Introduction
At least since the mid-1990s, environmental education researchers have challenged the anthropocentrism and humanism of the field with their compelling portrayals of animals as subjects in a wide array of educational settings, including classrooms and informal spaces (e.g., Bell & Russell, 1999, 2000; Fawcett, 2000, 2002, 2005; Pedersen, 2004; Russell, 2000, 2005; Russell & Ankenman, 1996; Russell & Bell, 1996; Russell & Hodson, 2002). Published during the early stages of what is now referred to as the âanimal turnâ in the humanities and social sciences, this scholarship, as well as research in animal cognitive science, anthropology, ethology , geography, history, philosophy, political science, sociology, and other disciplines sparked a flurry of interest in developing curricula and pedagogy that address human understandings of and ethical/moral obligations to animals (e.g., DeMello, 2010; Rice & Rud, 2015). Although anthropocentric and humanist paradigms still dominate some environmental education research and practice (Fawcett, 2013; Spannring, 2017), a groundswell of contemporary scholarship, drawing on diverse theoretical perspectives in critical animal studies, critical disability studies, decolonization , fat studies, feminism and ecofeminism , humane education, Indigenous thought, postcolonialism, posthumanism , and queer studies, has begun to transform the field in significant ways (e.g., Affifi, 2011; Andrzejewski, Pedersen, & Wicklund, 2009; Boileau & Russell, 2018; Corman & VandrovcovĂĄ, 2014; Fawcett, 2013, 2014; Humes, 2008; Kahn, 2003, 2008, 2011; Kahn & Humes, 2009; Lindgren & Ăhman, 2018; Lloro-Bidart, 2015, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d; Lloro-Bidart & Russell, 2017; Lukasik, 2013; Lupinacci & Happel-Parkins, 2016; Malone, 2016; Nxumalo & Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2017; Oakley, 2009, 2013; Oakley et al., 2010; Pacini-Ketchabaw & Nxumalo, 2015; Pacini-Ketchabaw, Taylor, & Blaise, 2016; Pedersen, 2010; Rautio, Hohti, Leinonen, & Tammi, 2017; Rice, 2013; Rowe & Rocha, 2015; Russell & Fawcett, 2013; Russell & Semenko, 2016; Russell, 2017; Spannring, 2017; Spannring & GruĹĄovnik, 2018; Taylor, 2017; Timmerman & Ostertag, 2011).1 Here, we briefly review the influence of the animal turn on environmental education to situate the current volumesâ contribution to the field. To conclude, we briefly summarize the chapters, highlighting the significance of each for curriculum and pedagogy in environmental education.
Animal Subjecthood
Many animal-focused environmental education researchers work to capture animals as subjects rather than objects in research and practice. Although the field has consistently shed light on significant environmental issues affecting humans and animals alike, prior to the âanimal turnâ (Oakley et al., 2010), animals problematically figured as passive recipients of human action in most environmental education research. Reflecting wider historical trends in the humanities and social sciences, which Henry Buller notes, âlong ago gave up the animal to the natural sciences and their distinctive mechanistic and observational methods,â educational researchers tended to focus their attention on social (i.e., human ) actors, relegating animals and the rest of nature to the realm of âobjects or representations within and defined by human social practiceâ (2015, p. 375; also see Bell & Russell, 2000; Snaza, 2015). More than a decade ago, Connie Russell noted, for example, that even critical environmental education researchers were âmostly silent about anthropocentrismâ (2005, p. 434). Drawing on the work of feminist science studies scholar Donna Haraway and other feminists, Russell (2005) moved to contest this anthropocentrism by boldly suggesting that humans not only âco-constructâ the world with each other, but also with ânature,â including animals. Although Russell (2005) primarily drew on critical animal studies, humane education, and feminist perspectives in order to explore and highlight animal subjecthood in her own research and teaching, environmental education researchers working from various other perspectives have sought to do the same.
Most recently, strands of posthumanism or new materialism (along with feminist renditions of each) have significantly influenced how scholars conceptualize animal agency and subjecthood in research and practice. Although neither posthumanism nor new materialism represents an easily defined or monolithic position, they share an explicit rejection of anthropocentrism and humanism (Cudworth & Hobden, 2015; Lloro-Bidart, 2018b, 2018d; Snaza, 2015) much like the diverse Indigenous cosmologies and philosophies that also influence the field (Battiste, 2002; Pacini-Ketchabaw & Nxumalo, 2015; Tuck, McKenzie, & McCoy, 2014). In their study of the raccoons, children, and educators that share a childcare center on Canadaâs west coast, for example, Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw and Fikile Nxumalo draw on a âcommon worldâ theoretical and methodological approach informed by posthumanism , decolonization , and Indigenous thought to undo nature/culture dualisms and capture the subjecthood of raccoons:
As Pacini-Ketchabaw and Nxumalo (2015) vividly illustrate here by depicting raccoons as vibrant, acting beings who co-shape childcare playgrounds and classrooms, contemporary animal-focused education scholarship remains attuned to animal action, agency, and subjectivity , challenging what were once fixed ontological borders between humans and nonhumans . Although scholars approach these questions from differing methodological and theoretical positions, they are united in a commitment to decenter what Nathan Snaza refers to as educationâs âdiscerned humanâ (2015, p. 19).The raccoons who live in the childcare complex cross nature/culture and human/nonhuman boundaries in several interrelated ways. First, they spatially cross the nature/culture divide. Refusing to keep to themselves in the wild, they make incursions into human territories. They enter the childcare playgrounds, barge into classrooms through open doors and windows, and make dens in the centreâs storage shedsâŚthe second divide that the raccoons cross is ontologicalâa gap between the civilized human world and the uncivilized animal world. (2015, pp. 155â156, authorsâ italics)
Politicizing Animals and Educational Contexts
The acknowledgment that educational contexts are inherently political is rooted in the work of critical pedagogues, activists, and scholars like Concha Delgado Gaitan, Cynthia Dillard, Paolo Freire, and Henry Giroux. Yet Aristotleâs famous proclamation âThat man [sic] is much more a political animal than any kind of bee or any herd animal is clearâ (1984/2013, p. 4) still pervades much educational research. That is, while many humans are conceptualized as political actors in politicized contexts, animals largely remain on the margins (Bell & Russell, 1999; Russell & Fawcett, 2013), with their concerns and interests sidelined as superfluous to those of human beings. Animal-focused educators, however, have begun to mount a significant challenge to such decidedly anthropocentric and humanist perspectives, explicitly recognizing that the macro and micro political contexts of education affect animals (and humans ) in profound ways. Two decades ago, for example, Russell and Anne Bell drew on ecofeminism to note, âThe contexts of our endeavoursânot only ecological, but also cultural, political, and, of course, pedagogical , must be taken into accountâŚto work toward building healthy relationships with [our] local communities âhuman and nonhumanâ (1996, p. 9). Soon after, critical ...