Case Studies in Critical Ecoliteracy: A Curriculum for Analyzing the Social Foundations of Environmental Problems

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 08 October 2014, At: 09:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Educational Studies: A Journalof the American EducationalStudies AssociationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heds20

Case Studies in CriticalEcoliteracy: A Curriculumfor Analyzing the SocialFoundations of EnvironmentalProblemsRita Turner a & Ryan Donnelly ba University of Maryland , Baltimore Countyb Community College of Baltimore CountyPublished online: 12 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Rita Turner & Ryan Donnelly (2013) Case Studies in CriticalEcoliteracy: A Curriculum for Analyzing the Social Foundations of EnvironmentalProblems, Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational StudiesAssociation, 49:5, 387-408, DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2013.825262

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2013.825262

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heds20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00131946.2013.825262

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2013.825262

primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 49: 387–408, 2013Copyright C© American Educational Studies AssociationISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00131946.2013.825262

SOCIAL FOUNDATIONS CLASSROOM

Case Studies in Critical Ecoliteracy:A Curriculum for Analyzing the Social

Foundations of Environmental Problems

Rita Turner

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Ryan Donnelly

Community College of Baltimore County

This article outlines the features and application of a set of model curriculum mate-rials that utilize eco-democratic principles and humanities-based content to cultivatecritical analysis of the cultural foundations of socio-environmental problems. Wefirst describe the goals and components of the materials, then discuss results of theiruse in two different types of classrooms: an undergraduate humanities seminar ata mid-sized four-year college, and a developmental writing course at a communitycollege.

In response to the increasingly pressing challenges of socio-environmental degra-dation and injustice facing our world today, some scholars and practitioners inthe field of education have in recent decades developed theories, strategies, andprograms that formulate environmental awareness as an express aim of educa-tion. Many of these programs do essential work in moving our citizenry, and our

Correspondence should be addressed to Rita Turner, University of Maryland, Baltimore County,American Studies Department, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4

388 TURNER AND DONNELLY

educational institutions, toward greater global sustainability and environmentaljustice. However, we believe that a vital facet remains missing from much of theeducational content in US schools, within both environmental and conventional ed-ucation. We argue, alongside ecojustice, eco-democracy, and ecopedagogy advo-cates (Kahn 2010; Martusewicz, Edmundson, and Lupinacci 2011), that educationmust help students develop the skills and habits to critique the cultural norms, struc-tures, and forces at work in society that operate to constitute and reproduce unjustand unsustainable attitudes about other people, other living beings, and the land.

In this essay, we briefly outline our arguments for this sort of educationalendeavor, and then we discuss our own efforts to formulate and evaluate a curricu-lum designed around this goal. Rita Turner first discusses the necessity of suchcultural analysis for sustainability and ecological justice, then describes a set ofcurriculum materials she designed that is oriented around this theoretical stanceas well as her own research into the effect these materials have on students at amid-sized four-year university. Next Ryan Donnelly explains his application ofthese materials in a very different setting, applying them within a developmentalwriting classroom at a regional community college.

CRITICAL CULTURAL AWARENESS AND CRITICALECOLITERACY

The classroom is a site of great potential for positive cultural change, as anyeducational practice carries with it the possibility to either reinforce or transformstudents’ beliefs and understandings of the world. To make use of this potential forthe purpose of achieving creative and just paths toward a more sustainable future,we must start from the understanding that our beliefs are culturally constituted,and that these beliefs and the cultural ground from which they arise shape ourbehavior toward other people and other beings. The cultural underpinnings of oursystems of belief, therefore, must be a topic of critical investigation if we hope toformulate and enact positive change.

Historian Ronald Wright (2005) has called human beings “experimental crea-tures of our own devising” (13). Social theorists have long argued that we areconstantly engaged in this devising, that we formulate and reformulate ourselvesthrough each symbolic act we take part in. Whether knowingly or unknowingly,we each adopt a combination of the cultural elements available to us to forge ourown conceptions of the world. And every choice we make is informed by theseconceptions we have forged for ourselves.

For this reason, we must learn to critically evaluate the thinking, values, ide-ologies, and narratives that we draw upon to understand ourselves in reference toothers and to the world, to determine the potential ramifications of various patternsof thought, and to make informed decisions about what we choose to believe. We

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 389

must choose how to devise and redevise ourselves to seek out the most positive,nourishing, and sustainable approaches to our world. We need, as ethicist andreligious scholar Anna Peterson (2009) puts it, to learn to “see the structures ineveryday life and then analyze and transform them” (62). We must ask ourselves,“How does our culture influence the way we approach the world?” and equallyimportant, “What results of approaching the world this way?”

In the realm of scholarship, these questions are not new. Theorists from diversefields have offered compelling critiques of contemporary culture, from Marx andEngels (1978) to Baudrillard (1989) and beyond. And authors like Wendell Berry(1995), Aldo Leopold (1970), David Abram (1997), Ronald Wright (2005), MickSmith (2001), Anna Peterson (2009), and Ernest Callenbach (2005), among oth-ers, have provided valuable insight into the cultural structures that shape ourinteraction with the more-than-human world. These and other scholars and socialtheorists question contemporary ideals of unbounded material growth, rootlessself-sufficiency, individual success through acquisition, and dualistic isolation ofself from other and of human from nature. Ronald Wright (2005) critiques “theideal of progress,” Ernest Callenbach (2005) criticizes “expansionist industrial-ism,” Anna Peterson (2009) opposes “Western individualism,” and Wendell Berry(1995) critiques the “frontier myths of abundance and escape” that he argues areoften dominant in US-American culture (65). By highlighting some of the dom-inant cultural currents operating within the United States and elsewhere, thesescholars’ analyses provide a groundwork for exploring the questions: “How doesour culture influence the way we approach the world?” and “What results ofapproaching the world this way?”

Still other authors have pointed out that these cultural structures of belief areformed within the realm of discourse, and that analysis of our discourse and othercultural modes of communication is essential for social transformation. A host ofcritical cultural theorists and critical discourse scholars have explored the role ofdiscourse in constructing and reproducing power and belief (e.g., Gramsci 1971;Foucault 1972; Geertz 1973; Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Fairclough 1989; Bour-dieu 1991; van Dijk 1995; Heller 1997; Bakhtin 2001; Burke 2001; Gee 2008).Environmental discourse scholars, ecofeminists, environmental philosophers, andanimal liberation advocates have applied these insights to investigating the formu-lation of our attitudes toward other species and the land (see Merchant 1980; Mies1993; Plumwood 1993; Abram 1997; Brosius 1999; Warren 2000; Dunayer 2001;Warkentin 2002; Muhlhausler 2003; Glenn 2004; Turner 2009). These scholarshave demonstrated that an examination of language, conceptual metaphors, andmodes of discourse can reveal—and allow us to reformulate—otherwise unexam-ined normative beliefs about the more-than-human world.

However, although this examination of culture and discourse exists withinacademia, US society at large does not have the structural supports to allow thissort of questioning to take place with regularity outside the academy. Despite the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


existence of these critical or self-reflective examinations, the traditions that formthe cultural landscape of the United States, like most cultures, are not inherentlyself-critical. These traditions push, instead, for hegemonic dominance of estab-lished structures, not reinvention. As a culture, we are not systematically equippedwith the resources to critically evaluate ourselves, to consider the features, func-tions, and effects of our beliefs about the world, and to recognize those beliefs associally formed and contestable.

Such self-reflective evaluations of our culture are indispensable if we seek toreformulate our modes of living to achieve eco-democratic ideals. As a society anda species, we need practices, intellectual skills, and courses of study that encouragethis sort of analysis and reformulation, that “help teach us dissatisfaction withthe norm and a desire for more” (Peterson 2009, 100). Education for genuinesustainability and democracy must provide these skills and resources, creating anatmosphere that allows us to bring critical perspectives to bear, question dominantsocial structures, resist hegemonic tendencies toward othering and exploitation,and engage in transformative action.

We argue that this approach to education, which Turner has categorized ascritical ecoliteracy (2011) and which shares much with the valuable formulationof ecojustice education put forth by Martusewicz, Edmundson, and Lupinacci(2011), should be an essential practice across educational contexts, and that theinsights of environmental philosophers, ecofeminists, environmental discoursescholars, and other critical cultural theorists should be applied to the content andgoals of education.

A small number of educators have begun to formulate the argument that wemust incorporate these sorts of critical questions about our relationship with themore-than-human world into all facets of education. Drawing on the traditionsof critical social critique in education put forward by critical literacy and criticalpedagogy scholars (e.g. Dewey 1916; Freire 2000; J. P. Gee 2008; McLaren 2008),although sometimes critiquing the limitations of these traditions, they have arguedthat education must serve as a resource for the critical analysis of our relations notonly with each other, but with all beings. Richard Kahn (2010) comments that weare facing “ecological issues that require a much deeper and more complex formof ecoliteracy than is presently possessed by the population at large” (527), andhe argues that movements to incorporate environmental literacy into educationdo not go far enough and, instead, must move from basic functional literacy tocultural and critical literacy. Anne Bell and Constance Russell (2000) criticizecritical pedagogy theorists and practitioners for rarely incorporating awareness ofenvironmental issues and of the nonhuman world into their liberatory mission.And Martusewicz et al. (2011) draw on Vandana Shiva’s (2005) conception ofEarth Democracy to argue that the purpose of education must shift to recognizethe “living linkages among diversity, democracy, and sustainability” (44), andthat education must help us achieve an inclusive decision making process about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


our future that recognizes community as “inclusive of the larger living worldthat we depend upon” (24). Turner (2009; 2011) has also argued that educationmust cultivate “critically ecoliterate” modes of understanding the world, in whichstudents gain the skills to question cultural belief systems, engage collaborativelyin ethical reasoning, generate empathetic knowledge of other beings, and imaginealternative future paths.

If we seek a more positive future, we must help students develop strategies forreflecting upon and transforming the world. We must invent new approaches toteaching and to living that inspire us to acts of care and creation, that educate usto desire modes of existence that support the life and integrity of all beings and ofthe planet.

A CURRICULUM FOR CRITICAL ECOLITERACYAND ECO-DEMOCRACY

To put these principles of critical investigation and transformative inquiry intopractice, Turner developed a set of curriculum materials inspired by the goals ofcritical ecoliteracy and ecojustice. These materials seek to equip students with aset of intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources that enable critical reflectionand creative reevaluation, helping them strengthen their capacity for empathy,cultural perspective, and moral imagination (for a more in-depth description ofthe curriculum, see Turner 2011).

The curriculum incorporates a wide range of disciplinary perspectives andmaterials, including poetry, visual art, literary texts, scholarly texts, journalisticreports, film, music, ancient mythology, and more. Turner designed these materialsso that they could either be taught as a full course or used piecemeal, interspersedwithin preexisting course frameworks, and so that they could be modified to suitthe needs and conditions of a range of classrooms and students, focusing on highschools, community colleges, and undergraduate four-year colleges.

Although we hope that these materials will be used in nontraditional andinformal educational contexts as well, Turner endeavored to produce materialsthat can be easily applied to conventional educational settings, and focused ontext-based activities that can work within relatively traditional secondary andpost-secondary humanities classrooms, because she feels these are forums inwhich such materials are severely lacking and dearly needed.

Still, although these materials do not presuppose a completely radical class-room environment or school setting and can be used by teachers at traditionalinstitutions, they do require a somewhat radical willingness to engage in criticaland sophisticated cultural analysis with students. The materials are designed toengage students in active communities of inquiry as they collaboratively investi-gate their society and the underpinnings of often unexamined values and norms,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


and they are aligned with pedagogical approaches that support critical dialogueand student agency.

Lesson topics covered in the materials include explorations of literary andcultural formulations of self and of nature; reflections on personal experiencesinteracting with the natural world; analyses of the experiences and viewpointsof nonhumans; examinations of ecological and social interdependence betweenhumans and the more-than-human world; theoretical and practical examinationsof the influence of language, religion, and culturally-constructed belief systemsin shaping attitudes toward nonhumans and the land; analyses of modern proce-dures and patterns of development, production, and consumption; arguments forrights and ethical treatment of nonhumans; and imaginative proposals for potentialchange.

Turner utilizes the entire curriculum in her own classroom, organizing thecourse materials into a set of seven topics, to which she devotes two weeks eachfor the fourteen weeks of the semester. Each of these topics focuses on a differentfacet of humankind’s relationships and interactions with the more-than-humanworld, on how those relationships are conceptualized within society, and on thesocio-environmental conditions and challenges that have arisen from past andcurrent modes of behavior in regard to the global ecosystem. The topics sheorganizes her course around are:

• Weeks 1–2: Nature and the Self: Looking at expressions of personal relation-ships with the natural world

• Weeks 3–4: Masters, Stewards, Family: Views of humankind’s relationship tothe natural world

• Weeks 5–6: Language, Media, and the Environment: Looking at how the nat-ural world, animals, ecosystems, and environmental issues are presented anddiscussed in public discourse

• Weeks 7–8: Place and Space, or Where We Live: Looking at human and animalhabitats, urban design, ecological systems, and sense of place

• Weeks 9–10: Production, Consumption, and Waste: Looking at stuff, food,landfills, and carbon footprints

• Weeks 11–12: Rights, Ethics, and Environmental Justice• Weeks 13–14: Envisioning the Future: Looking at narratives and images of

possible futures

Donnelly has applied the materials in pieces within his classes, blending themwith other topics in social justice.

In the following we explore outcomes from teaching these course materials inTurner’s and Donnelly’s classrooms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


CURRICULUM EVALUATION AT A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE:TURNER’S RESEARCH

To explore whether the curriculum launched a process of critical cultural analy-sis, generated dialogue and questions about the implications of human attitudestoward the more-than-human world, and equipped students with the resources andqualities of mind to reflect thoughtfully on cultural belief structures about humans,nonhumans, and the land, we studied the outcomes of the curriculum materialsas they are employed in practice. To do this, Turner first put the curriculum ma-terials to use in her own classroom. She taught the materials as a semester-longintroductory course at a local university, repeating the course over two semestersand collecting data from both groups of students (she has since taught the courseevery subsequent semester with very consistent results to those she found in herinitial research).

Turner’s course is a first-year seminar, part of a program for incoming studentsin which they have the opportunity to take an interdisciplinary seminar-style classto help familiarize them with the demands of college. Data was collected from thefall semester of 2010 and the spring semester of 2011. Each of these semesters,the course contained 18–20 students of mixed genders and mixed disciplinaryinterests. The majority of the students were White, although other races andethnicities were present, and most came from a background of relative privilege:Aside from their ability to attend a four-year college, most also had college-educated families and parents who held white-collar jobs. The majority also hadparents who owned homes in suburban areas. (For a more detailed discussionof these students’ socioeconomic backgrounds and characteristics, see Turner2011). Their skill levels varied, but most were academically successful, withstrong reading comprehension skills and a solid grasp of standard English writing.Although students self-selected for the class, at the beginning of the semestermany admitted that they had registered for the course to fulfill a humanities courserequirement for the university and that they had been unaware of the course’ssubject-matter when they registered. Still, most expressed interest in the coursetopic.

From these semesters of teaching, she drew three sorts of data: student writing,students’ answers to course evaluation forms and to a pre- and posttest survey, andpersonal field notes observing how the materials played out in the classroom. Usingstudent writing as her primary data, Turner employed qualitative content analysisinformed by critical humanist research and critical discourse analysis (Carspecken1996; van Dijk 2002; Hsieh and Shannon 2005; Kincheloe and McLaren 2005;White and Marsh 2006; Zhang and Wildemuth 2009). Drawing on these frame-works, she conducted a four-stage process of coding and analysis, using as a guidemethods outlined by Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah Shannon (2005), Marilyn Whiteand Emily Marsh (2006), and Yan Zhang and Barbara Wildemuth (2009). This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


process included multiple readings, open coding, development of coding cate-gories both inductively and through the use of an analytical model, tallying andcategorizing codes, and selecting excerpts for further analysis. She then triangu-lated these finding against other collected data, including evaluations, surveys, andfield notes. (For a full description of methods, see Turner 2011.)

In the following passages, we share excerpts of student writing from Turner’sclass to illustrate reactions generated by the curriculum materials. These passagesare drawn from weekly discussion board posts in which students were asked toreflect on course readings and reply to classmates’ posts. Although the number ofexcerpts provided here is very limited, these student comments are representativeof the larger body of data, and the interpretations of these writings are supported bysupplementary data from other student work, course evaluations, student surveys,and researcher observations (Turner 2011).

Student Writing

The first topic in Turner’s class is nature and the self , in which students examineliterary, poetic, and artistic meditations on personal connections to the naturalworld. During this section of the course, students consider how and why individualshave written about bonds to the natural world and the implications of their ownbonds, or lack thereof, in relation to nonhuman beings and the land.

By identifying patterns in their writing through the methods described previ-ously, it becomes evident that in the first weeks of the class students begin toimagine the point of view of other beings, to recognize nonhumans as feelingsubjects, to question the commonalities and connections between humans andnonhumans, and to ponder sources of disconnection between humans and thenatural world.

One example of this comes from a student’s response to a piece titled Sharks,by Leroy Quintana (2001), a poem narrated from the point of view of a shark. Thepiece critiques humankind’s perception of sharks, and compares the misconcep-tions and exploitation of sharks to that of illegal immigrants. The student sums upthis poem by stating:

In the last stanza, Quintana makes a comparison between sharks and illegal immi-grants. He suggests that our view of sharks and immigrants as fighters and trouble-makers [32] is inaccurate and that they are much more dynamic than popular opinionwould suggest. I think the point of this poem is to point out the false sense of im-portance we place on material goods, while pointing out the hypocrisy in Americanpolitics and culture. We, as humans, fear sharks. As a result, their skin and imageare viewed as symbols of power. People generally view themselves as the superiorspecies on the planet, and sharks, with their ‘fearsome switchblades’ [33], are ex-ploited in order to demonstrate this perceived superiority. I enjoyed this poem as it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


gave me a chance to consider the world from the perspective of a shark. It is oftenhelpful to take a step back and consider an opinion other than your own.

This analysis contains the beginnings of several facets of valuable criticalanalysis. In it, the student is starting to critique qualities he identifies as commonelements of US-American culture, and he is highlighting connections suggestedin the poem between the mistreatment of two othered groups, nonhuman animalsand illegal immigrants. He describes the dominant view of both sharks and illegalimmigrants as “inaccurate,” and states that humans “view themselves as . . .

superior” and that they attempt to “demonstrate this perceived superiority.” Byframing this belief of superiority as a “view,” rather than a fact, he leaves openthe possibility that it, too, is inaccurate, or at least that it is less than naturalreality. In this way, he questions human superiority, and questions the right ofhumankind to claim the primary authoritative viewpoint on who and what isimportant. In closing he comments that he enjoyed the “chance to consider theworld from the perspective of a shark,” and to “consider an opinion” other thanhis own. Here is evidence of awareness that there are, in fact, other viewpointsto consider, that nonhumans are active subjects who have their own perspective,and that the opportunity to imagine or attempt to identify with this perspectiveis a valuable and positive experience. Engaging with these types of insights andquestions represents a practice of empathetic thinking as well as critical culturalinvestigation, both central goals of the curriculum.

In the next part of the course, students are introduced to theories about concep-tual metaphor and the role that metaphors and narratives play in shaping culturalattitudes. They discuss belief systems and worldviews, including religions, andexplore a variety of creation myths from cultures around the world. Through thesematerials, students are encouraged to consider the cultural motivations that leadpeople to adopt and maintain their values and behaviors. During this topic, Turnerintroduces students to some of the common metaphors at work in US-Americanculture for considering the natural world. Students discuss the prevalence and im-plications of such metaphors as “the natural world is a stockpile of raw materialsand resources,” “the natural world is a life-support machine,” “the natural worldis a garden,” and “the natural world is a family.” Students also read a variety ofwritings, both historical and modern, that provide examples of these metaphorsin use, identifying which metaphors about the natural world are at work in thevarious texts and how these metaphors influence reasoning about the nonhumanworld and how humans should interact with it.

In response to the materials presented during these weeks, students show evi-dence that they are beginning to actively understand the notion that worldviews arenot universal or inherently true, but are a product of cultural influences and a sourceof cultural attitudes and behaviors. At this point, students start analyzing the impactof belief systems on attitudes and behavior, and they begin critiquing not only these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


attitudes and behaviors, but the worldviews and beliefs that support them. In theseweeks, students also formulate and articulate newly-developing understandingsof conceptual metaphor. They discuss different metaphors as potential options forframing our perceptions of the natural world, and they interrogate the implicationsof each metaphor, voicing opinions about which are preferable. They also usethese new insights to shed light on continued explorations of nonhuman–humanrelationships, bonds, and points of view, beginning to question whether distinc-tions between human and nonhuman are a function of culturally-constructed beliefsystems.

One student responds to the materials presented in this part of the course bysaying:

I have never focused very much on the importance of metaphors and how ourconcepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how werelate to other people. When trying to see its connection to this week’s topic, I beganto think that if metaphors about nature were to change, maybe our views and actionstoward nature would change as well. I completely agree with the statement that ‘weact according to the way we conceive of things’ [Lakoff and Johnson 5]. The point isbrought up that by harboring certain metaphorical concepts, we lose focus of otheraspects of different concepts. So in the case of nature, it is possible that if someoneviews something in one way, they are not likely to understand an opposing view.If human thought processes are largely metaphorical, as the authors say, then themetaphorical nature of our activities can be studied and a better understanding forthe reasons why humans think the way they do can be discovered.

This post succinctly outlines the key concepts presented by Lakoff and Johnson(1980), and applies them to mapping possible strategies for positive change. Thestudent states, “If metaphors about nature were to change, maybe our views andactions toward nature would change as well,” and goes on to suggest that bystudying the “metaphorical nature of our activities” we may be better able tounderstand and alter our thinking and behavior.

In a reply to a classmate, another student demonstrates his application of theseideas by reflecting on his own past views and the cultural and discursive milieuthat influenced them:

Since I was very young words like ‘landlord’ ‘land-owner’ and ‘property’ werealways used in some way to relate to the earth/land. So it seemed normal for a whilefor me to view land as simply something to be owned and not a gift. Your idea seemsto go back to our conversations about metaphors that organize the way differentcultures think. I really like this idea :)

At this point in the semester, students also begin to reflect on positive ways toview the natural world, stating things like, “People should stop looking at nature

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


as just a pile of raw materials, they should start taking a closer look. They shouldstart seeing nature as a part of themselves, then maybe nature will finally getthe respect it deserves.” This active envisioning of potential cultural frameworksand metaphors that could encourage more sustainable approaches to the world isprecisely the sort of thinking that the curriculum seeks to achieve.

Next in the course, students are presented with theories about social discourseand the construction of knowledge, and are introduced to strategies in rhetoric, per-suasion, and media communication. They analyze examples of media portrayals ofnonhumans and of environmental issues, discussing such features as word choice,imagery, framing, identification and division strategies, and other discursive fea-tures, and examining the motivation behind each piece and the interested partiessupporting each portrayal. Additionally, students explore ecofeminist argumentsabout links between gender oppression and the oppression of the nonhuman world,and they are exposed to analyses of how language can naturalize oppression, incases of nonhuman as well as human groups. Students also examine nonhumancapacities for communication and arguments about whether language is a definingcharacteristic solely of humankind.

These topics appear to produce marked reaction in student thinking, and theideas that emerge in their writing closely follow from this subject matter. Studentsexplore the notion that language plays a strong role in shaping perception, andthat it can construct or reproduce bias and oppression, against both human groupsand nonhumans. They continue to forge deeper understandings of the cultural anddiscursive formation of attitudes and beliefs, and they critique the role playedby media and advertising in this formation. They advance their exploration ofdominant metaphors and worldviews that shape cultural conceptions of the naturalworld. They also delve further into issues of nonhuman-human relations, applyingnew insights and modes of thinking to their questions on this subject.

In their response papers, many students quickly begin pinpointing key argu-ments made by the authors they are reading, such as Joan Dunayer (2001). Onestudent comments on Dunayer:

Dunayer’s Animal Equality: Language and Liberation delves into the way that weaddress animals. Dunayer relates that ‘ . . . conventional pronoun . . . terms nonhu-man animals “it,” erasing their gender and grouping them with inanimate things’ [1].By using a neutral term such as this, we create a separation between ourselves andanimals, also allowing us to provide reason for ownership and to claim animals as ourproperty. Thus, it can be concluded by Dunayer that ‘By downplaying nonhumansensitivity, speciesists downplay the need for nonhuman liberation’ [3]. Again, itshows that we detach animals from ourselves and try to state that they are neitherliving nor feeling in the same way that humans do. In a way, it leads to the nextstatement that ‘Species don’t evolve toward greater humanness but toward greateradaptiveness in their ecological niche’ [12]. This line was most striking to me, be-cause it shows that humans are not the best species that inhabits the earth, but places

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


emphasis on the fact that each is on a nearly equal level. It also depicts “species” asthe subject of the sentence with humans as only a minor focus. By changing smalldetails such as this in everyday wordings, we are able to center on one aspect of thesentence, normally being humans.

This response highlights several significant insights. First, the student reflectson Dunayer’s point that language choice can construct conceptual separationbetween humans and nonhumans; she also zeroes in on the notion that this canserve as a justification for exploitative behavior toward other beings. She furthertouches on the idea that humans and nonhumans have different abilities and needs,and that these abilities do not have to be ranked hierarchically, but can be seenas equivalently important to each species. Finally, she applies this knowledge ofhow language can structure perceptions of nonhumans by analyzing Dunayer’sown word choice, noting that in the last sentence she quotes, Dunayer employs“species” as the subject of the sentence. The implications of this decision are notlost on this student, who reflects that making choices such as this can change thefocus of the sentence, which in dominant discourse is most often humans, andinstead allow the attention to shift so that humans are “only a minor focus.”

Later in the semester, as students explore issues of ethics, rights, and envi-ronmental justice, they continue to examine culturally-formulated worldviewsand dominant notions of human superiority and separation. One student artfullyprobes this topic:

There are the imaginary lines and boundaries that are recurring in both nature andsociety that have been set up by humans as a separation. It’s one way I believespeciesism is occurring in the world. As long as people continue to group things into‘us’ and ‘them,’ there won’t truly be dissolution of the barrier between the animalsand ‘us,’ or the regrouping of ourselves into the categories of animals.

Another discusses “how we think of the world” as well, linking her analysis toPeter Singer (2002):

Human beings have historically viewed non-human animals as ‘lesser’ beings; theidea of a human-centric world is heavily supported by many major religions. Becausethese views are so ingrained in our culture, it is extremely difficult to impact changeregarding animal equality. Singer observes that ‘Animal Liberation’ probably soundsmore like a parody than a serious objective. In our society, where comparing someoneto an animal is considered a gross insult, it is difficult to hold onto the hope that theconditions for non-human animals might improve.

Relating her cultural critique back to earlier discussions of religion and worldviewsand demonstrating language awareness in her comments on the fact that referringto a human as an “animal” is “considered a gross insult,” this student presents a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


strong analysis of the persistence of culturally normative views of nonhumans as“lesser beings.”

In another post, a student pinpoints many complex questions surrounding thesubject of ethics and rights:

Many of the authors focused on issues that are difficult to communicate to the generalpublic because they question the very basis of our society. Should nonhuman beingsbe given legal rights? Why is it that people who are against abortion do not usuallyoppose the killing of nonhuman animals? . . . Is speciesm on the same level of evilas racism and sexism? Many people will disagree with the ideas presented in thereading and probably be offended by them, but I think they are extremely eye openingand forward-thinking pieces of writing that are necessary for human advancementand survival. It is important to at least examine and take into account what theseauthors are saying, even if we are not ready to accept their ideas in our everydaylives. If we continue, instead, to follow the same worn paths and fulfill the same roleas ‘conqueror’ of the environment, we will eventually be find that we have singlehandedly destroyed the delicate ecosystems of the world around us.

As this student points out, being willing to ask such questions, to “examine” thearguments made by the authors assigned during these weeks, may be a vital steptoward transforming our understanding of our role in the world, away from the“worn” role of “conqueror” and toward a more sustainable conceptualization ofour place in the larger ecosystem.

As they explore this material, many students engage in sharp criticism of currentcultural norms. In one example, a student states:

Although mankind’s ethics have drastically evolved, we are still missing a distinctset of beliefs about the land, plants, and animals that we co-exist with, and stillconsider them singularly for their economic value and impact on mankind. . . . Thelack of empathy for nature almost seems a social norm today.

Formulating several insightful points, this student argues that humankind, orperhaps more specifically US culture, has no clearly defined conceptual frameworkto guide it’s interactions with the nonhuman world—or at least none that acknowl-edges the inherent value of nonhuman life beyond how it can be used to benefithumans. Describing the nonhuman world as “the land, plants, and animals that weco-exist with,” she makes intentional language choices that position humans andnonhumans on equal footing as interconnected coinhabitants of the earth. Finally,she expands her social critique by suggesting that “lack of empathy,” itself, is anormative attitude promoted and supported by the dominant culture.

As one might expect, not all students made statements like those excerptedhere. However, Turner was surprised and gratified to find that nearly every student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


made a noteable number of comments that fit within positive coding categories, ex-pressing qualities such as empathy, critical questioning of cultural belief systems,self-reflection, changed opinions, expanded knowledge, and creative imaginingof alternative practices. Not all students entered or left the class with the samebeliefs, and students did not hesitate to express disagreement with particular au-thors, readings, and topics throughout the semester, but this generally took placewithin a context of open discussion, in which those students and their classmatesgenuinely engaged with one another’s opinions. By cultivating an atmosphere ofcollective inquiry and exploration, Turner hopes that her class equips all studentsto ask more critical questions of themselves and their society, no matter what theirinitial stance on the topics discussed.

Conclusions from Turner’s Class

These excerpts offer just a few examples of many. Based on this qualitative con-tent analysis of student writing, combined with data from other sources (Turner2011), Turner concludes that her course does, indeed, seem to provide studentswith experiences and tools for seeing their world differently. Students begin crit-ically examining their cultural context in light of ecological interactions andconsequences; investigating the discursive construction of knowledge and beliefs;questioning what views they wish to adopt toward nonhumans and the naturalworld and evaluating dominant cultural views in comparison with alternative op-tions; reflecting on the value of bonds with nonhuman nature; critiquing their ownconsumption practices and the larger industrial and institutional patterns at workin their culture; and envisioning better futures and imagining paths toward greatersustainability.

These outcomes are extremely encouraging. However, they are far from gener-alizable to all classrooms. Turner’s students represent a relatively privileged andskilled group, and some might argue that their social and academic position, andtheir choice to enroll in the course, establish them as particularly open to environ-mental concern and critical cultural analysis. How might individuals from verydifferent backgrounds, in a very different educational context, respond to the samematerials? To answer this question, Donnelly has begun to apply these materialswithin his classes.

CURRICULUM EVALUATION AT A TWO-YEAR COLLEGE:DONNELLY’S RESEARCH

Donnelly has adapted Turner’s materials to his classes for two primary reasons:First, he believes that educators must take every opportunity to raise awarenessabout injustice in all its forms, and society has a colossal environmental awareness

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


deficit; and second, he has found that Turner’s cultural approach to environmentaleducation encourages the kind of critical mindset that he wants his students tomaintain even after they finish his course. Having students engage critically withissues of ecology and justice strengthens their rhetorical skills while increasingawareness and agency with regard to social issues. As a writing teacher who worksprimarily with students needing remediation, Donnelly has found that givingstudents readings above their skill level will—if handled carefully—result instudents learning to decipher and engage rhetorically with complex texts. Soalthough some might consider this material too challenging for students requiringremediation, he has found that this is exactly the kind of material that producesengagement and leads to better writing.

The local community college where Donnelly teaches has served as a provingground for adapting Turner’s ecocritical curriculum to a socioeconomically diversestudent body. It is a large regional community college, serving about 70,000 full-and part-time students from the Baltimore metropolitan area. The average age ofa student at this school is 28 years old. The student body includes a large urbandemographic and students from the surrounding counties, which are more rural.

Students at this institution, especially students requiring remediation, are oftenwell in touch with forces of global economic, social, and environmental degrada-tion. This proximity to various forms of degradation is reflected in their diverseeducational experiences and career goals. Almost 80% of students entering thiscollege require some form of remediation in reading, English, and/or math. Thevast majority of students requiring remediation receive some form of financial aid.Many of these students will share experiences with Race to the Top/No Child LeftBehind initiatives that they say have left them feeling underprepared and lackingconfidence and direction in higher education.

Donnelly has been working with students requiring remediation in English forthe past three years, and employs pedagogical strategies that encourage criticalengagement in his classes to help students become aware of complex social issuesand to help them better act upon those issues. He has employed Turner’s methods ofengaging students in discussions about environmental attitudes in various formsand degrees for the past four semesters. From these classes, he has collectedpreliminary data in the form of student writing and field observations. Althoughthis data is not fully analyzed as yet, we share excerpts of it here to provide asnapshot of the reactions Donnelly has encountered among his students.

Donnelly has applied concepts of critical ecoliteracy to his courses in vary-ing degrees, from inclusion of a unit on consumerism within a larger classroomcontext, to making critical ecoliteracy a founding tenant. His teaching philosophycoincides with many of the objectives of critical ecoliteracy—to engage students insocio-cultural analysis of their experiences, to foster communities of inquiry, andto adopt a problem-solving approach to education. His remedial English coursesfocus on having students decipher complex academic texts and engage with those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


texts through writing. As his teaching philosophy looks to democracy as a forceof justice and sustainability, he tries to enact democratic modes of teaching andlearning within the classroom. Students are encouraged to participate in shapingthe classroom experience, and to suggest content. He continues to explore waysof making the classroom a more open and democratic environment where stu-dents can gain experience in participatory education, critical inquiry, dialogue,consensus-building, and conflict resolution.

The course Donnelly has adapted takes about half of its content from Turner’scurriculum—including articles, book chapters, photos, videos, and activities—aswell as its guiding principle of encouraging a critical posture toward cultural atti-tudes. The course does not begin with explicit discussion of environmental issues.Before naming issues as environmental, students engage in cultural analysis of US-style consumerism. The class begins with a discussion of common experiencesand observations that have some connection to consumerism. Students discusstopics such as the rising prices of goods and services, unemployment, commonhealth problems, litter, and attitudes toward shopping. They then categorize theseproblems as having something to do with consumerism. They talk about when,why, how, and how much people shop, and the effects it has on our lives. Theytalk about the way people are encouraged to spend money through advertisementsand cut-rate prices resulting from increased specialization and outsourcing. Afterspending some time analyzing various forms of advertisement, many studentslearn to respond critically to our consumer-driven culture. One student lamentsthat,

We are basically in bondaged [sic] because of the sales, advertisements, email sales,catalogs and newspapers ads along with the new technology that is on the market.For some, shopping is a pleasure, as well as a luxury. As a society of consumers, wehave to learn to say no to the advertisement, to credit card companies and to stoptrying to ‘keep up with the Jones.’

Students also discuss the growth of a consumer economy from an agrarianeconomy, as well as how specialization and outsourcing affect career options andexperiences as customers. Students of nontraditional age are often eager to recountwhat life in Baltimore was like “way back when”: what their parents did for work,where they lived, where they shopped, how many cars they had (or usually didn’thave), etc. They comment that fewer and fewer people in contemporary US societyknow how to cook or mend garments or build furniture. These are just a few ofthe subjects most commonly broached by students as they develop a level offamiliarity with the concept of consumerism.

Once students feel comfortable discussing consumerism—what it is and howit works—they next explore readings that address the hidden aspects of con-sumerism, like the actual cost of manufacture. They read passages from John C.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Ryan and Alan Thein Durning’s book Stuff: The Secret Life of Everyday Things(1997), in which the authors follow everyday items back to their source in thenatural world. For most students, this reading is an introduction into the human,ecological, and health costs of producing and purchasing everyday items likeshoes, t-shirts, and coffee. Students are often shocked to hear what workers en-dure to produce these common items. One student expresses outrage at the factthat people are unaware of what’s going on in factories overseas: “People don’tunderstand the risk the employees go through to make that product. If they didunderstand people could try and protest or do something about this.” This studenthas identified one key goal of critical ecoliteracy: to increase awareness of theinjustices perpetrated upon marginalized peoples. Her words convey an urgency,which we find encouraging, and she adopts an indignant yet hopeful attitude whenshe intimates that a key solution to this injustice is growing awareness. By ex-pressing her belief that consumers would refuse to support companies that allowdangerous working conditions if only the consumers were made aware of it, thisstudent also exhibits a form of agency; although she may not possess the politi-cal vocabulary to formulate what actions should be taken, she acknowledges thatconsumer choices can exert political pressure.

In response to these readings, another student comes out passionately againstconsumerism as an economic model:

In conclusion I believe that consumerism is causing people to be treated horribly bytheir companies, paid nothing for hours of work, and creating a false sense of whatis actually going on in making these ‘shoes,’ for example to the people purchasingthem.

At this point in the course, the discussion narrows to food production. Studentsread selections and watch videos about the effects of industrialized farming, anddiscuss the consequences of US-American food culture. We watch excerpts fromthe documentary Food, Inc. (Kenner 2008), read poems like “Gelatin Factory”by Kevin Bowen (2001), and read book excerpts by authors such as MichaelPollan (2007). Each semester, at least one student expresses how this material hascompletely changed the way s/he looks at food.

Then the course moves to discussing some alternative modes of consumption,such as the notion of ethical consumption and do-it-yourself culture. In the mostrecent incarnation of the class, students read Colin Beavan’s nonfiction book, NoImpact Man (2009), about his family’s attempt to produce no net environmentalimpact for a full year. Students often have mixed feelings about this book, but mostexpress how outrageous they think it would be to live in the manner that Beavandescribes. As students read descriptions of what Beavan and his family experiencedduring the project, they encounter a number of great topics for discussion: trash,composting, solar power, meat, gardening, and even child-rearing. The book is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


useful as a source of subject matter for discussion, but its primary purpose in theclass is to serve as a case study in consumer volition. It is valuable for studentsto hear from someone who has decided to take action because of the effect thatmodern consumer culture is having on us and on our environment.

A major aim of the course is to increase student agency by raising awareness ofproblems and then crafting individual and collective solutions to those problems.It’s important that students develop solutions to societal problems, and imaginealternative cultures. To that end, each semester ends with reading selections fromVandana Shiva’s Earth Democracy (2005) and discussing what the world might belike if we implemented Shiva’s principles. Students find Shiva’s ten principles ofEarth Democracy rather enlightening, especially in her radical approach to humanrelations with nonhumans. One student who was particularly touched by Shiva’swork writes that, “Shiva believes that we are all members of the earth family andI feel the same way. I feel that like Dr. Shiva says that we all have a duty to live ina manner where we are not harming the earth.” In a separate writing, that studentgoes on to say, “I feel reading this has affected my life because I want a pet dogand it makes me feel like animals are human like we are and they should not bepets even though people treat them like their child.” This kind of reaction to Shivais common among students in the course. Another student expresses a similarsentiment: “Animals breathe air just like humans and should be treated with loveand dignity.”

In connection with this reading, Donnelly asks his students to identify whatcurrent problems are addressed by each of Shiva’s principles. One student remarksthat Shiva’s ideas address many of the problems she has learned about during theclass: food scarcity, pollution, even unemployment and exploitation. Another stu-dent demonstrates the kind of dovetailing desired when teaching writing studentsabout pressing social issues. He states that, “I was looking at Vandana Shiva inEarth Democracy, and how she wrote it like what she was thinking. She wouldconnect things. And so I was just thinking about doing it that way, but it’s hard.”This student simultaneously engages with Shiva’s ideas and reflects on her writingstyle in relation to his own, which is exactly what Donnelly wants to encourage inthis class.

Based on preliminary analysis of student writing and observations, Donnellyhypothesizes that this curriculum will initially do little to change his students’behavior. Only a few students each semester express the desire to change theirbehavior as a result of what they learned in class. However, he has noticed somesigns that suggest attitudinal adjustments and burgeoning critical consciousness.Students frequently share stories of entering into conversations with others aboutthe issues discussed in class. Some students have spoken with Donnelly after thecourse ended and told him that they will never forget how gelatin is made, or thatthey will never think about shopping in the same way again. Donnelly predicts thatthe most lasting impact will come from students analyzing their own beliefs about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


the natural world, and he plans to engage with students more explicitly about thistopic in the future. It’s been his experience that an education that informs studentswhile helping them challenge ideas and perceptions is lasting and effective.

At the end of the most recent semester, one of Donnelly’s students told himthat, “Before this class, I thought about a lot of stupid stuff. It makes you feellike a jerk because you think about yourself and not about other people.” He feelsthis statement exemplifies the point of critical ecoliteracy: Learning about soci-etal problems must be accompanied by direct and thoughtful consideration of theattitudes that undergird those problems. This student, having been made awareof certain problems, expresses concern about his own attitudes and behaviors.We want our students to be thoughtful and empathetic, and Donnelly’s studentsdemonstrate movement in this direction. Although few decide not to eat animalsat the end of the semester, they almost universally agree that doing so is at leastproblematic. They might not all agree that 2012 being the warmest year on recordin the United States is the result of human interference, but they all agree that theloss of over 95% of native forests is a scar on the planet and that mountaintopremoval is indefensible. We want our students to reflect upon the contradictions ofour culture. We want them to think about why it is that we eat some animals anddomesticate others, or why incinerators are only built in low-income neighbor-hoods. Most of the facts from the class may escape their memories fairly quickly,but hopefully it is the posture of critical inquiry, that mindset of questioning what iscommonplace and accepted that remains with our students long after the class hasended.

Donnelly’s experiences have led him to believe that students requiring reme-diation are both eager to engage in cultural analysis and in need of critical con-sciousness of social issues. The fact that many of his students are living throughthe worst effects of urban decay, globalization, and environmental deteriorationserves as an access point for engagement and attests to the importance of theirparticipation in democratic reform. Students explore environmental issues witha growing appreciation for how ecological destruction is interwoven into the so-cial phenomena with which they are so intimate, and start to see themselves ascontributors to the problem and the solution.

CONCLUSION

Based on our experiences teaching these course materials with students of varyingsocioeconomic status, educational background, and level of privilege, we concludethat curricula designed around goals of ecojustice and eco-democracy are bothapplicable and necessary in all educational settings. Educational materials thatseek to cultivate critical investigation of culture, empathetic engagement withother beings, and creative imagining of more sustainable futures serve a vital

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


purpose for students and for society, allowing us the opportunity to engage intransformative dialogue about our beliefs and practices.

Although not all students in our classes agreed with the perspectives theyencountered in course readings, or with each other, or with us, nearly all seemedeager for the opportunity to engage in shared discussion of their world, to questioncurrent values, and envision alternatives. Indeed, the benefits students gained fromour classes did not just emerge from course content; they emerged from dialogue.Perhaps the most important goal in the cultivation of critical eco-democraticawareness is to spark desire for such dialogue, and to create conditions in whichthis dialogue is able to take place. We are honored to have shared the experienceof this dialogue with our students, and we look forward to expanding the practiceof such dialogue beyond the classroom.

REFERENCES

Abram, David. 1997. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-HumanWorld. 1st Vintage Books Ed. New York: Vintage.

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 2001. “From Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.” Pp. 1210–1226 in TheRhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, 2nd ed. Edited by PatriciaBizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Baudrillard, Jean. 1989. America. Translated by Chris Turner. London: Verso.Beavan, Colin. 2009. No Impact Man: The Adventures of a Guilty Liberal Who Attempts to Save the

Planet, and the Discoveries He Makes About Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process, 1st ed.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Bell, Anne C., and Constance L. Russell. 2000. “Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism,Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn.” Canadian Journal of Education 25(3): 188–203.

Berry, Wendell. 1995. Another Turn of the Crank: Essays. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited by John B Thompson. Translated by

Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bowen, Kevin. 2001. “Gelatin Factory.” Pp. 68–69 in Poetry Like Bread. Edited by Martın Espada.

Willimantic, CT: Curbstone Press.Brosius, J. Peter. 1999. “Analyses and Interventions: Anthropological Engagements with Environmen-

talism.” Current Anthropology 40: 277–310.Burke, Kenneth. 2001. “From A Grammar of Motives.” Pp. 1298–1324 in The Rhetorical Tradition:

Readings from Classical Times to the Present, 2nd ed. Edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg.Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Callenbach, Ernest. 2005. “Values.” Pp. 45–48 in Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for aSustainable World. 1st ed. Edited by Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow. San Francisco: SierraClub Books.

Carspecken, Phil Francis. 1996. Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical andPractical Guide. New York: Routledge.

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.Dunayer, Joan. 2001. Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood, MD: Ryce.Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. New

York: Pantheon Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Freire, Paulo. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary ed. Translated by Myra BergmanRamos. New York: Continuum.

Gee, James. 2008. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, 3rd ed. London: Rout-ledge.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: BasicBooks.

Glenn, Cathy B. 2004. “Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory FarmIndustry Discourse.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 28: 63–81.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Heller, Monica. 1997. “Language Choice and Symbolic Domination.” Pp. 87–94 in Encyclopedia of

Language and Education, Vol. 3: Oral Discourse and Education. Edited by Brian Davies and DavidCorson. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.”Qualitative Health Research 15: 1277–1288.

Kahn, Richard. 2010. Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy, & Planetary Crisis: The Ecopedagogy Move-ment. New York: Peter Lang.

Kenner, Robert. 2008. Food, Inc. Documentary. New York: Magnolia Pictures.Kincheloe, Joe L., and Peter McLaren. 2005. “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research.”

Pp. 303–342 in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by Norman K. Denzin andYvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Leopold, Aldo. 1970. A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River, 1stBallantine Books ed. New York: Ballantine Books.

Martusewicz, Rebecca A., Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci. 2011. EcoJustice Education: TowardDiverse, Democratic, and Sustainable Communities. New York: Routledge.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. Edited by Robert Tucker.New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

McLaren, Peter. 2008. “Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts.” Pp. 61–83 in The CriticalPedagogy Reader, 2nd ed. Edited by Antonia Darder, Marta P. Baltodano, and Rodolfo Torres. NewYork: Routledge.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. SanFrancisco: Harper & Row.

Mies, Maria. 1993. Ecofeminism. Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex.Muhlhausler, Peter. 2003. Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolin-

guistics. London: Battlebridge.Peterson, Anna Lisa. 2009. Everyday Ethics and Social Change: The Education of Desire. New York:

Columbia University Press.Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.Pollan, Michael. 2007. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York:

Penguin.Quintana, Leroy V. 2001. “Sharks.” Pp. 202–203 in Poetry Like Bread. Edited by Martın Espada.

Willimantic, CT: Curbstone Press.Ryan, John C., and Alan Thein Durning. 1997. Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things. Seattle,

WA: Northwest Environment Watch.Shiva, Vandana. 2005. Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. Cambridge, MA: South

End Press.Singer, Peter. 2002. Animal Liberation. New York: Ecco.Smith, Mick. 2001. An Ethics of Place: Radical Ecology, Postmodernity, and Social Theory. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Turner, Rita. 2009. “The Discursive Construction of Anthropocentrism.” Environmental Ethics 31(2):183–202.

—————. 2011. “Critical Ecoliteracy: An Interdisciplinary Secondary and Postsecondary Hu-manities Curriculum to Cultivate Environmental Consciousness.” PhD Dissertation, Baltimore,Maryland: University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Van Dijk, Teun A. 1995. “Discourse Semantics and Ideology.” Discourse & Society 6(2): 243–289.—————. 2002. “Discourse, Knowledge and Ideology.” Paper for the International LAUD Sympo-

sium on Language and Ideology. Essen, Germany: LAUD.Warkentin, Traci. 2002. “It’s Not Just What You Say, but How You Say It: An Exploration of the Moral

Dimensions of Metaphor and the Phenomenology of Narrative.” Canadian Journal of EnvironmentalEducation 7(2): 241–255.

Warren, Karen. 2000. Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

White, Marilyn Domas, and Emily E. Marsh. 2006. “Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology.”Library Trends 55(1): 22–45.

Wright, Ronald. 2005. A Short History of Progress. 1st Carroll & Graf ed. New York: Carroll & Graf.Zhang, Yan, and Barbara M. Wildemuth. 2009. “Qualitative Analysis of Content.” Pp. 308–319 in

Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Editedby Barbara M. Wildemuth. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:52

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Case Studies in Critical Ecoliteracy: A Curriculum for Analyzing the Social Foundations of Environmental Problems