Regenerative Education for the Ecological University
We now know, however, that the health of any living system is seldom tied to any single part but is dependent on both lesser and larger things. In other words, health is a systems concept that cannot be split off from the whole. — David W. Orr (Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009; 13).
This is a work-in-progress piece as part of my PhD in education and learning sciences at Wageningen University & Research in The Netherlands. This piece could be considered as a partial, early draft of the introduction. I hope you like it and any feedback is warmly appreciated. The main research question for my PhD is: How can Regenerative Education for the Ecological University be Designed and Enacted? I do this work part-time/external candidate while working as the coordinator of education for the Mission Zero centre of expertise in The Hague. I share this, as well as all the other writing I place on here, in the spirit of open science and science for social change. Please note these there are likely graphical, content, or a multitude of other errors as a result of this. Also, note that this piece is a bit more academic in nature than my normal writing on Medium. Finally, while I warmly invite anyone to read this, I do believe it will be of most interest to educators and in particular those who have an interest in the philosophy of (higher) education.
Those who know me know that I try to walk my Dao (or path) to bring together the concepts of regenerative sustainability and the ecological university. I am on this path for three reasons: (1) there are already innovation niches that are emerging in that direction even though they may not realize it yet (or do not share the radically ecological perspective required), such as the proliferation of living labs and similar education contexts. (2) I think there is much to be gained for our understanding of the purpose, roles, duties, and structures of universities in an ecological society that lives within the biophysical boundaries of the Earth. And (3) I am, selfishly, just very interested in this intersection.
Before I can do that, however, I should outline why I believe such an approach to sustainability-oriented education is necessary. Primarily, it is because the damage we are causing to the socio-ecological systems across the planet (or the socio-ecological system that is the planet), through our collective processes and actions of living, is destroying the ability of natural ecosystems to thrive. The latest IPCC report (Sixth Assessment Report, 2021) shows what many of us working in sustainability already knew, that we are unequivocally causing climate change and to a large extent, there is no going back. There is no planet B. While the worst scenario’s (going well beyond a 2C degree increase in this century) are still (potentially) preventable (this partially depends on the rapid development and use of carbon capture technologies that are mostly untested at scale), the scale of suffering (in the broadest sense to all life) that we have already caused and are likely to inflict throughout this century is unparalleled in recorded history. I do want to make a point here that not everyone, or even all nations, are as equally responsible for this crisis we find ourselves in. But all of us will in some ways be affected by it (see for example Gilbert, Sapp & Tauber, 2012 for an argument for the relationality of life) often those who contributed the least will be affected disproportionately so. At the same time, the crisis is of such a complex magnitude, of such large interrelationships, no single person, or organization can solve this challenge independently. For all of us though, it is morally unacceptable to stand by and not try to do something to prevent the worst consequences and aid actively in healing the suffering that is and will be inflicted. In this, I agree with Wals (2019), Barnett (2018) and Unesco (Berlin Declaration, 2021) that this moral responsibility extends to universities and educators as well. In this, I agree with Stein (2019) that ‘if education is not the answer you are asking the wrong question’.
The UN has declared this the decade of action (also the decade of ecosystem restoration), the last chance we have to stave off the most severe impacts of human-induced climate change. Universities hold a unique position in society that allows them to act as leverage forces in these transitional times. But to do so requires a rethinking (and more importantly a redoing) of what universities are for, for whom they are for and how we go about doing universities. There are a number of elements that make the institutions of universities within a society uniquely suited to play this active role: (1) they are involved in a number of ecologies that span multiple systemic levels (from the individual nano-scales all the way to the globalized economy and through that the biosphere). (2) they are, at least in principle, committed to facilitating learning and the generation of knowledge (in action), both of which are desperately needed to tackle the complex wicked challenges that we face. Wicked problems are hypercomplex multi-level problems that do not have any single solution and that do not have clear ownership, they can however be learned beyond (Wals, 2015; Wals, 2011; Rittel & Webber, 1973). And (3) they are, compared to other social institutions, relatively un-economical and neutral, or they could be (albeit this has been heavily weakened through the impact of late stage capitalism on educational cultures and funding). As I will argue below, this trifecta that characterize the potential of universities to be a force of justness and equitableness (towards all life), when rethought and redone, highlights the potentiality of higher education institutions to play an active role in facilitating the healing of places and selves. By facilitating learning-based place-based change based on the complex and wicked transition challenges we are facing in times of ecological crisis and by abstracting and sharing the knowledge(s) that are generated through such a praxis beyond globally. These potentialities, I am (very) happy to say, are already being enacted to varying degrees in select universities (e.g. Chambers et al., 2021). This shift, where universities connect to regional places and co-produce or co-learn to address complex sustainability challenges is increasing for both research, practice, and education (idem, Holmberg & Larsson, 2018). In a way, this could be seen as a partial answer of indigenous peoples to return to the power of place (Charles & Cajete, 2020). Where universities realize that they are biophysically and relationally nested within a specific geographical location (i.e. place), that has its own unique assemblages of culture(s), social institutions, economy, persons, and natural environment that they co-shape and that co-shapes them. Of course, these assemblages are nested in a larger web of systems and relationships. But by channeling this (largely) untapped ability to facilitate learning-based action towards more sustainable places, universities could become more world-centered (Biesta, 2021) and play their necessary role in the bumpy decades to come.
Many universities are attempting to become more sustainability- and place-oriented but are facing key challenges such as developing education that is open enough to engage with this work. This includes increases in the linkages with local places and communities to collaborate towards sustainability, but this is slowed down by ´the resistance of educators and institutions, as they are not entirely confident of this new approach´ (Sanchez-Carillo, Caradso & Tobarro, 2021). Sanchez-Carillo et al (2021) also identified structural challenges in the perceptions held within universities about their ability to change (both internally and in relation to the community). They go even further and state ‘HEIs do not encourage engagement with the community’. This is a conceptual, organizational, and personal barrier that needs to be transgressed if universities are going to play a more meaningful role in the transition towards a regenerative soceity. I for one, believe that universities can do so, or at least that innovative educator’s can do enough of it to make a difference, despite the powerful forces of economics working against them (Wals, 2019).
This redoing of education however, is a multilayered problem that will likely require collaborative action of students, teachers, administrators, and policymakers (amongst other regional actors) to actively nudge through these existing systemic barriers and drive change. The question remains however, what would such a regenerative education within an ecological university paradigm be like? An education that sets out to nurture the relationshipping between learners and a more sustainable world. That may be able to aid in addressing the complex climate challenges that we face. An education that invites intentional action (Biesta, 2021) in the face of climate change, social change, and biodiversity catastrophe. An ecological education that nurtures the appropriate participation in the healing of places and self. This is a complex question, that is impossible to be answered by a single person, from a single university. As I believe that much of the answer will in fact be contextual, temporal, embodied and embedded. I instead, focus on a particularly underresearched aspect of this more ecological form of higher education (Hueske & Guenther, 2021; Ives et al, 2020). The psychological (subjective or inner) dimensions and their entanglements with broader socio-ecological forces as mediated by education.
In a previous post, I arrived at a definition for what this regenerative education could be: an ecological approach that nurtures the appropriate participation in the healing of places and self (This is a composite result of hosting The Regenerative Education Podcast available on all major platforms, but I would like to particularly highlight the chat with Daniel Christian Wahl for this definition).
This is a heavy definition and deserves to be unpacked. To do so, I build on existing literature of three distinct building blocks to construct a cartography and metaphorical framework for regenerative education for the ecological university. Through presenting a set of preliminary and incomplete design dispositions and qualities for precisely such a regenerative education, I invite the readers to interpret the definition through their own unique contextual lenses. In subsequent posts, I will add empirical insights to work towards ‘’an answer’’ for each of the questions presented above. Or, at the very least, to move towards better questions.
1. The Ecological, World, Earth-centred University
2. Sustainability-as-Regeneration
3. The (eco)psychological
The Ecological or Earth-centred University
Gert Biesta in his latest book World-centered education (2021; 91), which I would say is an expression of what education for the Earth-centred University could be, argues ‘the world is not just there as an object for us, to put it crudely, but exists in its own right and its own integrity. The world, in other worlds, is real. And because it is real, it puts limits on what we can do with it, what we can want from it, and how we can make sense of it.’ He continues ‘It is the world that provides the demand… the key task of the teacher is to point the student to the world, to (re)direct the student’s attention to the world.’ (ibid, 99). This argument proposes a fundamental realist outlook on education (and the role of the teacher) that I would say, also call for the university to take seriously the socio-ecological boundaries of the Earth system. In other words, the world does not only place limits on how we can relate to it within our educational practice, it also places limits on what we do on this relationship. Barnett (2018) suggests that there are no less than seven ecologies by which the ecological university is impacted and on which it has an impact (or through which it relates to the world as Biesta would say). These are: learning (1), social institutions (2), persons (3), the economy (4), knowledge (5), culture(s) (6) & the natural environment (7). Where it is important to note that these are not neatly separated but messy, complex, multi-systemic and interrelated. Each continuously influencing the others and the agents involved in the educational process.
Schlaile et al (2021) propose an adapted version of the multi-level perspective, that includes the nano, micro, meso, macro, and meta-levels (Geels, 2002) and bounds the innovation ecosystem within the planetary boundaries and adds the need to engage with meta-design (Wahl, 2016). The ecological university has to discover ways to engage with the broader innovation ecosystem in which it is nested and co-evolves with that ecosystem’s in transition towards a more sustainable bio-based society (Schlaile et al, 2021). Designing interventions that have the potential to transform trajectories of worldviews, narratives, visions, and paradigms as embedded and practiced in the innovation system (or place in which the university is active) towards more sustainable ones. And that for each of these levels and ecology nexuses there are different barriers and drivers stopping or nurturing the emergence of more regenerative states (Hueske & Guenther, 2021). It is important to note that designing in the context of regenerative design is any deliberate act to change reality towards more life-affirming states (Wahl, 2016, see also next section). There is also a link here to the role of the ecological university to act as a facilitator of societal t-learning (transformative, transgressive, transcendent, transdisciplinary) conceived as a qualitative shift in consciousness beyond existing cultural boundaries and social realities (Litz-Sisitka et al., 2015; 2016; MacIntyre, 2019; Pisters, Vihinen & Figueiredo, 2019). Exploring t-learning as the type(s) of learning that we want to invite into regenerative education in these complex nexuses. Universities can do this by focusing on creating the conditions, including the relationships, that allow for t-learning towards more regenerative futures to flourish in the nested ecologies with which the university is entangled. Nurturing the conditions for these forms of relations to emerge, and through that, the learning for those involved, is in a sense the very best that universities can do, exactly because of the rhizomatic structure of this ecological unfolding (Barnett & Jackson, 2019; Braidotti, 2019a). In a way, this calls for our educational institutions to act like transgressive gardeners as Macintyre (2019) would say. Where the university tend to the fertile soils in its proximity and invites warm communities of learners to grow in balance with the cycles of the garden. This tending to fertile soil, as an approach to education, is like all education, inherently value-laden, normative, and political (Wals, 2019; Biesta, 2021) at least, its politicalness, radicalness, and even activism are laid bare for all to see.
From a relational perspective, changes in any of the systemic levels (nano, micro, meso, macro, and/or meta) can influence the other levels (West et al., 2020; Walsh et al., 2021). In other words, changes in place can lead to the emergence of changes in relationed individuals (i.e. life), communities, and meta-perspectives. And changes in relationed individuals can unfold into transformation at the ecosystemic level. This is akin to the concept of radical interconnectedness or trans-corporeality (Alaimo, 2018; part of Posthuman Glossary). Alternatively, there is dynamic coevolution across and between the seven ecologies that the ecological university is connected through, across the multiple levels of complex systems. Additionally, each individual is uniquely entangled with this constellation as well as other individual learning ecologies (Barnett, 2018; Barnett & Jackson, 2019; Taylor, 2018) in their life. I agree with Snaza et al. (2014) that we are hopelessly hybridized. This also makes the challenge that the ecological university faces, one that sees itself as embedded and nested within these different systems, and that is committed to acting with a clear normativity of sustainability-as-regeneration in just and equitable ways within these innovation ecosystems an incredibly difficult challenge to face (even a wicked one!).
This is likely a challenge that is neverending or continuously re-emerging in different systemic forms and unfolding (Wals, 2019; Barnett, 2018). Or as Strom and Martin (2013) mention ‘because we are always becoming, we cannot produce a final result because a product is never produced and a conclusion is never reached. Conclusions suggest a fixed, final state, or condition, which opposes our understanding of continuously becoming’. While they mention this in the context of a self-study within an educational context, I believe it also holds for the university and education as an entity itself. This self-understanding as an ecological, relational university also asks for different approaches to educational structures, practices, and pedagogies that nurture connecting and acting upon and through these complex relational networks. Which asks from learners (in the broadest sense) that are entangled with the university that they learn to navigate through these highly dynamic, uncertain and ambigious shifting assemblages. That the learners learn to sense opportunities to intervene in ways that could break from established destructive relational patterns towards more regenerative virtualities.
But also that as educators and educational institutions we realize that ‘we can only know things by the relations into which they enter, by the contacts they forge, and effects they are able to produce. To put it another way, we cannot predetermine or know beforehand what will materialize from the relations entered into, nor can we predetermine the relations that will be entered into’ (Snaza et al., 2014). This uncertainty and ambigouty that characterize our times is (Braidotti, 2019a; Wahl, 2016 ), in my (very) liberal reading of Gert Biesta (2021; 2014) is also fundamentally where the beautiful risk and the existential task of education comes from. Inviting this into education however, requires a large degree of openness for emergence that is quite common in living systems thinking but largely managed out of universities today as ‘inefficiency’ because of capitalist forces. Although I do see the emergence (or one could argue even the proliferation) of ‘lab-based’ education (e.g. Overdiek & Geerts, 2021; Holmberg & Larsson, 2019) in the form of living labs, field labs, challenge labs and such that act as space within which more ecological approaches to (university) education is currently being enacted as a powerful critique and counter-culture that is moving towards an ecological reality for the university. What is particularly interesting about this lab-based approach is that it seems to be (and more so annually) embraced by administrators, policymakers, citizens, and businesses as an applied form of learning-based change for transition challenges. In other words, it presents a rare (and partial) happenstance where both capitalist demand and regenerative sustainability could align for higher education.
As you can imagine, this complexity is accompanied by a large degree of uncertainty and asks for very particular design dispositions and qualities (Barnett, 2018). The project of my Ph.D. at large could be conceived as identifying what these dispositions and qualities can be within a Western European context within an ecological and regenerative ethical and moral framework. In particular, by identifying these barriers (and the leverage points/patterns that we can use to enact these, (Ives et al., 2020; Maedows, 1999)) I hope to inspire my educational colleagues to translate these into their own artful practice. To do this, I take a psycho-ecological perspective, with a focus on teachers and students learning to engage in regenerative education in formal higher education. I engage with this science (and also art I would argue (e.g. Biesta, 2021)) from an interrelated, relational worldview (West et al., 2020; Walsh et al., 2020; Capra & Luisi, 2014) through design- and practice-based research (Wahl, 2016; Irwin 2015). This form of scholarship also means that I believe that knowledge generated, even situated within this particular locale, could potentially inform broader systemic levels and practice beyond the original location. But it can never be assumed that this can be translated to other contexts in its entirety or as a certainty. This is in line with a more nomadic approach to science (e.g. Strom & Martin, 2013; Braidotti, 2019a; drawing particularly on Deleuze & Guattari) or in a sense to the multi-level approach proposed by Nicolini (2009). So by zooming deeply into the very micro (one course in a context) I aim to gain more insight into regenerative education for the ecological university as a system.
Sustainability-as-Regeneration
Regenerative sustainability emerged largely from the ecological philosophical traditions (Robinson & Cole, 2015; Wahl, 2016), and has been put in practice primarily through design studies (with a focus on the built environment) (Reed, 2007). The sustainability-as-regeneration discourse argues for a process driven, whole living system approach to disrupt and heal damaged relationships that threaten ecosystemic health (see also Wahl, 2016; 43–45). Wahl (2016) proposes that the prevalence of design for this is because design allows for the combination of theory and practice with the intention of contributing to whole systemic and planetary health. Often, as De Baro and Macedo (2020) state this regenerative work is place-focussed (such as a city or borough),but remains aware of the biophysical limits imposed by the larger biosphere (i.e. the web of life) and always engages through multi-level perspectives (e.g. Schlaile et al., 2021; Geels, 2002). This relational perspective is a necessity for this work because ‘in complex dynamic systems, any attempt to solve isolated problems without adequate consideration of their systemic context can trigger unintended side-effects and even new and often more severe problems (Wahl, 2016; 87)’. In other words, if a systemic approach is not used, one cannot appropiately participate in the healing of places and self. It is important to highlight here that many of the underpinnings of ecophilosophy and subsequently regenerative sustainability, can be traced throughout philosophical discourses in the works of process-oriented scholars (particularly from the East) as well as in many indigenuous cosmologies (e.g. Kambo, Drogemuller & Yarlagadda, 2016; Wahl, 2016). Like the ecological university, an interrelated wholeness or entanglement-as-process within innovation ecosystems and ecologies is fundamentally assumed for the regenerative sustainability paradigm. This is one of the strongest conceptual and normative overlaps between the two literatures (other overlaps include biocentric worldviews, a nomadic approach to science, and transdisciplinarity).
This is in contrast to mainstream scientific practice (today), and by extension educational practice, that sees reality as disconnected objects that can be studied independently from their embeddedness. Reed (2007) continues ‘this [the regenerative approach] is a design process that engages and focuses on the evolution of the whole of the system of which we are part. Logically, our place — community, watershed and bioregion — is the sphere in which we can participate. By engaging all the key stakeholders and processes of the place — humans, other biotic systems, earth systems, and the consciousness that connects them — the design process builds the capability of people and the ‘more than human’ participants to engage in continuous and healthy relationship through co-evolution.’ This perspective offers a clear call for more ecological education, that ought to be regenerative, to focus on acting upon a particular place through design-based interventions, while not losing sight that those actions, as well as the place, consist of and are nested in other systems. An important aspect of this regenerative sustainability (see also Plessis, 2012) is that it is a continuos unfolding renegotiation between humans, place, and more-than-human life. This sees the world as a number of complex adaptive systems that are dynamically co-evolving (Schlaile et al., 2021; De Baro & Macedo, 2020; Wals, 2019). This perspective is accompanied by a large degree of uncertainty and ambiguity that is characteristic of the grand transition challenges that we currently face (Wals, 2019). Tackling this, requires an iterative and reflexive engagement (Reed, 2007; Wahl, 2016). The inherent uncertainty and ambiguity that are characteristic of complex adaptive systems require approaches that can help us navigate through these difficulties. Design-based approaches are particularly useful here as Wahl (2016; 125) argues that ‘sustainability[-as-regeneration] is a process of co-evolution and co-design that involves diverse communities in making flexible and adaptable design decisions on local, regional, and global scales [emphasis added]’. While we should be aware of the ‘limit to the extend to which we can design our future in the face of complexity and uncertainty (Wahl, 2016; 123)’ design constructed in the participatory manner above does provide a potentially powerful way of intervening in experimental, iterative and reflexive ways as we face the bumpy decades of climate change ahead of us (IPCC, 2021).
As temporary expressions of life, our ability to thrive as a species is nested upon the health of the larger web of life (Wahl, 2016; Mang & Reed, 2012; Buzzell, 2009). In other words, there is an inherent interdependence between Planetery health and Human Health. Or as Plessis (2012) argues there is a need for realigning human nature with the rest of nature in the way we are and act in the world. To live in balance with nature as temporal expressions of life it instead of fighting a war against life. In a similar line, Gibbons (2020) argues for a regenerative sustainability that moves beyond ‘improving human well-being within environmental limits to catalyzing thriving social-ecological communities (i.e., living systems) across scales’. This raises an important question, which has both existential and educational (I agree with Biesta (2021) that the best educational questions are necessarily also existential) qualities that has also been posed by Wahl (2016; 32): ‘So, are we worth sustaining?’. This question asks nothing less from us than to mature as a species, to change we way we live, are, and interbe with all of life.
This question also implies that an actually committed ecological university takes seriously the need to transform how we live and organize society to be within ‘a safe operating space for humanity’ (Rockström et al., 2009) as both rich and meaningful context for education for learning and as outcome. In fact, I would argue it asks nothing less than co-creating such a safe operating space for life as both the context and outcome of the ecological university. Hope is one of the key design dispositions for the regenerative sustainability paraidm (Kambo et al., 2016). As the regenerative paradigm leaves from an hopeful stance (‘change towards a more balanced future is possible’) so to must the ecological university engage with places from a stance of hope. This is not to say, that this hope ought to be naive, but rather of the critical-creative kind argued for by Braidotti (2019a).
To act on this hopeful stance, however, requires requires a place-based approach largely for pragmatic arguments outlined in literature (Reed, 2007; Mang and Reed, 2012; Gibbons, 2020). Within a place, all seven of the ecologies of the ecological university interact and education could be focussed on identifying leverage points (Maedows, 1999; Plessis & Cole, 2011, Ives et al., 2020) that could lead towards more regenerative futures. It is paramount, however, that when one engages with regenerative action, the connections with what is done and lived within the place of action (a specific geography close to the university) is always influenced by and influences places beyond the specific one engaged with. And that this larger embeddedment within the whole Earth also impose limits to the maximal carrying capacity of any locale. (e.g. Raworth, 2019, see also the IPCC2021). I agree with Barnett (2018), Barnett and Jackson (2019), Wals (2019) and Biesta (2021) that the ecological university has a responsibility to help in the healing, through education as seen as the appropriate participation in that healing of places and selves, of the surrounding innovation ecosystems around the university. I add that doing this through a regenerative sustainability paradigm could provide clearer and actionable insights into how to engage in these relational forms of learning more effectively.
The (eco)psychological
Only by taking responsibility for the Earth can we truly reconnect to it- and with ourselves — Larry Robinson, 2009; 29.
Fisher (2013; 187) defines ecopsychology ‘as a psychological intervention aimed at contributing to the transformation of society by encouraging or providing for the recovery of our nature and our experience, for the regaining of lost world-relations and life-meanings’. Ecopsychology is an emerging field heavily inspired by ecological philosophy and the psychological sciences that examine the psyche through the relationships between self and ecology, or the psyche and its entanglement in the more-than-human world (idem). Often, this is done in relation to particular places and the embodied relationships people have with the matters within places (Sampson, 2012). This focus on place is particularly powerful as it is a natural focus for the already emerging praxis of lab-based education as mentioned before and ‘as human beings we have a need for place. Without this, we feel lost, alone, and aliented. The world also needs us to belong to it, since it is only when we inhabit a place that we care for it and assume responsibility for it’ (Robinson, 2009; 29). It is important to note that I identify the place as the systemic level that corresponds with meso in the framework proposed by Schaile et al. (2021), itself an extension of the three-layer systems levels proposed by Geels (2002). It is, of course, possible to make the concept of place as small or large as one wants so in my understanding I use the following geographical descriptions of the systemic levels:
- Nano = individuals
- Micro = the educational community
- Meso = the place in which the education is based
- Macro = anything outside of that place
- Meta = the underlying assumptions and beliefs about reality of the involved context and culture(s).
Ecopsychology emerged as a critique on the dualistic split assumed in mainstream psychology (and much of the social sciences) of mind and nature, humans and other animals, and starts from the fundamental assumption (shared across all three building blocks) that we are in fact, part of and dependent upon the larger web-of-life. The field sets out to restore this ecological consciousness (or self-realization of deep connectedness with all things) in a reality that has mercilessly destroyed this connection. This also implies that the duality between inner and outer selves is one of the core challenges that ecopsychology aims to heal (see also Ives et al., 2020). Fisher (2013, p: 18) goes as far as to say ‘through a process of psychospiritual growth that one will become motivated to develop an ecocentric lifestyle and participate in actions such as the direct defense of threatened wilderness areas’. From the perspective of an ecologically informed university, the question then becomes what are the conditions conducive to nurturing these processes of psychospiritual growth (Wals, 2019). For this, the ecopsychologists draw heavily on the work of phenomenology and the focus on experience, where the self could be seen as a dynamic assemblage that is continuous ‘becoming-with-the-world’ as we continuously become more capable of acting in life-affirming ways (See also Haraway, 2016; Abrams, 1996). I would like to stress here that this entangled becoming does not replace a subjective ‘I’ (and thereby rendering regenerative education non-existential Biesta, 2021) but that the way the ‘I’ that is being educated is perceived in a more entangled and relational manner. Seen from a fundamental interconnectedness between self and the world(s). Or as a relational phenomenon that is inherently entangled, nested, and mediated by society, technology, culture, politics, and nature. Through this entangled, and radically ecological commitment to fostering caring for others, particularly more-than-human life, I feel comfortable ‘placing’ the regenerative education firmly within the critical posthumanities (Braidotti, 2019b; Taylor, 2018). Through the reconciliation of ‘becoming-with-the-world’, the field engages with the trauma, grief, hurt (as well as the positive psychological aspects) of the destructive relationships between humanity and the rest of the natural world (and thus also our own ability to be fully human) in times of great transition and destructive capitalism. Practitioners can (and should) help others realize their interdependence and co-responsibility in this widespread destruction of life through a process of reconciliation with Nature (as well their own human nature) (Roszak, 2009; 31).
Fisher (2013) argues there are two main requirements for ecopsychology: (1) to offer support in resisting, opposing, and/or transforming practices, systems, and processes that are life-destroying. This could for example be learning how to live with the grief, as well as the feelings of our contributions to the ‘pain’ experienced by forests destroyed in wildfires, like those that have ravaged most of Southen Europe, Siberia, and North America this summer. And (2) that it actively revives and or helps in the construction of new practices, systems, and/or processes that are life-affirming (healing). Which I would make the case, could be achieved through a life-informed regenerative education. In this, there is a not-so-subtle radicalness to resist and transgress existing customs that endanger the health of the Whole Earth now or in the future. A radicalness that I myself, as well as the other building blocks of regenerative education share. Ecopsychology additionally offers insights into how to help people to act in more ecological ways in psychologically informed manners. These insights can inform the support that is required for regenerative education and must be taken up by educators as part of our ethic of care of working in this radical way.
Fisher (2012: 74) ‘if your world is not a place in which our trust and faith can flourish, then the need for security and control wins out over the need for open contact and growth. Our adjustments then include finding patterns of living that seem to work best, all things considered, and sticking to them for the relative safety or comfort they provide. We stop being a process…’ This perspective links strongly to Kaufman’s (2020) updating of Maslow’s work on the balance between security and growth for self-actualization and transcendence. Humanistic psychology sees humans as in a constant state of becoming, emerging, or unfolding (Fisher, 2012; 92). Or as a continuous process of self-realization towards becoming more fully human. This notion was traditionally disjointed from the ecosystems of which these individuals are an expression and they act upon. While Kaufman takes a more humanistic approach to psychology, if read through an ecological lens (reading self-transcendence precisely as ‘becoming-with-the-world’ or what Arne Naess would call the ecological self), one could make the argument that a key concern for regenerative education should be to construct learning environments that are secure enough to nurture growth (or ‘becoming-with-the-world’) (Wals, 2019; Kaufman, 2020). This then also implies that there is an indivisible unity between healing an Earthly place and a self and that both force limits and burdens on the other in this co-evolutionary unfolding (with the socio-ecological planetary boundaries representing these for the Earth and psychological boundaries for the individual). This balancing (or dialogue between acting to change ecologies and self) act is itself, a process, that requires continuous engagement and adaptability from the educator (Van den Berg et al, upcoming) and could be seen as part of the art of being an ecological professional (Barnett, 2018) or a mature fully human (Kaufman, 2020; Biesta, 2021).
I argue that this relating, by connecting to and acting on making a place more regenerative, could be seen as the expansion of the relational self or as self-transcendence towards an entangled ecological self. Increasingly becoming more able to be in service to life (and through it to understand the difference that makes a difference in one self) (Fisher, 2013; 119). However, if the required conditions for the emergence of these processes and relationships are not nurtured, personal change in the regenerative sense (and hence ecological) becomes obstructed or even impossible. It is precisely in the security of these fertile soils, that transformation of places and self is a virtual potentiality. But acting within such a system, challenging or even transgressing introjected social norms (such as existing systems and practices) invites a great deal of (relational) risk. That puts our sense of self-belonging and love at risk (Fisher, 2013: 76; Kaufman, 2020). This implies that for regenerative education, asking learners to purposively engage in this process of (relational) risktaking, comes with a responsibility for care and protection (Wals, 2019; 2015). Above all, this means that this proposed form of education is emotionally heavy for all those involved which is difficult for many parts of the current university system (in the Netherlands and likely beyond) as well as lecturers, professionals, and professors to engage with in meaningful and healing ways. Either because of emotional immaturity, perceptions on what should be invited into educational spaces, or a lack of resources (particularly time due to existing systemic pressures to produce).
Andy Fisher (2013) highlights that there are four interrelated tasks for ecopsychology: the psychological, the philosophical, the practical, and the critical. In the next section, these tasks are combined with the seven ecologies identified by Barnett (2018), as well as the normativity of regeneration (Reeds, 2012; Wahl, 2016) to construct a theoretical and metaphorical framework. While identification of these four tasks for each of the ecologies identified is beyond the scope of this piece (or even a book/PhD), the framework does provide a way to conceptualize regenerative education for the ecological university in times of transitions. And hopefully provides an anchor for practitioners to rethink and redo their own educational practice.
Regenerative Education for the Ecological University
I follow Biesta’s (2021) notion of education as a form of intentional action. This does not, however, make clear what intentional action it is that regenerative education for the ecological university aims to take. Returning to the definition of regenerative education as an ecological approach that nurtures the appropriate participation in the healing of places and self. The intentional action set out by this form of education is then quite simply, to aid in the healing of a globally dysfunctional system (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015; Wals, 2015; UNESCO, 2021). However, this is done grounded in a particular place, in a particular context, with particular people(s) and more-than-human life as a pragmatic limitation. This form of education then propositions that (A) the university can play an intentional active part in this healing process and (B) that doing so has educational value, i.e. that it results in further qualification, subjectification, and/or socialisation towards more life-affirming self-realization (see Biesta’s extensive works on these three core elements of education). It is important to add here, that I do not believe that all education offered by an ecological university has to be as transgressive as that cartographed in this essay or that traditional lecturing of subjects such as advanced calculus should be given up. I am making a case for a more balanced approach to university education that takes seriously the embedded and relationality of the wicked challenges of our times as part of its praxis. See also:
To do this, I follow Macintyre’s (2019) arguments that the educator’s task for regenerative education is more akin to a gardener that tends (designs and enacts) the conditions conducive for learners to flourish in such an experience (Wahl, 2021, personal correspondence). Or to tend to the conditions that allow learners to engage with a ‘hermeneutic sense-making journey’ (Fisher, 2013; 121) in service of life in a place within a community-based framework of safety and belonging (Kaufman, 2020). Or as Biesta (2021) says: to point to a place that is in need of healing [which are common in times of global dysfunction] and ask the question ‘Hey, you, where are you?’. I have already tried to outline some of the design dispositions and elements for regenerative education for the ecological university in the cartography above. It is important to highlight that the definition, particularly the appropriate participation aspect. Implies that how regenerative education is brought into practice is both an individual and contextually dependent entangled affair (one could even say mess).
Even within the same course and place, each of us brings a plethora of experiences, interpretative modes, and learnings with us that color the way we interact with and interpret the world. What may be the appropriate way to act for learner A, may be wholly inappropriate for learner B (See also Barnett & Jackson, 2019 for an overview of these differences). This contextualized and individualized nature also implies that assessment within such an educational framework is necessarily process-oriented, tailored, and context-dependent, which is a significant barrier for many higher education policies and perspectives. Secondly, healing (and regeneration) could be perceived as going-back-to-something-that-has-been-lost. I want to be very clear that this is not necessarily about going back to what once was as some sort of conservative nostalgia. Seeing this form of healing as an active and unfolding process that moves ever towards new constellations of potentiality within the social and ecological boundaries imposed by the very real boundaries of the Earth. At the same time, this also doesn’t exclude the possibility of learning from or bringing back elements that once were. In other words, we can draw from histories, both large and small, in formulating the potential and plausible directions that can be taken for a particular place and moment. Going back to a previous state, however, is by the very nature of how we experience time, impossible.
Regenerative education is, by its dedicated normativity towards life, deeply ecological and inherently radical. In this way, eshews traditional dichotomies and acts both critical and creative (Braidotti, 2019b; Wals, 2019) and actively intervenes towards more sustainability-oriented societies. This necessarily, by its very nature, asks for transformative or even transgressive forms of learning (psychological, social and ecological) (Litz-Sisitka et al., 2015). To help shape ‘the contexts that will help people recover their own nature and experience. This means, furthermore, being respectful of the position from which each person might begin such a recovery’ (Fisher, 2013; 182). This is (partially) in line with the educational writings of John Dewey (1895; Quoted in Biesta, 2021) who argues strongly for shaping the social, biophysical, and psychological contexts of learning. It is important however, to note that Dewey had humanist leanings which the regenerative education approach aims to transgress. I say partially because I agree with Biesta (idem) that this should include the invitation of subjectification, or the open invitation to join in becoming-with-the-world and all of the self-transformation risks that this involves.
To balance this growing and collapsing spiral, the educator has to ensure the context and community remain above the so-called healing threshold (Fisher, 2013). The threshold above which this healing of places and self remains possible or the threshold of social action and personal transformation (as a dialectic between inner and outer work in service of life, the extension of with leads to greater self-realization as ecological professional (Barnett, 2018)) without exceeding any of these so far that the security of the experience is lost (Kaufman, 2020). This carries a duty and care to include a diversity of voices, including those normally marginalized or oppressed such as those of women, minorities, and more-than-humans (the writings of bell hooks, Paulo Freire, and Nel Noddings are particular insightful for this duty of care). This careful consideration, and active inclusion of voices normally othered, is essential if interrelated socio-ecological crises are to be tackled with regenerative education. As a white man myself, this can be very confronting, actively thinking about your own privileges and prejudices, or even actively challenging them, is difficult. Especially when you are in the position of power to be able to not engage with them. But questions of justice, equity, and power are equally relevant and interrelated for regeneration as questions of biodiversity, water pollution, or energy consumption. This critical-creative task, or perspective, is thus essential to actually heal the whole Earth and not replace one form of oppression for another. And I would argue, represents a self-transformation challenge for many currently practicing educators that could stand in the way of designing and enacting such an ecological education.
To paraphrase Fisher (2013; 208) ‘here the role of the educator becomes that of a convener, a witness, a coparticipant, a mirror, and a holder of faith for a process through which those who have been silenced may discover their capacities for… critical analysis, utopian imagination, and transformative social action.’ This is in line with his earlier arguments for replacing therapists with Elders (2009; 64). Macintyre (2019) would call this the role of a transgressive gardener that facilitates the regeneration of communities. This approach, when translated to the ecological university, requires an action-oriented, empowering, critical-, and creative form of engagement through education to facilitate societal change. Taylor (2018) argues for an approach to higher educational ‘pedagogy and research as adventures in the intensification of relational potential is, then, to reconceptualize higher education as a transversal practice of mattering, a practice which, on the one hand, is undergirded by an appeal to zoe, to life, in which the vibrant capacity for flourishing is opened and, on the other, offers participants ‘arenas in which to gather, arenas constituted by porous membranes so that any ‘we’ which emerges has expansive potential to include all manner of in/non/human life’ before going on to argue that such a bold vision is perhaps impossible within current university practice. I would argue that the proliferation of lab-based approaches to place-based education (e.g. Holmberg & Larson, 2018; Overdiek & Geerts, 2021) could be considered an early sign (or niche innovations) of precisely such a regenerative vision of what higher education could be, when taken the responsibility of the university as an embedded and connected agent seriously. Designing and enacting regenerative education thus poses a multi-headed challenge for educators in the current (western) educational paradigm. 1. You have to partially figure out what it means to educate regeneratively in your unique place and institution. And 2. you have to navigate the numerous boundaries imposed on you by your own psyche, your institution, and outside forces when doing so. I think it is fair to say this calls for a significant amount of courage (maybe even a stupendous amount) and openness (both for you, the institution, and place). Indeed, one of the key factors identified through my empirical work so far is that the right supportive system of administrators or managers in an institution can make a massive difference to the flourishing of regenerative education initiatives in universities (in Europe).
I would argue that one major element of regenerative education for the ecological university is the importance of connection and community, as essential for safety and as a prerequisite to reconnecting with life. As Anderson (2009; 59) state ‘confronting the overwhelming reality with open eyes is to glimpse the apocalypse’ Edwards & Buzzell (2009; 123) continue ‘few of us are eager to contemplate, let alone truly face, these looming threats’ and Wals (2015) argues that exposing learners to the catastrophe of our times without providing the support for them to take emancipatory action is a form of cruelty. A possible way to nurture such a community could be through the inclusion of wilderness rites, camping, or alternative forms of high-intensity community-building activities (Fisher, 2013; 187). This, for obvious reasons, presents a challenge towards current higher educational practice, not least of which for the additional resources required (campsite, materials, guides, transportation, visa, health and safety requirements) but even one-day excursions could be organized as powerful interventions near the beginning of a regenerative education course. In my own practice, this consists of 3 days in natural areas as well as excursions to each of the specific places we will be working with throughout the course. It is important to note that many smaller bachelor and master programmes do have some type of multi-day camping-like event to start of the study programme. Alternatively (or additionally) the learners could also be invited to develop their own practices for personal regeneration to take with them beyond the boundaries a single course.
In addition to the importance of building community and a sense of belonging, a key element of regenerative education and one that is particularly transgressive of current practice in higher education is that the duty of care extends to all life (or that it is life/world-centered education instead of student-, learner- or teacher-centered education, Biesta, 2021). This means, that while it focusses on interacting and creating changes in places, its allegiance is not necessarily to the dominant powers that currently claim that place (it also doesn’t mean it necessarily goes against these powers), to the students (and broader the learners in the ecology of learning), or even humanity itself involved in this act of healing. This also means there is potential for (multi-level and multi-species) conflict, but as Fisher (2013; 36) points out ‘[this conflict] or debate is not ruled out but rather turned to advantage — to revealing prejudices, overcoming misunderstandings, and finding more common ground’ Fisher (2013, p 36) which could be rich learning contexts for transformation or even transgression (Litz-Sisitka et al., 2015). This does not mean, however, that there is no duty of care towards any of humans involved in this process, only that the higher ethical obligation lies with life (or the Whole Earth) itself.
In this essay I have tried to bring together some of the elements that are required for this cartography of regenerative education for the ecological university. Fully aware that this cartography is necessarily limited and warmly inviting others to build on or adjust it. It is important to add that this cartography, only highlights the educational design dispositions and qualities through which relationships can emerge. Perhaps more importantly, the different relationships from which pain points and barriers can arise and be identified. The question remains, however, how can we design regenerative education, including its structures, processes, and pedagogies? For this, the distinction offered by Barnett (2018) of design dispositions and qualities, where the latter are contextually dependent design elements and the former are universal elements for this type of education, is particularly useful. In this, many practitioners are leading the way, often hidden in large universities. In the next essay, I will add to this literature-informed cartography by mapping out the design dispositions and qualities that emerged from the The Regenerative Education Podcast. So while it is too early to identify all of the educational design elements, the following can be identified:
Political (critical): transformative, transgressive, inclusive, diverse, exposing pain/oppression/othering, activist, creative-critical. open and inviting of alternative perspectives ,values and opinions.
Practical: place-based, sustainability-as-regeneration , healing of place, beacon/pedadogy of (critical) hope and alternatives, in service of life, future-oriented, open/fluid, adaptive, contextual, emergent. community-based pedagogies, design-based, partial, uncertain, ambigious.
Psychological: transformative, service, ecological consciousness, healing of self (trauma, grief, pain, frustration), empowering, dealing with uncertainty, security, courage.
Philosophical: phenomenological/experiential, relational, bio/life centric, realist, ecological, critically posthuman, process-ontological, life-centered, epistemological openness/humbleness, transdisciplinary.
It is important to note that these design elements (both dispositions and qualities) ought not to be seen as fixed or a shopping list, but as early design insights the balance of which will have to be continously (re)discovered for every course and university. Due to this complexity, as well as the ‘moving target’ perspective of regenerative sustainability itself. I personally prefer a metaphorical framework for thinking about and bringing these design elements into practice. A particularly powerful one for this is that of a sailing journey. As this involves interacting with the environment, more-than-human life, community, and uncertainty and unpredictability. I may, as an educator prepare the ship and help the crew get ready. But as soon as we take off on the actual journey, there is no way of knowing what storms we may face or where we may drift. Going on such a journey is not without risk, becoming-with-the-world means we also have to be willing to risk who we are for who we could be becoming (Biesta, 2021). Perhaps, the more important question is, what will we no longer be able to become if we do not engage with these sailing journeys now, in the decade of action?
For the institutionalized powers that are, inviting this openness for such a regenerative approach is threatening. For a human, this can be terrifying. For an educator, this is an invigorating frontier. Throughout my educational scholarship, I do purposively not provide blueprints or guidelines because I do not believe it would be possible to do that and do justice to the uniqueness of place that you are working with. I completely agree with Biesta (2021; vii) that education ‘is a thoroughly practical art… the point of educational scholarship is not to tell educators what they should do, but to provide them with the resources that may inform their [own] educational artistry’. So what I will do instead is show you how I construct my boat, navigate the journey, and brace for the storms. By doing this, I hope to provide you with the resources that may inform your own artistry. And warmly invite you to raise your anchors and set out your sails.
This metaphorical framework can be used effectively to explore what regenerative education for your ecological university could be like. In the rest of my doctoral research I will focus on the following questions with the aim of providing more suitable resources for other practitioner-researchers to engage with this work.
- What are the design dispositions and elements of regenerative education for the ecological university?
- What (systemic) barriers & drivers are experienced when designing and enacting such education?
- How are these navigated in practice by educators?
- And students?
It goes without saying, I am quite excited to explore these questions. I do this through two distinct empirical lines: The Regenerative Education Podcast launching on all major platforms Today at 15:00 CEST on the 29th of August, 2021. And by designing and enacting such a regenerative education myself in The Hague, The Netherlands over a three-year period. If you liked this post, feel free to reach out or follow the updates. The next post is likely going to present the results and approaches used for the podcast-based study. I will also frequently post experience-based updates on the experimental course we are running in The Hague called Mission Impact.
References
Anderson, R.B. (2009). Resisting the Juggernaut: The Wild Frontier of Ecopsychology. Part Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C’s Ecotherapy — Healing with Nature in Mind. Counterpoint Berkeley.
Biesta, G. World-Centred Education: A View for the Present. Routledge. ISBN: 978–03675-65527.
Biesta, G. (2014). The Beautiful Risk of Education. Routledge 9781612050270.
Braidotti, R. (2019b). Posthuman Knowledge. Polity Publishing. First Edition. 978–1509535262.
Buzzell, L. (2009). Asking Different Questions: Therapy for the Human Animal. Part of Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C’s Ecotherapy — Healing with Nature in Mind. Counterpoint Berkeley.
Edwards, S.A., & Buzzell, L. (2009). The Waking-up Syndrome. Part Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C’s Ecotherapy — Healing with Nature in Mind. Counterpoint Berkeley.
de Baro, M.E.Z. & Macedo, J. (2020) The Role of Regenerative Design and Biophilic Urbanism in Regional Sustainability. The Case of Curitiba. Published in Fanfani, D., & Matarán Ruiz, A. (Eds.). (2020). Bioregional Planning and Design: Volume II. doi:10.1007/978–3–030–46083–9.
Fisher, A. 2009. Ecopsychology as Radical Praxis. Part Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C’s Ecotherapy — Healing with Nature in Mind. Counterpoint Berkeley.
Haraway, D.J. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. 978–0–8223–7378–0. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822373780.
IPCC (2021). Sixth Assessment Report.
Maedows, D., (1999). Leverage Points Places to Intervene in a System. Sustainability Institute.
Overdiek, A. Geerts, H. 2021. Innoveren in Labs, Hoe doe je dat? 9789083078007.
Robinson, L. (2009). Psychotherapy as if the World Mattered. Part Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C’s Ecotherapy — Healing with Nature in Mind. Counterpoint Berkeley.
Rockström et al., (2009). A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature. 461, 472–475.
Roszak, T. (2009). A Psyche as Big as the Earth. Part of Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C’s Ecotherapy — Healing with Nature in Mind. Counterpoint Berkeley.
Stein, Z. (2019). If Education is not the Answer you are Asking the Wrong Question. Perspectiva. Available on: If education is not the answer you are asking the wrong question (zakstein.org).
UNESCO. (2021). Berlin Declaration on Education for Sustainable Development.
Wahl, D.C., (2016). Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press. 978–1–909470–77–4.
