the world holistically. There are some aspects that should be more emphasized in the North, or rather, it is more difficult to do. One aspect is that their positionality of being the “North” often makes it more difficult to deconstruct the histories of oppressions and environmental exploitations that constructed the world with the North in its current power position. As Freire (2000) argued, bottom-up approaches are essential to better understand and solve oppressions by listening to those who suffer from the oppressions. In simpler terms, those suffering from an oppression will know the oppression in ways that the oppressor is largely blind to, and most often know it more. There are various reasons why democratic learning is essential, one of which is that learning is and must be didactic – from diverse, conflictive perspectives, knowledges, and histories (Freire & Freire, 1973; Freire, 1985, 2000). In this paper, we emphasize the need for ecopedagogy aimed at listening, reflecting, and acting through the diverse voices globally and what can be heard/learned from the rest of Nature. Without both global and planetary democracy, the actions we take as humans are misguided by having limited reflexivity in determining how we act or not. Freirean/ecopedagogical teachings have learners critically reflect on their own positionality as part of learning/reading and unpack the socio-political structures that shape their understanding of the World (including the “Global South,” the “developing world,”) with the rest of Nature.

By encouraging learners to reflect on their own relationship with the more-than-human, ecopedagogy promotes a more decolonial, ethical and inclusive approach to sustainability that challenges to radically disrupt anthropocentrism of any environmental pedagogy. Misiaszek (2020a) asks:

What knowledges and epistemological framings (i.e., ways of knowing) do we use or not use to understand the diverse world and the rest of Earth? How do taught framings of “citizenship” both connect “us” to one another and separate “us” from “them” (i.e., the “noncitizen”)? How do we teach, or not teach, widened and narrowed spheres of citizenship (from local to national to global to planetary citizenships) as caring for one another and the rest of Nature, or as not caring? (p. 8)

Furthermore, by encouraging learners to engage in critical praxis, ecopedagogies offer (radical) transformative teaching models for addressing global environmental crises that include challenging representational (un)democratic practices.^[7] Ecopedagogies do not merely focus on environmental literacy; they seek to cultivate a deeper understanding of how social, political, and ecological systems intersect. In doing so, they encourage learners to critique and reimagine existing frameworks, including the flawed mechanisms of representational democracy. In trying to be effective as a form of ‘rule by the people’, representational democracy has consistently failed in voter participation, voter lack of trust and discontent with the ruling class, infrequent involvement in governance (several years between elections), and (in)advertently increasing bureaucratic and institutional power. Such decolonial critical praxis from ecopedagogical teaching grounded in reflexivity and theoretical engagement requires an ongoing examination of one’s positionality, not merely as a means of understanding but as a foundation for deliberate action to confront and transform the socio-political structures that sustain environmental injustice and exploitation.

In practice, this critical reflexivity often involves encouraging learners to engage in activist movements or community-based initiatives that promote environmental justice and sustainability. Ecopedagogy is rooted in thick democratic and participatory approaches for instilling an environmental governance that challenges technocratic and depoliticized approaches of shallow environmental teaching, thus teaching for learners to take active roles for sustainability and socio-environmental justice. We next discuss how ecopedagogy can enhance democratic inclusivity in a postdigital context.

Democracy Inclusive of the More-than-Human

Democracy, much like the “Other” more-than-human entities it often disregards, is not a static concept but a dynamic and developing practice. It remains constantly subject to redefinition and reimagining as societies and their material conditions transform. This intrinsic flux is not a flaw but a defining feature, reflecting democracy’s role as an iterative, inclusive and adaptive process. However, the practice of democracy often struggles to keep pace with the rapid advancements reshaping the social landscape, such as digitization and the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI). These technological shifts outstrip traditional democratic frameworks, exposing the tenacious lag between societal changes and the institutions that attempt to govern them.

Yet, a subtle but significant shift is underway: the gap between collective agency and democratic will appears to be narrowing. New paradigms of democracy are being conceptualized, offering alternative visions that acknowledge and integrate these contemporary transformations (Latour et al., 2005; Agamben & McCuaig, 2011; Apple et al., 2022; Gunansyah et al., 2023; Van Heertum, 2024). Take, for example, the definition of (un)sustainability, which has long been unclear and in flux but should nevertheless remain contestable (Blandy & Fenn, 2012). The inclusion of sustainability in ecopedagogy is not only essential but also needs to be constantly (re)read, redefined, reinvented, challenged, and theoretically developed (Djalili & Vollard, 2008; Misiaszek, 2020c; Norat, 2022), keeping in mind to progressively reposition (un)sustainability from the perspective of humans and more-than-humans. It is the disrupting of oppressive, anthropocentric forms of “sustainability” with and without accompanying d/Development that is central to ecopedagogical work, especially when they are rooted in neoliberalism and (neo)coloniality (Misiaszek, 2022a, 2022b).

Reinventions of citizenship and redefined democratic practices call for new understandings of responsibility from dominant Northern epistemologies (often not ‘new’ for non-globally dominant epistemologies (Santos, 2016; Rodrigues et al., 2020), one that acknowledges the interconnectedness of all life forms and the need for collective action to protect Earth (Lee et al., 2015; Horsthemke, 2020; Jandrić & Ford, 2020; Escaño & Mañero, 2022). Recognizing the democratic rights and agency of more-than-human entities emerges from ecopedagogical spaces by providing more inclusive and ethical approaches to sustainability that challenge anthropocentric democratic political thought. In various ways, ecopedagogical work with constructs of planetary citizenship (Gadotti, 2008b) reimagines democracy as planetary-wide — more-than-human democracy. Such ecopedagogical approaches challenge exclusionary practices that have historically limited citizenship to (selected) humans and call for the recognition of the rights and agency of more-than-human entities.

In practice, this emerging notion of democracy can be seen in movements such as environmental personhood, which seeks to grant legal rights to ecosystems and more-than-human entities. This movement, which has gained traction in countries such as New Zealand, India, and Ecuador, is based on the idea that natural entities, such as animals, rivers or forests, should be recognized as legal persons with the right to exist and flourish (Donaldson & Kymlicka, 2011; Tanasescu, 2013; O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018; Pallotta, 2020). Recognizing the rights and agency of the more-than-human, ecopedagogy challenges the anthropocentric assumptions that have long dominated (in)direct environmental decision-making and promotes a more ethical and inclusive approach to sustainability (Misiaszek, 2023b; Misiaszek et al., 2022a).

Imperative Postdigital Ecopedagogies

Ecopedagogy emerges in the context of postdigital democracy, as a critical paradigm for addressing contemporary ecological exigencies and furthering sustainable praxis. Within the Anthropocene epoch, characterized by unprecedented anthropogenic impact on Earth’s ecosystems, this pedagogical approach becomes instrumental in enhancing media literacy and enabling citizens to navigate complex ecological discourses with critical acumen and within the constructs of development (i.e., developing media). By emphasizing the intricate interconnectedness of human and more-than-humans systems, ecopedagogy aligns with the postdigital convergence of digital and physical realms, challenging prevailing consumerist paradigms and advocating for responsible digital utilization. Its emphasis on participatory action empowers learners, teachers and communities to engage in collective environmental initiatives and advocate for sustainable policies, thereby intertwining ecological consciousness with civic responsibility. The postdigital milieu amplifies these endeavors by facilitating immersive, experiential learning opportunities that reconceptualize and reinvent traditional educational frameworks. Consequently, ecopedagogy establishes itself as a foundational element in equipping societies to address pressing ecological imperatives while promoting equitable and inclusive participation, thus shaping sustainable and democratic futures within postdigital societies.

These new perspectives in a postdigital world will most likely take into consideration the effects social media has on forming an inclusive democracy with more-than-humans. And more importantly, ecopedagogy should be aware that social media manipulation will co-opt an inclusive democracy for the neoliberal benefits in the same manner as identity politics has been brought into the systemic fold. Therefore, ecopedagogy should address the contextuality of critically engaging with a more-than-human inclusive democracy in what Carr (2022) describes as “a way of connecting these diverse, interrelated concepts, asking us to consider the effects, impacts, consequences, implications and meaning of democracy” (p. 82) in order to better understand how and where we stand on Earth, and how we can make a more inclusive, democratic, peaceful, and just society.

Ecopedagogical teaching practices, as rooted in Freirean pedagogies, rely on communal learning that incorporates a vast diversity of voices both within the learning space and outside of the spaces, and from resources that represent this characteristic. Korsant (2022) states, “echoing Bourdieu (1977), a successful ecopedagogy should constitute a ‘community of practice’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991) that bolsters its own sense of community cohesion” (p. 4). Ecopedagogies thus integrate the ideas, tools, and skills of all participants involved in teaching (e.g., academics/teachers, social workers, community members, and students) in multiple ways to produce ‘transformative’ knowledge in ‘reinvented’ knowledge spaces — in other words in a contextualized ‘possible world’ inside the human and more-than-human parameters of Earth. This corresponds with Freire, who was focused on a diversity of voices, but not only occurring within designated, tangible learning spaces, but can also be virtual/online ones. This includes the voices of scholars through curricula/books/media/etc, including video making on digital recording devices. In our postdigital world, digital recording devices universally provide recording and editing capabilities through smartphones and tablets. The further inclusion of more-than-humans coincides with Freire’s essence of reinvention, utopic unfinishedness, and critical transformation.^[8]

Globally all-encompassing technologies in which theories of postdigitalism unpacks are, according to Jandrić and Ford (2020), inseparable to ecopedagogies.

[T]oday’s ecopedagogies cannot be thought of without considering these recent transformations, without theorizing and experimenting adequate responses and resistances to them, without taking all forms of exploitation and all systems of oppression into account, and without grasping the cognitive and affective consequences they have on our lives and being. (p. 707)

This consequently requires ecopedagogies to teach by engaging with “deconstructing complex, structurally hidden, and intersectional commonsense of ecoracism, coloniality, Northern epistemological dominance, and anthropocentrism” (Misiaszek et al., 2022, p. 123). To effectively achieve such praxis that includes thickened beyond-human democracy within our increasingly postdigital world, we need experimental integration and radical reinventions of environmental pedagogical theories for praxis through digital experiences of convergence, defiance and resistance to embrace life and Nature holistically. This includes various inclusive forms of posthuman, new-materialist and holistic ecopedagogies.

The challenges to implementing a global comprehensive ecopedagogy of inclusivity are always subject to miscommunication, artificial curricular implementation, prejudice, or lack of institutional will. As Torres Santomé (2016) states:

Worldviews that frame and guide the educational systems of each society, can lead teachers and even families and students to assume the role of facilitators resulting in a sort of perverse and unfair Pygmalion Effect: perceiving as logical either school success or failure of the students based on their social and economic status, ethnicity or place of birth. (Torres Santomé, 2016, p. 169)

Notwithstanding recent educational developments, inclusive of the more-than-human, there is a need to expand, reinvent, and reimagine how constructs of citizenships (pluralized to indicate local-to-national-to-global-to-planetary citizenship spheres, [see Misiaszek, 2015, 2018]) can thicken democracy within and outside formal learning spaces. This, in turn, includes countering socio-historical oppressions (e.g., coloniality, racism, patriarchy, heteronormativity, Northern supremacy), world-Earth distancing, and banking, non-transformative/engaged pedagogies. The beyond-human aspects of such citizenship and democracy teachings engage with already complex relationships and interactions within the human world, but planetary widening is essential for democratic inclusivity and community building between heterogeneous entities, both human and more-than-human.

As we move toward a postdigital world, where digital technologies are fully integrated into our daily lives, educators must reconsider traditional pedagogical approaches. We argue that ecopedagogues must embrace digital tools to foster performative, reflexive engagement with environmental issues rooted in critical theory and socio-environmental justice, and planetary sustainability. Embracing comes in many forms. For example, using digital recording technology in outdoor ecopedagogy classes and fieldtrips provides learners with the opportunity to document and share their experiences with the more-than-human, promoting affective engagement and helping to create a more inclusive and democratic form of environmental teaching (Chbib, 2023).^[9] This integration of digital tools into ecopedagogy represents a significant shift in how we should approach sustainability and justice, offering new possibilities for engagement and transformation with other humans and the rest of Nature.

Postdigital ecopedagogies provide concrete and practical possibilities for rethinking and actively reinventing democratic engagement with the more-than-human. New practices in ecopedagogy through affective and sensory experiences fostered by digital tools transform learners’ understanding of Earth. For example, Dunkley and Smith (2019) explore how past, present, and future selves and the embodied practices and habits in landscape fields, are co-produced by both ecopedagogy educators and learners together for a critical ecological consciousness leading to environmental stewardship. They use outdoor filming and photography practices to engage young ecopedagogy learners with storied play and exploration by ‘geocoaching’ to map personal landscape fields and concurrently delve reflexively into childhood memories. Trepanier-Jobin et al. (2023) use Freire’s conscientization to show how the videogame ABZÛ raises awareness about the environmental dangers of technological extractivism. They also use online forums to help in getting the environmental message out to young players.

Chbib’s ongoing research delves into the use of autoethnographic cellphilms in ecopedagogy (Chbib, thesis in progress, 2025). He proposes that cellphilming fosters emotional and sensory connections with the more-than-human, and helps learners develop a deeper understanding of the ethical and moral dimensions of sustainability, motivating them to act in promoting socio-environmental justice. Ecopedagogies in Chbib’s autoethnography can include more-than-humans such as animals, flora, sound, images, theory, silence, planets and fungi, for example, to create a dialogue for learning belonging.^[10] In all three cases, ecopedagogy develops a personal relationship with the more-than-human entities to engender kinship in a postdigital era. Bratman et al. (2012) explain: “environmental behavior can often be predicted by the degree to which a person identifies himself or herself with the natural world—the higher the sense of ‘belonging,’ the greater the likelihood of sustainable actions in ‘lifestyle patterns, ecological behavior, and curriculum decisions among students” (p. 129). These new postdigital approaches in ecopedagogy can push the boundaries of traditional citizenship and belonging education, creating more inclusive, democratic, and sustainable futures for humans with more-than-humans.

In the context of postdigital realities, ecopedagogy evolves to address the complex interplay between digital technologies, biological systems, civic engagement, and societal structures. Freire’s (2000) essence of contextual reinvention also saturates ecopedagogy (Dickmann, 2022; Misiaszek, 2020d, 2022c). Jandrić and Ford (2022) expand on this notion: “postdigital ecopedagogies are educational forms that emerge from, negotiate, debate, produce, resist, and/or overcome the shifting and expansive postdigital ecosystems from and to which we write and think” (p. 2). This conceptualization acknowledges the need for educational approaches that can navigate the blurred boundaries between digital and physical realms, addressing issues such as bio-informational capitalism, technological re-colonialism/neocolonialism, and the viral impacts of contemporary societies and cultures. By integrating critical environmental literacy with an understanding of digital ecologies, ecopedagogy in the postdigital era becomes a more multifaceted approach. It equips learners with the tools to critically scrutinize, participate in and engage with the complex network of social, environmental, and technological factors shaping our World, ultimately furthering more sustainable, inclusive and just futures.

Conclusion

Ecopedagogy offers a powerful alternative to ‘shallow’ environmental pedagogies, providing a transformative framework for addressing the global environmental crisis and democratic cultures. Ecopedagogical teaching encourages learners to rethink their relationship with the environment and to take meaningful action in addressing environmentalism (see Gutierrez & Prado Rojas, 1989). This critical and reflective approach to sustainability challenges the dominant ideologies of the Global North and promotes a more ethical and inclusive approach to environmental governance. The ecopedagogical goal is to motivate learners to address environmental issues within their own communities and gain an understanding of the democratic political process, learning how they can influence policy at local levels and possibilities beyond their self-defined “local” to translate their individual and communal beliefs into action. For environmental teaching to genuinely cultivate responsible citizens who can combat human-induced environmental degradation, it must extend far beyond mere commonplace proposals, recycling plastic cups, occasional field trips, and the like.

Ecopedagogue teachers and learners should consider new ways to think and act creatively and independently towards achieving agency, democratic and ethical practices, including a transformative understanding of their position in/on Earth. Ecopedagogy provides a comprehensive model for fostering the kind of inclusive democracy necessary to create a more equitable World and sustainable planet. Global and planetary inclusive framings of citizenships are also particularly important in the context of climate justice, where marginalized communities—both human and more-than-human—are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. By promoting a more inclusive form of citizenship(s), ecopedagogy helps to advance more equitable and sustainable approaches to climate governance. This also requires reimagining democracy to include more-than-human entities. In our postdigital world, this includes (re)constructing uses of digital tools like sensors, virtual realities (VR), and AI to foster students’ (post)critical digital literacy, promote participatory and experiential learning through citizenships, and teach through reflexive dialogue and digital storytelling for, subsequently, challenging existing narratives that perpetuate unsustainable environmental violence.

As global environmental crises deepen worldwide, it is essential that education systems shift away from neoliberal frameworks and embrace more democratic, radical, and transformative approaches to environmental justice and sustainability. Ecopedagogy provides a valuable incentive for this shift, offering learners the practical and theoretical tools they need to engage critically with the World around them and to work toward more sustainable and equitable futures. Ecopedagogy encourages a more inclusive and ethical perspective on sustainability, enabling learners to become proactive agents of change in their communities and to pursue a future that is just, democratic, and sustainable.

References

Agamben, G., & McCuaig, W. (Eds.). (2011). Democracy in what state? Columbia University Press.

Aires, L., Azeiteiro, U. M., & Leal Filho, W. (Eds.). (2018). Climate literacy and innovations in climate change education: Distance learning for sustainable development (1st ed). Springer International Publishing: Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70199-8

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed). Routledge.

Apple, M. W., Biesta, G., Bright, D., Giroux, H. A., McKay, A., McLaren, P., Riddle, S., & Yeatman, A. (2022). Reflections on contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 54(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2052029

Blandy, D., & Fenn, J. (2012). Sustainability: Sustaining cities and community cultural development. Studies in Art Education, 53(4), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2012.11518869

Blumstein, D. T., & Saylan, C. (2007). The failure of environmental education (and how we can fix it). PLoS Biology, 5(5).

Bonnett, M. (2019). Towards an ecologization of education. Journal of Environmental Education, 50(4–6), Article 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1687409

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press

Braidotti, R. (2013). Posthuman humanities. European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2013.12.1.1

Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health: Nature experience, cognitive function, and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x

Carr, P. R. (2022). Insurrectional and pandoran democracy, military perversion and the quest for environmental peace: The last frontiers of ecopedagogy before us. In P. Jandrić & D. R. Ford (Eds.), Postdigital ecopedagogies: Genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures (pp. 77–92). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97262-2_5

Chbib, B. (2023). Anthropocene critical radical ecopedagogy (CREP) using cellphilms [Master of Education]. Bishops University.

Chbib, B. (2025). Thesis in progress: Autoethnographic filming for inclusive affective ecopedagogies [PhD Dissertation]. UQAM.

Dickmann, I. (2022). Reinventando a ecopedagogia: Patriarcado, modernidade e capitalismo. Revista Sergipana de Educação Ambiental, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.47401/revisea.v9i1.18105

Djalili, A., & Vollard, P. (2008). The complex history of sustainability. In After zero. Bruil & Van de Staaij.

Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press.

Dunkley, R. A., & Smith, T. A. (2019). Geocoaching: Memories and habits of learning in practices of ecopedagogy. The Geographical Journal, 185(3), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12295

Escaño, C., & Mañero, J. (2022). Postdigital intercreative pedagogies: Ecopedagogical practices for the commons. In P. Jandrić & D. R. Ford (Eds.), Postdigital ecopedagogies: Genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures (pp. 231–246). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97262-2_12

Fanon, F. (2002). The wretched of the earth. Grove.

Finzer, E. S. (2015). Putting environmental injustice on the map: Ecotestimonies from the global south. Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature, 39(2). WorldCat.org. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1837

Forsman, M. (2020). [Review of Douglas Kellner & Jeff Share (2019). The critical media literacy guide: Engaging media and transforming education. leiden: brill sense, 125 pp., isbn: 978-90-04-40452-6.] Central European Journal of Communication, 13(2), 299–301. https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.13.2(26).11

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed). Continuum. (Original work published 1968).

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of Indignation. Paradigm Publishers.

Freire, P., Freire, A. M. A., & Oliveira, W. F. de. (2014). Pedagogy of solidarity. Left Coast Press.

Freire, P., & Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness (1st American ed.). Seabury Press.

Freire, P. (with Giroux, H.). (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Bergin & Garvey.

Gadotti, M. (1996). Pedagogy of praxis: A dialectical philosophy of education. State University of New York Press.

Gadotti, M. (2008a). Education for sustainability: A contribution to the decade of education for sustainable development. Editora e Livraria Instituto Paulo Freire.

Gadotti, M. (2008b). What we need to learn to save the planet. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820800200108

Gadotti, M. (2011). Adult education as a human right: The Latin American context and the ecopedagogic perspective. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l’Education, 57(1/2,), 9–25.

Giroux, H. A. (2009). Paulo Freire and the politics of postcolonialism. In A. Kempf (Ed.), Breaching the colonial contract (pp. 79–89). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9944-1_5

Gough, A., & Gough, N. (2017). Beyond cyborg subjectivities: Becoming-posthumanist educational researchers. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(11), 1112–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1174099

Gunansyah, G., Ariadi, S., & Budirahayu, T. (2023). Critical environmental education: The urgency of critical consciousnesses, intersubjective communication, and deliberative democracy of environmental citizenship. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 20(3), 345–380.

Gutierrez, F., & Prado Rojas, C. (1989). Ecopedagogia e cidadania planetária. Cortez Editora.

Horsthemke, K. (2020). Non‐human animals and educational policy: Philosophical post‐humanism, critical pedagogy, and ecopedagogy. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54(4), 900–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12463

Jackson, L. (2017). ‘Asian’ perspectives on education for sustainable development. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(5), 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1223501

Jandrić, P., & Ford, D. R. (2020). Postdigital ecopedagogies: Genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 692–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00207-3

Jandrić, P., & Ford, D. R. (Eds.). (2022). Postdigital ecopedagogies: Genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97262-2

Kahn, R. (2010). Critical pedagogy, ecoliteracy, & planetary crisis: The ecopedagogy movement. Peter Lang.

Korsant, C. (2022). A Freirean ecopedagogy or an imposition of values? The pluriverse and the politics of environmental education. Globalizations, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2022.2038830

Latour, B., Weibel, P., & Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe (Eds.). (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy; [exhibition at ZKM, Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe 20.03. – 03.10.2005]. MIT Press [u.a.].

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Lee, Y., Jo, H., & Lim, B. (2015). Community-based eco-pedagogy towards change of parents’ lifestyles in South Korea. International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014, 25-27 June 2014, Paris, France, 174, 1997–2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.867

Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0

Lugones, M. (2010). Toward a decolonial feminism. Hypatia, 25(4), Article 4. JSTOR.

MacEntee, K., Burkholder, C., & Schwab-Cartas, J. (2016). What’s a cellphilm? An introduction. In K. MacEntee, C. Burkholder, & J. Schwab-Cartas (Eds.), What’s a cellphilm? (pp. 1–15). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-573-9_1

Mayo, P. (2019). Praxis, hegemony, and consciousness in the work of Antonio Gramsci and Paulo Freire. In The Wiley handbook of Paulo Freire (pp. 305–319). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119236788.ch16

McLaren, P. (2013). Seeds of resistance: Towards a revolutionary critical ecopedagogy. Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes, 9(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.18740/S4QG6G

Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Duke University Press; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jqbw

Misiaszek, G. W. (2012). Transformative environmental education within social justice models: Lessons from comparing adult ecopedagogy within north and south america. In D. N. Aspin, J. Chapman, K. Evans, & R. Bagnall (Eds.), Second international handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 423–440). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2360-3_26

Misiaszek, G. W. (2014). Learning from Southern environmental education models: Borrowing ecopedagogy through processes of globalization from below. Éducation Comparée, nouvelle série(10), 209–241.

Misiaszek, G. W. (2015). Ecopedagogy and citizenship in the age of globalisation: Connections between environmental and global citizenship education to save the planet. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12138

Misiaszek, G. W. (2018). Educating the global environmental citizen: Understanding ecopedagogy in local and global contexts. Routledge.

Misiaszek, G. W. (2020a). Countering post-truths through ecopedagogical literacies: Teaching to critically read ‘development’ and ‘sustainable development.’ Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(7), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1680362

Misiaszek, G. W. (2020b). Ecopedagogy: Critical environmental teaching for planetary justice and global sustainable development. Bloomsbury Academic.

Misiaszek, G. W. (2020c). Ecopedagogy: Teaching critical literacies of ‘development’, ‘sustainability’, and ‘sustainable development.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 25, 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1586668

Misiaszek, G. W. (2020d). Freirean reinvention and hope to construct teaching to save Earth: Ecopedagogy. Creativity and Educational Innovation Review, 4, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.7203/CREATIVITY.4.19333

Misiaszek, G. W. (2022a). Ecopedagogy: Critical environmental pedagogies to disrupt falsely touted sustainable development. In A. A. Abdi & G. W. Misiaszek (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook on critical theories of education (pp. 301–317). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86343-2_17

Misiaszek, G. W. (2022b). Ecopedagogy: Freirean teaching to disrupt socio-environmental injustices, anthropocentric dominance, and unsustainability of the Anthropocene. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2130044

Misiaszek, G. W. (2022c). Reinventing: Essence and usefulness of Freire’s work for the past and next 100 years*. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(13), 2153–2159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2144222

Misiaszek, G. W. (2023a). Ecopedagogy and ecopedagogical literacy. In R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. Ercikan (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (Fourth Edition) (pp. 601–612). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.01088-5

Misiaszek, G. W. (2023b). Freire and environmentalism: Ecopedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing. WorldCat. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=7203848

Misiaszek, G. W. (2023c). Freire and environmentalism: Ecopedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing. WorldCat. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=7203848

Misiaszek, G. W. (2024). Problematizing GCE’s humanism in countering the Anthropocene: Posthumanism, post-critical, and ecopedagogical questions and possibilities. Global Commons Review, 4(1). https://www.globalcommonsreview.org/

Misiaszek, G. W., Epstein-HaLevi, D. Y., Reindl, S., & Jolly, T. L. (2022). Ecopedagogy disrupting postdigital divides of (neo)coloniality, (eco)racism, and anthropocentricism: A case study. In P. Jandrić & D. R. Ford (Eds.), Postdigital ecopedagogies: Genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures (pp. 121–145). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97262-2_7

Misiaszek, G. W., & Misiaszek, L. I. (2016). Global citizenship education and ecopedagogy at the intersections: Asian perspectives in comparison. Asian Journal of Education, 17(Special Issue), 26.

Misiaszek, G. W., Popoff, J. M., & Abdi, A. A. (2022). Critical theories of education: An introduction. In A. A. Abdi & G. W. Misiaszek (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook on critical theories of education. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86343-2

Misiaszek, G. W., & Rodrigues, C. (2023). Teaching justice-based environmental sustainability in higher education: Generative dialogues. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(5), 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2214879

Morrow, R. A. (2019). Paulo Freire and the “logic of reinvention.” In The Wiley handbook of Paulo Freire (pp. 445–461). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119236788.ch24

Norat, M. de los Á. V. (2022, March 10). Ecopedagogy as a path to sustainability. Earth Charter. https://earthcharter.org/ecopedagogy-as-a-path-to-sustainability/

O’Donnell, E. L., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers: Lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecology and Society, 23(1), art7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09854-230107

Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press.

Orr, D. W. (2016). Dangerous years: Climate change, the long emergency, and the way forward. Yale University Press.

Pallotta, N. (2020). Islamabad high court holds that animals have legal rights. Aldf.Org.

Payne, P. G. (2020). “Amnesia of the moment” in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(2), 113–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1726263

Plumwood, V. (2003). Decolonizing relationships with nature. In W. M. Adams (Ed.), Decolonizing nature: Strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era (1. publ). Earthscan.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4, 155–169.

Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, North-South politics, and climate policy. MIT Press.

Rodrigues, C., Payne, P. G., Grange, L. L., Carvalho, I. C. M., Steil, C. A., Lotz-Sisitka, H., & Linde-Loubser, H. (2020). Introduction: “New” theory, “post” North-South representations, praxis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1726265

Santos, B. de S. (2016). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.

Santos, B. de S. (2018). The end of the cognitive empire: The coming of age of epistemologies of the South. Duke University Press.

Somerville, M., & Williams, C. (2015). Sustainability education in early childhood: An updated review of research in the field. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949115585658

Sund, L., & Pashby, K. (2020). Delinking global issues in northern Europe classrooms. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1726264

Tanasescu, M. (2013). The rights of nature in Ecuador: The making of an idea. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70(6), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.845715

Torres, C. A. (2014). First Freire: Early writings in social justice education. Teachers College Press, Teachers College Columbia University.

Torres, C. A., Puiggrós, A., Rodríguez Gómez, R., & Gadotti, M. (Eds.). (2001). Pedagogia da terra: Ecopedagogia e educação sustentável*. In Paulo Freire y la agenda de la educación latinoamericana en el siglo XXI (1. ed, pp. 78–129). Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, CLACSO.

Torres Santomé, J., Darder, A., Mayo, P., & Paraskeva, J. M. (2016). Justice curriculum and teacher formation. In International critical pedagogy reader. Routledge.

Trepanier-Jobin, G., Charre-Tchang, M., & Largeaud-Ortega, S. (2023). The underrealized ecocritical potential of ABZÛ. In L. O. De Beke, J. Raessens, S. Werning, & G. Farca, Ecogames. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463721196_ch14

Van Heertum, R. (2024). Challenges to democracy in and beyond education: American policy, politics, and media in a cynical age. Routledge.

Vásquez-Fernández, A. M., & Ahenakew pii tai poo taa, C. (2020). Resurgence of relationality: Reflections on decolonizing and indigenizing ‘sustainable development.’ Indigenous Conceptualizations of ‘Sustainability,’ 43, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.03.005

Wardani, R. A. K., Karyanto, P., & Ramli, M. (2018). Analysis of high school students’ environmental literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1022, 012057. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1022/1/012057

Young, T. C., & Malone, K. (2023). Reconfiguring environmental sustainability education by exploring past/present/future pedagogical openings with preservice teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(5), 1077–1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2197112