ABSTRACT
Before considering ‘Education for Sustainable Development’, it is first necessary to consider the ‘parent’ concept, namely Sustainable Development (SD) and how this relates to ‘geography’. This is no simple task, as SD (and consequently ESD) is a contested concept with no single universally agreed definition. Actually the number of definitions currently in use runs into the
hundreds, reflecting a spectrum of divergent perspectives! This is compounded by the fact that a similar situation could be said to prevail in the discipline of geography – it is no exaggeration to talk of many geographies being represented in the academy. This is a crucial issue to consider even whilst reading this chapter since, whilst attempting to be objective, the views expressed will necessarily reflect views on SD, ESD and geography held by the author (and must themselves be consequently open to critique!). However, there are some basic principles that are commonly accepted in all but the most perverse definitions of SD. The seminal and most often quoted definition was presented by the Brundtland Commission, which states that SD ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987). In a nutshell, then, SD is a normative concept – it is concerned with creating a better world now and in the future, by establishing alternative and better systems and processes for organising human behaviour. This marks it apart from other intellectual pursuits usually associated with academic work, which are usually presented as being objective and value-free, concerned more with describing, understanding and explaining how the world works than prescribing how it should work. This distinction is crucial since it lies at the heart of some of the key tensions between geography education and ESD. ESD carries a more overt normative advocacy role (i.e., it is for SD) than is felt inappropriate for those who fear this smacks of indoctrination. Of course, what is considered better is highly subjective and dependent on framework and worldview – a capitalist will promote a very different vision for a better world than, for example, a socialist. However, for any vision of a better world to qualify as sustainable development it must consider both social and environmental systems in a mutually compatible manner. This is reflected in the official title of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 which popularised the term – the ‘United Nations Conference on Environment and Development’ (UNCED). Thus, SD is concerned with both human systems and natural (biophysical) systems, as well as the interactions between them. The emphasis is that neither is compromised but is, instead, developed in a mutually compatible and sustainable manner – hence, sustainable development. UNCED also popularised a conceptual framework of three elements – social, economic and environmental. This framework has been variously schematised as either: three legs of a stool, three overlapping circles (a Venn diagram) or three concentric circles (see Figure 6.1). This is relatively easy to follow. However, digging a little deeper reveals that each diagram has strengths and weaknesses which reveal some of the inherent complexities of SD. For example, the ‘three legs’ diagram is useful since it suggests that if any one ‘leg’ is removed from the equation or consideration, the ‘stool’ will collapse. Unfortunately, it also suggests that each is relatively discrete and that there are no interactions between them. The Venn diagram is better at revealing the interactions between the elements (the overlapping circles) but also suggests that it is possible to have areas of human
action that lie outside, and therefore independently of, either economic, social or environmental systems – you try to think of any that actually do! This problem is addressed in the ‘concentric rings’ since no element lies outside the others but immediately presents another dilemma – which ring should be the outer one and therefore subsume, or be prioritised over, all the others? For an economist the ‘economy’ might; for a sociologist, ‘society’ might; and for an ecologist, ‘environment’ might. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The major problem with the seminal Brundtland definition presented above is that it is so broad as to be ambiguous and therefore permits a whole host of divergent interpretations. Furthermore, Scott and Gough (2003: 18-22) identify a range of tensions and paradoxes inherent in the concept of SD itself which permit divergent interpretations based on different ideologies and worldviews. Their analysis is very helpful, not least for unpacking some of the tensions which will necessarily be encountered by geography teachers in their efforts to negotiate (E)SD (see Table 6.1).
