II. Critical Ecoliteracy PDF

CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: Rita Julia Turner
Degree and Date to be Conferred: Ph.D., 2011
Education:
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2007-2011

Ph.D., Language, Literacy, and Culture, 2011
Dissertation Committee: Joby Taylor (co-chair), Christine Mallinson (co-chair), Bev Bickel,
Mary Rivkin, Ed Orser
Johns Hopkins University, 2005-2007

M.L.A., Liberal Arts, 2007
College of the Atlantic, 1997-2001

B.A., Human Ecology, 2001
Glenelg High School, 1993-1997
Professional Positions:
Lecturer, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 2010-
Graduate Assistant, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 2008-2011
Teacher, Secondary English, Forest Park High School, Baltimore City Public School System,
2001-2003
Writing Tutor, College of the Atlantic Writing Center, 2000-2001
Teaching Assistant, College of the Atlantic, 2000-2001
National Director, Sierra Student Coalition, 1998-1999
Publications:
Turner, R. (2010). Discourses of Consumption in US-American Culture. Sustainability 2(7):

2279-2301.
Turner, R. (2010). Review of Everyday Ethics and Social Change: The Education of Desire
(2009) by Anna Peterson. Environmental Ethics 32(4): 421-424.
Turner, R. (2010). “Classroom Discourse through Many Lenses: Applying Theories of

Discourse Analysis to the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Practices.” Review of
Discourse Analysis in Classrooms (2008) by David Bloome, Stephanie Power Carter, Beth
Morton Christian, Samara Madrid, Sheila Otto, Nora Shuart-Faris, and Mandy Smith.
American Speech 85(2): 256-260.
Turner, R. (2009). The Discursive Construction of Anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics

31: 183-201.
Presentations:
Turner, R. (2011). “Teaching Zoosemiotics: Discourse about and Representations of Animals

and the Nonhuman World in College Humanities Classrooms.” Zoosemiotics and Animal
Representations. Tartu, Estonia. April.
Nusinov, V., & Turner, R. (2010). “Integrating Language Awareness into Interdisciplinary
Instruction.” American Dialect Society. Baltimore, MD. January.
ABSTRACT
Title of Document: CRITICAL ECOLITERACY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY

SECONDARY AND POST-SECONDARY HUMANITIES
CURRICULUM TO CULTIVATE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS
Rita Julia Turner, Ph.D., 2011
Directed By: Dr. Christine Mallinson

Language, Literacy, and Culture Program
and
Dr. Joby Taylor
Language, Literacy, and Culture Program
I argue that contemporary struggles with sustainability must be addressed from the
perspective of critical cultural analysis that identifies attitudes and behaviors as rooted in
specific worldviews, narratives, metaphors, and belief systems, and that challenges and re-
envisions these structures of thought in order to reformulate new alternative conceptual
frameworks for positive interaction with the more-than-human world. I define this pursuit of
critical cultural reflection and creative conceptual transformation as critical ecoliteracy, and I
propose the incorporation of its goals and practices into educational curricula in secondary
and post-secondary humanities classrooms. I outline a list of conceptual resources that I
consider essential for engaging in critical ecoliteracy and for developing an approach to the
world that values and considers the full, interconnected community of life in our global
ecosystem. These skills and capacities include the practice of empathy; an understanding and
appreciation of ecological and relational interdependence; ethical consciousness; an
awareness of local and global socio-environmental systems and problems; critical awareness
of the role that language and discourse play in shaping attitudes and behaviors; knowledge of
the varying worldviews and belief systems of different cultures; a capacity for imagining
creative alternative future paths; and a sense of agency to enact change. I encourage the
development of critical ecoliteracy curriculum materials that cultivate this set of capacities. I
next describe pedagogical strategies I recommend employing when applying critical
ecoliteracy materials in school settings, and I offer my own model critical ecoliteracy
curriculum as an example of these goals and approaches. In order to assess the potential
value of such a curriculum, I test my materials in classrooms by teaching them myself and by
asking a volunteer teacher to use them. I then analyze student writing, survey results, and
teacher feedback in order to gauge the effect of the curriculum materials on student thinking.
Using qualitative content analysis, I explore the patterns of reactions presented by students in
response to the materials, and I draw conclusions as to how effective the model curriculum
may be at achieving the goals of critical ecoliteracy that I have outlined.
CRITICAL ECOLITERACY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SECONDARY AND POST-
SECONDARY HUMANITIES CURRICULUM TO CULTIVATE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS
by
Rita Julia Turner
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Maryland, Baltimore County, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2011
UMI Number: 3491010
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3491010
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Copyright by
Rita Julia Turner
2011
Dedications
For Boogie, my family, my friend, my teacher.
And with deep appreciation and gratitude to:
Tom Turner, for his unfailing love, support, insight, encouragement, and countless forms of
assistance.
Christine Mallinson, Joby Taylor, Bev Bickel, Ed Orser, Mary Rivkin, Jodi Crandall, and the
LLC Community for their guidance, advice, knowledge, and friendship.
Jeanine Williams, for always listening, commiserating, and motivating.
Ryan Donnelly, for his faith in me, and for sharing his amazing heart with me.
My students, for their willingness to go on the journey I had prepared for them, for sharing
their thoughts with me, and for the openness of their minds and their hearts.
ii
Table of Contents
!"#$%&'()*(+,%-.%'/(0'(12/,3"'$(4&2(52%$%#0-(6#&-%$"20#7 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888)!
98(9'$2&.,#$%&'*(!"":%'/(!,;$0%'0<%-%$7 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 )!
998(52%$%#0-(6#&-%$"20#7*(=203">&2:;(4&2(0(?">(6.,#0$%&'0-(@%;;%&'88888888888888888888888888888888888888 A!
"#!$%&'()*+)+,!-%.!/*.01 ################################################################################################################################### 2!
3#!4)'5*%.'&6!7&(89:*.6!8+1!(:&!;%0(%.80!;*+'(.%5()*+!*<!/*.01=)&>'####################################### ?@!
;#!A5*0)(&.85B########################################################################################################################################################## C2!
4#!D&'&8.5:!$%&'()*+'######################################################################################################################################## E?!
A#!F&.'*+80!8+1!A1%58()*+80!G(8+5& ############################################################################################################# EE!
H#!I*(&'!*+!J&.K' ################################################################################################################################################ E2!
9998(="0$,2";(&4(52%$%#0-(6#&-%$"20#7 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 BC!
"#!J:&!A''&+()80!$%80)()&' ################################################################################################################################# LM!
?#!AK98(:B############################################################################################################################################################################LN!
C#!7%(%80)(B ##########################################################################################################################################################################LO!
E#!A(:)580!;*+'5)*%'+&''#################################################################################################################################################@?!
L#!;*+(&P(###############################################################################################################################################################################@L!
@#!;.)()580!Q8+,%8,&!">8.&+&''###################################################################################################################################@N!
N#!;%0(%.80!F&.'9&5()=& ####################################################################################################################################################@R!
2#!SK8,)+8()*+ #####################################################################################################################################################################NM!
R#!",&+5B ###############################################################################################################################################################################NC!
3#!J:&!A1%58()*+80!J**0'################################################################################################################################### NE!
?#!G*5)*5%0(%.80!Q&8.+)+,!J:&*.B!8+1!;.)()580!F&18,*,B #################################################################################NL!
C#!3%)01)+,!8!T.&&+!;*KK%+)(B!*<!F.85()5&############################################################################################################2L!
E#!;.)()580!"+80B')'!*<!J&P(!8+1!4)'5*%.'& ###############################################################################################################2O!
L#!Q8+,%8,&6!F*>&.6!8+1!Q)+,%)'()5!4)=&.')(B########################################################################################################O@!
@#!A1%58()*+80!-%(5*K&'!*<!;.)()580!A5*0)(&.85B ############################################################################################### ?MR!
;#!78(&.)80'!8+1!7&(:*1'!*<!8!7*1&0!;.)()580!A5*0)(&.85B!;%..)5%0%K########################################??C!
?#!/:B!8!G&5*+18.B!8+1!F*'(UG&5*+18.B!V%K8+)()&'!;%..)5%0%KW ######################################################### ??E!
C#!F%.9*'&!*<!(:&!J&P(' ################################################################################################################################################# ??2!
E#!F%.9*'&!*<!(:&!/.)()+,!"''),+K&+('################################################################################################################# ?CE!
L#!A+=)')*+)+,!8!G%'(8)+8X0&!H%(%.& ####################################################################################################################### ?C@!
@#!Q)+Y'!(*!G(8(&!8+1!I8()*+80!Q&8.+)+,!G(8+18.1'########################################################################################## ?C2!
N#!7B!->+!AK90*BK&+(!*<!(:&!J&85:)+,!G(.8(&,)&'######################################################################################## ?CR!
9D8(@"$E&.&-&/%#0-(=203">&2:;(4&2(6F0-,0$%&' 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888)GH!
"#!A'(8X0)':)+,!8!;*+'&+'%'!*+!Z80%& #######################################################################################################?E@!
3#!"''&'')+,!(:&!A<<&5('!*<!8!7*1&0!;.)()580!A5*0)(&.85B!;%..)5%0%K############################################?ER!
?#!7&(:*1'########################################################################################################################################################################## ?ER!
C#!A(:)5'6!Q)K)(8()*+'6!8+1!;*+')1&.8()*+'########################################################################################################### ?@E!
!"#$%&'(H*(52%$%#0-(6#&-%$"20#7(%'(1#$%&'*(@&."-(5,22%#,-,3(0'.(I";,-$; 88888888888888 )JA!

98(1<&,$($E"(5,22%#,-,3888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888)JA!
99*(6F0-,0$%'/($E"(5,22%#,-,3(%'(K;"888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888)JL!
"#!G%.=&B!D&'%0(' ################################################################################################################################################?@O!
3#!;*+(&+(!"+80B')'!*<!G(%1&+(!D&85()*+'!(*!(:&!;*%.'& ###################################################################?N?!
;#!$%80)(8()=&!"+80B')'!*<!G(%1&+(!/.)()+, ##############################################################################################?R@!
/&&Y'!?UC[!I8(%.&!8+1!(:&!G&0< ################################################################################################################################ ?R2!
/&&Y'!EUL[!Z)&>'!*<!:%K8+Y)+1\'!.&08()*+':)9!(*!(:&!+8(%.80!>*.01 ##################################################### C?C!
/&&Y'!@UN[!Q8+,%8,&6!7&1)86!8+1!(:&!A+=).*+K&+(####################################################################################### CCO!
iii
/&&Y'!2UR[!F085&!8+1!G985&6!*.!/:&.&!/&!Q)=&################################################################################################ C@?!
/&&Y'!OU?M[!F.*1%5()*+6!;*+'%K9()*+6!8+1!/8'(& ######################################################################################## CNO!
/&&Y'!??U?C[!D),:('6!A(:)5'6!8+1!A+=).*+K&+(80!]%'()5&############################################################################## CRC!
/&&Y'!?EU?L[!A+=)')*+)+,!(:&!H%(%.& ################################################################################################################### COO!
4#!G(%1&+(!J.8+'<*.K8()*+' ##########################################################################################################################EM@!
A#!J&85:&.!H&&1X85Y!8+1!-X'&.=8()*+'####################################################################################################EEE!
H#!H%.(:&.!D&<0&5()*+'#######################################################################################################################################EER!
T#!H%(%.&!D&'&8.5:!8+1!;%..)5%0%K!4&'),+############################################################################################EEO!
999*(5&'#-,;%&'; 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GBJ!
1MM"'.%N(1*(I";"02#E(O&#,3"'$;88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 GBL!
98(P"0#E"2(Q,";$%&''0%2" 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GBL!
998(?">(6#&-&/%#0-(R020.%/3(!,2F"7(9';$2,3"'$ 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GJ)!
9998(5&,2;"(6F0-,0$%&'(Q,";$%&';(4&2(!$,."'$;888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GJH!
9D8(S%;$(&4(5&.%'/(50$"/&2%"; 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GJG!
D8(P&$0-(T##,22"'#";(&4(5&.%'/(PE"3"; 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GJJ!
1MM"'.%N(+*(5,22%#,-,3(@0$"2%0-; 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 GJA!
98(!03M-"(&4(!$0$"(0'.(?0$%&'0-(S"02'%'/(!$0'.02.;(=,-4%--".(<7($E"(52%$%#0-(6#&-%$"20#7(
5,22%#,-,3 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GJA!
998(=%2;$UV"02(!"3%'02(!7--0<,;(0'.(=,--(S%;$(&4(I"0.%'/;888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GWG!
9998(=,--(P"N$(&4(!"-"#$".(R&"3;8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888GLC!
I"4"2"'#"; 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 GLB!
iv
List of Graphs
Graph 1: Occurrences of Theme A During Fall 2010 Semester........................................... 170!

Graph 2: Occurrences of Theme C During Fall 2010 Semester ........................................... 171!
Graph 3: Occurrences of Theme D During Fall 2010 Semester........................................... 172!
Graph 4: Occurrences of Theme E During Fall 2010 Semester ........................................... 173!
Graph 5: Occurrences of Theme F During Fall 2010 Semester ........................................... 174!
Graph 6: Occurrences of Theme G During Fall 2010 Semester........................................... 175!
Graph 7: Occurrences of Theme J (Single Code) During Fall 2010 Semester..................... 176!
Graph 8: Occurrences of Theme K During Fall 2010 Semester........................................... 177!
Graph 9: Occurrences of Theme M During Fall 2010 Semester .......................................... 178!
Graph 10: Occurrences of Theme B During Spring 2011 Semester..................................... 179!
Graph 11: Occurrences of Theme E During Spring 2011 Semester..................................... 179!
Graph 12: Occurrences of Theme F During Spring 2011 Semester ..................................... 180!
Graph 13: Occurrences of Theme I During Spring 2011 Semester ...................................... 181!
Graph 14: Occurrences of Theme J (Combined Codes) During Spring 2011 Semester ...... 182!
Graph 15: Occurrences of Theme K During Spring 2011 Semester .................................... 183!
Graph 16: Occurrences of Theme M During Spring 2011 Semester.................................... 184!
List of Tables
Table 1: Tabulations of Themes by Week for Fall 2010 Semester ...................................... 355!
Table 2: Tabulations of Themes by Week for Spring 2011 Semester .................................. 355!
v
Section 1: Building an Argument for Critical Ecoliteracy
I. Introduction: Seeking Sustainability
How do we make a better world? As members of the delicately interwoven system of
living creatures that co-exist on this planet, how do we seek happiness and well-being, not at
the expense of other people or other beings, but in ways that support their happiness as well?
In every corner of the world today humankind faces specters of looming environmental
disaster and social distress, and the sinking knowledge that these specters are of our making.
We are each confronted with the question of how to proceed, in our individual and collective
actions, in ways that can lead to sustained health and happiness for ourselves and for others
in the future.
We each know that we must make choices about how to direct our impacts on the
world: how to vote, what to consume, where to live, what endeavors to devote our energies
to; and that we must make larger choices as communities, as societies, and as a species, about
our priorities, the behaviors we allow or prohibit, and the methods we use to provide
ourselves with sustenance, shelter, entertainment, and purpose.
There are strong voices proposing directions that we may take, strategies we may
employ, suggesting what issues should be essential or irrelevant to our cultural and personal
conversations and what decisions can best contribute to our combined and individual welfare.
We know that we must make choices, and changes, that we must do better at living in a way
that promotes long-term welfare. And yet, many communities and nations around the world,
including and perhaps especially the United States, seem to remain mired in indecision and
1
inaction. Around us are countless warning signs, of our health and security at risk, our
climate shifting, our air and water growing poisonous, our ecosystem trembling on the verge
of collapse. But too often we stand, watching in passive fear or turning aside entirely, while
continuing to expect a constant supply of nonrenewable energy, disposable goods, and cheap
industrial food produced by means of torture and destruction.
How have we allowed the devastation to reach this point? How, as David Abram puts
it, have so many of us “become so deaf and so blind to the vital existence of other[s]… that
we now so casually bring about their destruction,”1 and in the process, bring about our own?
In that question we may find the beginning of an answer. Perhaps we are all too often
‘deaf’ and ‘blind’ to the ‘others’ around us, to the other people, cultures, nations, species,
lands, and ecosystems with which we share the earth. And perhaps, in attempting to find
better ways forward, we must begin, not by debating the specifics of a manufacturing process
or a law, but by investigating this deafness and blindness, by examining the motivations and
modes of thinking that lead us to act on and in the world, for better or for worse.
Think of the earth. How would you describe it? What imagery, what metaphor,
would you use to encapsulate the functioning of the planet, and your own role within it? Do
you see the planet as a complex machine and humankind as a mechanic? Do you envision
the world as so much buried treasure, hidden for humans to find and use for our own best
interests? Do you imagine the earth as a beautiful painting to gaze at and admire? As a war
between wild and civilized? As a horn of plenty? As a garden to tend? As a web of
relationships? As a neighbor, a community, a home? As a mystery for humans to unlock?
As a family of related beings?
1
David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World, 1st ed.
(New York: Vintage, 1997), 27-28.
2
Each of these metaphors implies certain assumptions about the purpose of the planet,
the purpose of humans, and how we should think about and act toward the larger world.
If we see the world as a collection of objects for our use, as a stockpile of resources,
we are likely to view our role as one of extraction or acquisition, and to believe that the key
questions we must ask are ones about pace and method of extraction, and about mode of
distribution of these resources. We may ask ourselves if the rate at which we are using our
stockpile of materials will deplete it too quickly, but we are not likely to question the rights
and subjectivity of the beings with which we share the planet, since by this metaphor they are
framed as inanimate raw materials or at best as irrelevant bystanders or obstacles.
If we see the world as a garden, we are likely to conclude that we should care for it
and tend it, but perhaps also that we stand in a position of authority in relation to it, that it is
our right and responsibility to make decisions about its content, that it belongs to us.
If we see the world as our home, we may focus our attention on maintenance and the
notion that we should not despoil our own beds. Envisioning the world this way may also
raise the notion of heritage and the familial history of birthplace and personal growth. It may
encourage a feeling of belonging, and may lead us to think of the earth as our shelter, our
protection. However, we may also conclude that the planet is ours to remodel or redecorate
at will, and perhaps that there may someday exist an opportunity to relocate to another,
grander home.
If we see the world as a family or community, we may think of the welfare of other
living creatures, and of the land itself, as linked to our own. We may include other beings in
our sphere of concern, and even feel ourselves as part of one another, associating our own
identity with theirs. As Wendell Berry describes it, “When we include ourselves as parts or
3
belongings of the world we are trying to preserve, then obviously we can no longer think of
the world as ‘the environment’ – something out there around us. We can see that our relation
to the world surpasses mere connection and verges on identity.”2
Each of the views described above offers a different perspective for relating to the
world, implies a different set of assumptions about ourselves and about other beings. Each
one draws our attention in certain directions, highlighting some questions, obscuring others.
Each directly and indirectly shapes the ways that we think about the earth, influencing what
we value and what behaviors we deem appropriate. Each of these metaphors, and many
other belief systems and conceptual frameworks, are at work in our culture at every moment,
shaping our thinking and informing our behavior.
In this way, the actions we take in regard to each other and to the larger world are in
large part a matter of perception, of belief, of understanding. They are about how we see the
world, and how we approach our role within it. Some views of the world direct our attention
toward relationality and mutual co-existence, others encourage a focus on autonomy and
exploitation, denying shared experience and encouraging ‘deafness and blindness’ to others.
Some highlight commonality, others emphasize difference. Some guide us to see the world
as full of living, sensing creatures, others cast these beings as objects and commodities.
Depending on the framework we adopt, we may perceive the world as alive with interaction
and dialogue, or we may hear only silence.
Ernest Callenbach has stated, “You often gain a new perspective on a value if you see
what its concrete consequences are.”3 Today humankind is coming to see, in dramatic scope,
the consequences of the ways of viewing the world that have assumed dominance in our
2
Wendell Berry, Another Turn of the Crank: Essays (Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint, 1995), 75.
3
Ernest Callenbach, “Values,” in Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World, ed.
Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005), 47.
4
minds and cultures. We see the destruction and abuse that human societies perpetrate daily
on other beings, on ourselves, and on the living land. Now we must be willing to see the
roots of this destruction in our own minds, to investigate the cultural influences that shape
our perceptions of the world. Perhaps, then, it will be possible to identify and adopt better
approaches. Perhaps we can learn to recognize and embrace conceptual frameworks that
allow us to feel compassion, care, and connection with others, both human and nonhuman, to
value interdependence, to see the world not as object but as a living whole, not for humans
but with humans, as David Abram puts it, as “more than human.”4
Callenbach reflects, “At some great turning points in history, dominant values
become exhausted or problematic, and people work out new values that they hope will enable
them to survive better.”5 This must be our mission. We must develop the insight to pinpoint
those values that have become problematic, the willingness to contest, reject, or modify
them, and the creativity to formulate new values that will enable us to survive better in the
future. We must seek a mode of conceiving the world which guides our actions toward
justice and sustainability, and which does not exclude others from conversation and
consideration.
In order to generate approaches that may lead us toward sustainable attitudes and
behavior, we must learn to systematically investigate our own belief systems, evaluate their
implications, and work to enact shifts in conceptualization that result in positive interactions
with the larger world. And I believe that education is a key site of opportunity to cultivate
such methods of critical examination and reinvention. Educators are entrusted and privileged
with the opportunity to help students formulate their worldviews, exposing them to the
4
Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous.
5
Callenbach, “Values,” 47.
5
narratives and ideas which allow them to view their embedded conceptions from new angles
and to consider new possibilities of thought and action.
This strategy of critical examination and reinvention for the purpose of achieving
sustainable modes of existence, and the application of this strategy through education, is a
pursuit I term critical ecoliteracy. In what follows, I outline the bodies of theory that inform
this endeavor and the features and goals that define it. I then describe an example of a
critical ecoliteracy curriculum in action, tracing its effects as students engage with it and
considering its value as a model for pursuing the strategies of critical ecoliteracy as a
widespread educational and cultural undertaking. Nothing short of such an undertaking will
be necessary if we truly hope to change our current path of destruction and find a way of
living that supports joy, prosperity, and well-being for all of the living earth in the future.
6
II. Critical Ecoliteracy: Frameworks for a New Educational Mission
A. Questioning Our World
How do we address the vast array of socio-ecological crises facing the modern world?
Is there a solution based purely on technological innovation, or changes in public policy, or
alterations in consumer habits? While each of these avenues will be necessary to pursue in
order to achieve sustainable modes of living, many human societies including the US have so
far seemed unable to fully mobilize aggressive action within any of these areas, or to produce
significant positive change that benefits people, nonhuman beings, and ecosystems. Our
behavior remains bewilderingly intractable, despite its damaging consequences. I contend
that to determine why we have failed to reinvent our modes of living for the better, and how
we might create sustainable paths for ourselves in the future, we must consider another type
of innovation and transformation, beyond that of technology or engineering: we must pursue
cultural and conceptual innovation.
Environmental ethics theorist Mick Smith comments, “the problems of deforestation,
ozone depletion, urban smog, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, cannot be treated in
isolation. They stem from, and are entwined with, our modern forms of life. For this reason
the critique of environmental destruction necessarily becomes a critique of contemporary
society.”6 And so it seems clear that to examine the foundation and potential resolution of
our environmental problems requires an examination of the society that has produced those
problems.
6
Mick Smith, An Ethics of Place: Radical Ecology, Postmodernity, and Social Theory (Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 2001), 3.
7
Our actions spring from a cultural ground, a landscape of thought that shapes us.
This landscape of thought is made up of a complex and shifting mixture of elements and
layers. In each of our social worlds we experience the influence of local communities,
national cultures, hemispheric cultures – whether oriented around ‘western,’ ‘eastern,’
‘northern,’ or ‘southern’ traditions and legacies – dominant cultures of power and orthodoxy,
marginal cultures of undercurrents and outsiders, global media discourses, and one-on-one
interactions.
These elements interact and intermingle to structure our thinking, forming shared
reference points, tastes, opinions, archetypes, collective narratives, normative belief systems,
and a host of other symbolic resources that we utilize to construct modes of understanding
our world.7
Historian Ronald Wright has called human beings “experimental creatures of our own
devising.”8 Social theorists have long argued that we are constantly engaged in this devising,
that we formulate and reformulate ourselves through 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 our own conceptions of the world. And every choice we make is
informed by these conceptions we have forged for ourselves. For this reason we must learn
to critically evaluate our cultural influences, the thinking, values, ideologies, and narratives
that we draw upon to understand ourselves in reference to others and to the world, in order to
determine the potential ramifications of various patterns of thought, and to make informed
decisions about what we choose to believe. We must learn to recognize our behavior and
thinking as constitutive of meaning, and we must choose how to devise and re-devise
7
In the following section I review theories describing some of the modes through which culture structures our
thinking.
8
Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress, 1st ed. (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2005), 13.
8
ourselves in order to seek out the most positive, nourishing, and sustainable approaches to
our world. We need, as ethicist and religious scholar Anna Peterson puts it, to learn to “see
the structures in everyday life and then analyze and transform them.”9
As Peterson suggests, this process starts by ‘seeing,’ by learning to truly look at the
symbolic, social, and ideological structures of our culture, to probe their features, origins, and
implications, and to understand how they influence our attitudes and behaviors. We must ask
ourselves, “how does our culture influence the way we approach the world?” and equally
important, “what results of approaching the world this way?”
Critiques of contemporary cultures are not difficult to find. From Marx10 to
Baudrillard,11 analyses of the dominant cultural traditions and stances of the modern world
abound. A vast number of authors have focused their criticism on the cultural elements often
identified as representative of the United States, or the combinations of traditions, qualities,
and historical and socio-economic factors that together form the cultural landscapes referred
to as ‘Western culture,’ or as ‘occidental,’ ‘industrialized,’ ‘capitalist,’ or ‘Northern’ culture.
In what follows I too focus primarily on this mixture of cultural influences, in reference to
my own home culture of the US.12
In their critiques of the cultural features at play in the US, theorists often point out the
social and environmental ramifications that result from prevailing ideals and belief systems.
9
Anna Lisa Peterson, Everyday Ethics and Social Change: The Education of Desire (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2009), 62.
10
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert Tucker, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1978).
11
Jean Baudrillard, America, trans. Chris Turner (London: Verso, 1989).
12
There are parallels, overlaps, and without doubt comparable questions that can and must be raised about each
cultural tradition, each interwoven cultural canvas of our globally linked world. I call for critical analysis of
each cultural landscape, but suggest that such analysis is perhaps best undertaken from within, or at least by
those with extensive knowledge of the nuanced influences of the particular society, nation, or community in
question. I focus my own critical attention, therefore, on the cultural scene I know from my own lived
experience in the US.
9
One common appraisal focuses on what Ronald Wright refers to as “the ideal of progress,” a
belief that humankind is always moving toward improvement.13 In modern times,
understandings of what such ‘improvement’ entails often center around material development
and acquisition, increased technological knowledge and ability, and the seeming power to
alter our surroundings for our own comfort or benefit. Mick Smith describes this notion of
progress by stating:
Modernity, the social condition of our contemporary world, is characterized in

thought and in deed, by its Promethean striving to go beyond all given limits.
This continual and accelerating movement is the basis for that dominant myth
of progress that typifies and justifies the modernist enterprise. Through
increasing the speed and efficiency of our productive labors, modernism dreams
of defying Earth’s gravity, of achieving an “escape velocity” that would take us
beyond all natural constraints.14
But Wright warns about the “ideal of progress”:
Our practical faith in progress has ramified and hardened into an ideology – a
secular religion which, like the religions that progress has challenged, is blind
to certain flaws in its credentials…. The myth of progress has sometimes served
us well – those of us seated at the best tables, anyway…. But…. Progress has
an internal logic that can lead beyond reason to catastrophe.15
Wright suggests that many human societies throughout history have fallen into “progress
traps” in which their own endeavors and advancements have too vastly altered the conditions
they rely on for survival, resulting in unstable or unsustainable circumstances.
Others also criticize the related idea of growth, described by Ernest Callenbach as
“expansionist industrialism,”16 with its focus on ever-increasing production, consumption,
acquisition, and material development. Or they question economic beliefs such as the “value
13
Wright, A Short History of Progress, 3.
14
Smith, An Ethics of Place, 1.
15
Wright, A Short History of Progress, 4-5.
16
Callenbach, “Values,” 47.
10
at the root of much economic thinking that the primary goal of human beings is to maximize
their individual welfare, usually monetarily…,”17 suggesting that this goal supplants
aspirations for other values beyond those of “use and exchange”18 and that it obscures the
worth of connection, relationship, and interpersonal, creative, intellectual, and spiritual
advancement.
This primacy of individual welfare is closely explored and problematized by Anna
Peterson, who suggests that the “individualism emphasized in mainstream Western
philosophy” limits more relational understandings of the formation of self.19 She criticizes,
…the voluntaristic understanding of relationality, predominant in our present

culture, according to which interpersonal relationships are “external” to some
preformed essence that defines the individual. In this model, persons choose to
engage with others because of the benefits they expect to accrue, and they
withdraw from relationships at will, without fundamentally changing who they
are.20
In this way she suggests that the “autonomous, rational moral agent”21 posed in some veins
of Western cultural tradition discourages acknowledgement of interdependence and devalues
shared experiences of attachment and care, with both human and nonhuman beings.
In his own assessment of US culture, Wendell Berry critiques the “frontier myths of
abundance and escape,” which he argues contribute to a lack of rootedness and a constant
expectation of a ‘next best thing’ somewhere else instead of an appreciation of place,
community, and stewardship.22 Mick Smith picks up the theme of lack of rootedness as well,
saying, “The antifoundationalism typical of postmodernism is often regarded as expressing…
17
Ibid., 46.
18
Marx’s terms, as discussed by Peterson, Everyday Ethics and Social Change, 35.
19
Ibid., 34.
20
Ibid., 34-35.
21
Ibid., 35.
22
Berry, Another Turn of the Crank, 65.
11
rootlessness in a world dominated by the constantly accelerating circulation of disconnected
values, symbols, narratives, and so on.”23
And in a sharp critique that merges a number of these threads, Antonia Darder states:
The arrogance and exploitation of neoliberal values of consumption dishonor

the contemporary suffering of poor and marginalized populations around the
globe. Neoliberalism denies or simply mocks… the interrelationship and
delicate balance that exists between all living beings, including the body earth.
In its stead, values of individualism, competitions, privatization, and the “free
market” systematically debase the ancient ecological knowledge of indigenous
populations, who have, implicitly or explicitly, rejected the fabricated ethos of
“progress and democracy” propagated by the West. In its consuming frenzy to
gobble up the natural resources of the planet for its own hyperbolic quest for
material domination, the exploitative nature of capitalism and its burgeoning
technocracy has dangerously deepened the structures of social exclusion,
through the destruction of the very biodiversity that has been key to our global
survival for millennia.24
These examples offer a brief glimpse of the numerous critiques made by scholars and
social theorists who question contemporary ideals of unbounded material growth, rootless
self-sufficiency, individual success through acquisition, and dualistic isolation of self from
other and of human from ‘nature.’ By highlighting some of the dominant cultural currents
operating within the US and elsewhere, these scholars’ analyses provide a groundwork for
exploring the questions “how does our culture influence the way we approach the world?”
and “what results of approaching the world this way?”
As we draw on available conceptual frameworks to organize our thinking, entrenched
ideals such as these can exert powerful if often unseen influence, steering our collective
assumptions and interests. As Anna Peterson suggests, our “desires are… colonized by the
23
24
Antonia Darder, “Preface,” in Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy, & Planetary Crisis: The Ecopedagogy
Movement, by Richard Kahn (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), xi-xii.
12
system”25 and our social institutions serve as “‘structures of feeling,’ [that] enable and
constrain our most mundane and intimate relationships,”26 channeling our hopes, aspirations,
and compassions in specific directions and away from others.
In an illustration of the practical effects of these “structures of feeling,” Peterson
proposes that culturally-prioritized notions of self-sufficiency and independence can “make
people self-centered,” leading them to “despise interdependence as weakness” while they
“ignore or devalue” the contributions of others – human and nonhuman – who, in reality,
they depend on.27 Peterson comments directly on devaluing nonhumans, elsewhere, as well,
saying:
In a society so permeated by assumptions of human exceptionalism and radical

individualism, it is very hard to act according to any other values. On those
occasions when we do act in nonanthropocentric ways, it is hard to describe our
behavior in those terms. This failure to recognize and name actions in terms
outside the dominant frameworks of utilitarian individualism and
exceptionalism or anthropocentrism shapes our inability to think and act in
heterodox ways…. our culture and institutions educate us to desire ways of
living that contradict our efforts to live out moral principles.28
As described here, Peterson refers to this cultural influence as the “education of desire,” by
which our experiences, interactions, societies, and life-worlds can teach us to want ways of
living that either support or harm ourselves and others. In Mick Smith’s words, our thoughts
and actions are “inscribed within the practices of our own social formation.”29 Both analyses
offer the same conclusion, that we must learn to be self-aware of our social formation, of the
ways of living we are learning to desire.
25
Peterson, Everyday Ethics and Social Change, 156.
26
Ibid., 155.
27
Ibid., 40.
28
Ibid., 125.
29
13
In the realm of scholarship, a number of traditions of social criticism have developed
as tools to facilitate this self-awareness, including critical theory, feminist theory, and critical
race theory, among many others. Mick Smith suggests that the movement of radical ecology
is another such tool for cultural analysis. He states that it “seeks fundamental changes in the
way we understand our social and natural relations” and “It also sets itself unambiguously
against the triumphalism of modernism (the narrative) and tries to identify and critique the
modernist worldview (the dominant ideology).”30 In texts like Smith’s and Peterson’s, and in
many social movements, organizations, and communities, the efforts to do what Smith
describes are already underway.
However, I argue that US society at large does not have structural supports to allow
reformulations of this sort to take place. Despite the existence of these critical or self-
reflective examinations, the traditions that form the cultural landscape of the US, like most
cultures, are not inherently self-critical. These traditions push instead for hegemonic
dominance of established structures, not reinvention. US citizens today are likely equipped,
to varying degrees, with some of the necessary intellectual resources to engage with the
contemporary world: digital literacy, knowledge of global economic interdependence,
scattered awareness of competing or collaborating cultural and religious traditions, and the
like. But, as a culture, we are not systematically equipped with the resources to critically
evaluate ourselves, to consider the features, functions, and effects of our beliefs about the
world, to recognize those beliefs as socially formed and contestable.
As a society and a species, we need practices, intellectual skills, and courses of study
that encourage this sort of analysis and reformulation, that “help teach us dissatisfaction with
30
Ibid.
14
the norm and a desire for more…”31 We must use the resources provided by social theory,
environmental philosophy, and other fields, to enable us to understand the modes in which
the cultural construction of meaning operates, and to critique the established forms of
meaning we encounter in our cultural environments.
Wendell Berry notes, “We have tried on a large scale the experiment of preferring
ourselves to the exclusion of all other creatures, with results that are manifestly disastrous.”32
Now we must try a new experiment, in thought and in action. We must invent new
approaches designed to inspire us to acts of care and creation, that educate us to desire modes
of existence which support the life and integrity of all beings and of the planet.
In the next section, I describe some of theories that have been posited as to how our
ways of thinking become shaped through culture, so that we might use these theories to better
see, and reinvent, our approaches to the world.
B. Discourse, Metaphor, and the Cultural Construction of Worldviews
“What you people call your natural resources our people call our relatives.”33 This
statement by Oren Lyons, faith keeper of the Onondaga people, illustrates the contrast
between two available worldviews. In the first, a view that I would argue is strongly
dominant within the US and many parts of the modern world, the living beings and elements
of our global ecosystem are framed as “natural resources.” In the second they are framed as
family members. The ‘natural resources’ framework has facilitated a culture of technological
innovation and material development which, over the recent centuries, has allowed certain
31
32
33
Qtd. in William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things,
1st ed. (New York: North Point Press, 2002), inside title page.
15
segments of the human population to experience sweeping changes in lifestyle. However,
while it highlights the pursuit of scientific invention, abundant production, and personal
comfort, it simultaneously obscures other values, consequences, and ethical considerations.
As Lyons points out, the ‘natural resources’ worldview is not centered around
interdependence and connection to other living beings. It does not promote an understanding
of the earth as full of breathing, sensing creatures, but as a storeroom of commodities. It
does not position human interaction with the larger world in terms of connection, love, and
dialogue, but instead sees the nonhuman realm as silent and without meaning beyond its
usefulness as objects for human consumption.
A worldview such this does not come into being spontaneously. Like all worldviews,
this objectifying worldview is constructed, reproduced, and potentially transformed by the
people who engage with it. And like all worldviews, this process of construction and
transmission takes place in the realm of culture, in all of the modes and avenues through
which we make and express meaning.
How do these modes of meaning-making operate? Various theorists have suggested
that they occur through discourse, language, and symbolic expression. These scholars
contend that we construct our perceptions of the world by means of discursive interactions,
and that we are often unaware of the forces at work within these interactions and of the
assumptions embedded within the worldviews they produce.
An important example of this theory is the notion of conceptual metaphor formulated
most notably by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.34 Lakoff and Johnson argue that our
conceptual system is built upon “root metaphors,” that the concepts we employ in daily life
are “structured, understood, performed, and talked about” in terms of the metaphors we use
34
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
16
to understand them.35 Elsewhere Lakoff explains that these root metaphors structure our
thinking by mapping correspondences from a source domain to a target domain. We then use
knowledge about the source domain to reason and draw conclusions about the target
domain.36
Lakoff and Johnson contend that, “Our conventional ways of talking about [concepts]
presuppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of.”37 In their classic Metaphors We
Live By, they examine many of the common metaphors at work in US culture and the English
language, pointing out their enormous influence in providing the grounding for our
conceptions of the world. One example Lakoff and Johnson offer to illustrate their theory is
the conceptual metaphor “Argument Is War.”38 They demonstrate a number of ways that this
metaphor “is reflected in our everyday language,” in such expressions as, “Your claims are
indefensible,” “He attacked every weak point in my argument,” and “His criticisms were
right on target.”39 They suggest that such statements show us not only how we talk about
arguing, but how we think about arguing, and how this thinking is fundamentally shaped by
the primary metaphor our culture employs to understand the act of arguing: that argument is
like war. In the same way, they contend that other root metaphors shape the way we reason
about many aspects of our lives, our actions, and the world. Lakoff comments that our
thoughts and understandings become “structured by conventional metaphor, and thereby
made comprehensible, or even natural.”40
35
Ibid., 5.
36
George Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” in Metaphor and thought, ed. Andrew Ortony, 2nd
ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 202-251.
37
Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 5.
38
Ibid., 4.
39
Ibid.
40
Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” 244.
17
Other theorists have also explored the relationship between language, discourse, and
our views of the world. Clifford Geertz contends that meaning is “stored in symbols” which
order experience and that cultures are “webs of significance” spun by the people within
them.41 He suggests that we can interpret and analyze these webs of cultural significance
through close contextualized examination.
James Paul Gee theorizes about discursive practices as well, suggesting that they are
the channels through which we negotiate and contest meaning. He states, “Discourses are
ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and
writing, that are accepted as instantiations of particular identities (or ‘types of people’) by
specific groups…. Discourses are ways of being ‘people like us’…. They are, thus, always
and everywhere social….”42
Practitioners of critical discourse studies take up the notion of discourse as a center of
cultural construction, identity formation, and the distribution and contestation of power, as
well. Norman Fairclough contends that discourse can restrict available “content, relations,
and subject positions”43 and can be used to enact and maintain power. Teun van Dijk
describes ideologies as “shared social representations.”44 He also argues that discourse can
generate and channel power in society, but he points out that it can serve as an apparatus of
dissent, as well. Monica Heller discusses some of the ways that language can become a tool
of ‘symbolic domination.’45
41
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation Of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 5.
42
James Paul Gee, Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge,
2008), 3.
43
Norman Fairclough, Language and Power (New York: Longman, 1989), 46.
44
Teun A. van Dijk, “Discourse Semantics and Ideology,” Discourse & Society 6, no. 2 (April 1, 1995): 245.
45
Monica Heller, “Language Choice and Symbolic Domination,” in Encyclopedia of Language and Education,
Vol. 3: Oral Discourse and Education, ed. Brian Davies and David Corson (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer,
1997), 87-94.
18
Michel Foucault explores symbolic domination as well. He formulates the notion that
‘bodies of knowledge’ serve as a vehicle by which a culture can construct, authorize, and
reproduce collective beliefs, and that power operates within them to exert or maintain
control.46 Pierre Bourdieu also posits connections between language and power, suggesting
that discursive acts operate to produce, disseminate, and maintain social resources and
structures. He suggests that the “linguistic field” is the site where power is enacted or
challenged, and that it can be used to define and validate distinctions in social position.47
Antonio Gramsci offers the related notion of hegemony, suggesting that a dominant class can
exert symbolic pressure that imposes direction on the beliefs and values of a populace.48
Mikhail Bakhtin and Kenneth Burke elaborate related insights. Bakhtin conceives of
language as the material of ideology, stating, “Everything ideological possesses meaning: it
represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside itself. In other words, it is a sign.
Without signs, there is no ideology.”49 He argues that meaning is constantly being formed
and negotiated in social interaction, and he suggests that texts manifest and generate
competing forces within society.50 Burke argues that language always operates to persuade
and to establish alliances and separations, and that the terms we employ shape our
46
Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith (New York: Pantheon Books,
1972); Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York:
Vintage Books, 1979); Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-
1977, ed. Colin Gordon, trans. Colin Gordon et al., 1st ed. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980); Michel
Foucault, “The Birth of the Asylum,” in The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow (New York: Pantheon Books,
1984), 141-168.
47
Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, ed. John B Thompson, trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew
Adamson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
48
Antonio Gramsci, Selections from Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1971).
49
Mikhail M. Bakhtin, “From Marxism and the Philosophy of Language,” in The Rhetorical Tradition:
Readings from Classical Times to the Present, ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 2nd ed. (Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001), 1210.
50
Mikhail M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and
Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981); Mikhail M. Bakhtin, “The Problem of Speech
Genres,” in Speech genres & other late essays, ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press, 1986), 60-102; Bakhtin, “From Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.”
19
perceptions.51 He also points out that some terms, ideas, and beliefs can become positioned
as beyond question, and can even serve to “advocate a moral order.”52
Drawing on the insights set out by authors such as these, scholars in the fields of
environmental discourse and ecolinguistics have recently taken up the study of how language
shapes our beliefs, values, and conceptions, and specifically how it shapes our treatment of
the nonhuman world. J.P. Brosius53 offers a description of the commonly accepted premise
of environmental discourse studies; he states:
My approach is based on the premise that discourse matters – that

environmental discourses are manifestly constitutive of reality (or, rather, of a
multiplicity of realities). In their constitutiveness they define various forms of
agency, administer certain silences, and prescribe various forms of intervention.
…and show how, in the process, various structures of domination are
constituted and perpetuated.54
Building on the idea that discourse is deeply implicated in the maintenance and contestation
of power relations, Brosius points out that domination of nonhuman beings and of the natural
world is constructed, authorized, and reproduced through discursive acts.
Joan Dunayer discusses some of the ways in which discourse serves to generate
structures of domination toward nonhumans. She explains:
51
Kenneth Burke, “From A Grammar of Motives,” in The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times
to the Present, ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 2nd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001), 1298-
1324; Kenneth Burke, “From A Rhetoric of Motives,” in The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical
Times to the Present, ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 2nd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001),
1324-1340; Kenneth Burke, “From Language as Symbolic Action,” in The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Classical Times to the Present, ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 2nd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,
2001), 1340-1347.
52
Daniel C. Brouwer, “Privacy, Publicity, and Propriety in Congressional Eulogies for Representative Stewart
B. McKinney (R-Conn.),” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 7, no. 2 (2004): 191.
53
J. Peter Brosius, “Analyses and Interventions: Anthropological Engagements with Environmentalism,”
Current Anthropology 40, no. 3 (June 1, 1999): 277-310.
54
Ibid., 278.
20
Deceptive language perpetuates speciesism, the failure to accord nonhuman
animals equal consideration and respect. Like sexism or racism, speciesism is a
form of self-aggrandizing prejudice. Bigotry requires self-deception.
Speciesism can’t survive without lies. Standard English usage supplies these
lies in abundance. Linguistically the lies take many forms, from euphemism to
false definition. We lie with our word choices. We lie with our syntax. We
even lie with our punctuation.
As an example of linguistic speciesism, Dunayer comments:
Current usage promotes a false dichotomy between humans and nonhumans.

Separate lexicons suggest opposite behaviors and attributes. We eat, but other
animals feed. A woman is pregnant or nurses her babies; a nonhuman mammal
gestates or lactates. A dead human is a corpse; a dead nonhuman a carcass or
meat.55
In another example, Dunayer points out that “many writers balk at attributing emotions to
nonhuman individuals…. Whereas human animals love their families and friends, nonhuman
ones merely ‘bond’ and ‘mate,’ acting out social ‘instincts’ and sexual ‘drives.’”56
Peter Mühlhäusler offers further insight into how our language operates to construct
speciesist attitudes and anthropocentric worldviews. He comments that the ‘unmarked’
forms of many words, including ‘to see’ and ‘to walk,’ refer specifically to their human
manifestations, rather than to the equivalent phenomena as experienced by other species. He
also points out that the unmarked order of words joined by ‘and’ or ‘or’ places humans
before animals, as in ‘man and beast’ or ‘man or mouse.’57 In another example, Mühlhäusler
discusses the use of possessive pronouns in English, which are often used to signal
ownership or control of spaces and beings, rather than mutual relationship. In contrast, some
55
Joan Dunayer, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (Derwood, MD: Ryce, 2001), 2.
56
Ibid., 3.
57
Peter Mühlhäusler, Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics
(London: Battlebridge, 2003), 22, 25.
21
languages allow the nature of a relationship to be specified in much more detail.58
Elsewhere, he describes how hunters avoid words like ‘kill,’ instead concealing violence with
words like ‘collect’ or ‘take’59 – a phenomenon also seen in the substitution of ‘game’ for
‘prey.’
Cathy Glenn takes up the subject of concealing violence through language in her
insightful analysis of factory farm industry discourse. She discusses the industry practice of
“doublespeak,” or “using sterile language to hide violence.”60 To illustrate this tactic she
describes euphemisms that are employed by the factory farm industry and the US
government, such as the USDA’s labeling of farm animals as “grain- and roughage-
consuming ‘animal units.’” Glenn comments that such euphemisms are:
a recognizable discursive move that removes the ‘beingness’ or subjectivity of

animals and replaces it with a word that morphs a subject for its own purposes
into an object for consumption. Put differently, the use of these euphemisms
disguises the fact that the body parts we purchase and consume are the
objectified remains of former subjects.61
Ecofeminists such as Val Plumwood, Carolyn Merchant, Maria Mies, and Karen
Warren62 have also explored ways that language can authorize the objectification and
oppression of both humans and nonhumans. Karen Warren comments that language “keep[s]
intact mutually reinforcing sexist, racist, and naturist views of women, people of color, and
58
Ibid., 47-48.
59
Ibid., 50.
60
Cathy B. Glenn, “Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry
Discourse,” Journal of Communication Inquiry 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2004): 68.
61
Ibid.
62
Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, 1st ed. (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980); Maria Mies, Ecofeminism (Melbourne: Spinifex, 1993); Val Plumwood,
Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (London: Routledge, 1993); Karen Warren, Ecofeminist Philosophy: A
Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).
22
nonhuman nature.”63 She points out, “Women routinely are described in pejorative animal
terms: Women are dogs, cats, catty, pussycats… bunnies, cows… chicks, bitches, beavers,
old bats, old hens… vixen… elephants, and whales.”64 Exploring the implications of this
practice, Warren argues that, “Animalizing women in a patriarchal culture where animals are
seen as inferior to humans, thereby reinforces and authorizes women’s inferior status.” At
the same time, “language that feminizes nature in a patriarchal culture, where women are
viewed as subordinate and inferior, reinforces and authorizes the domination of nature.”65
Offering another illustration of this process in action, Warren states:
Mother Nature (not Father Nature) is raped, mastered, controlled, conquered,

mined. Her (not his) secrets are penetrated…. Virgin timber is felled, cut down.
Fertile (not potent) soil is tilled, and land that lies fallow is useless or barren,
like a woman unable to conceive a child.66
A number of other scholars have also addressed the processes through which discourse can
devalue, subordinate, or commodify the nonhuman world, including Bell and Russell,
Carbaugh, Chawla, Cronon, Ehrlich and Ehrlich, Goatly, and Kennedy.67
63
Warren, Ecofeminist Philosophy, 27.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Anne C. Bell and Constance L. Russell, “Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical
Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn,” Canadian Journal of Education 25, no. 3 (2000): 188-203; Donal
Carbaugh, “Communication and Cultural Interpretation.,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 77, no. 3 (1991): 336-
42; Saroj Chawla, “Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis,” Environmental Ethics 13,
no. 3 (1991): 253–262; William Cronon, Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (New
York: Norton, 1995); Paul R Ehrlich and Anne H Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-
Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future (Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1996); Andrew Goatly, “Green
Grammar and Grammatical Metaphor, or Language and Myth of Power, or Metaphors We Die By,” in
Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, ed. Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler (New York:
Continuum, 2001), 537-560; Robert Francis Kennedy, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His
Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy, 1st ed. (New York: HarperCollins,
2004).
23
Taking another approach to the exploration of connections between language and the
human perception of nature is David Abram68 in The Spell of the Sensuous. Abram traces
modern humanity’s sensual disconnection from the natural world, arguing that the interactive
facility of our senses has been redirected away from the myriad beings and presences of the
living world, and has been recentered on human-created texts. He begins his text by
reflecting on his experiences living in rural villages in Asia to study tribal shamans, and the
deep awareness of his natural surroundings he developed while there. He wonders how this
awareness has been lost in modern industrialized cultures. Drawing on Merleau-Ponty,69
Husserl,70 and others, Abram argues that our senses are made for interaction with a
surrounding matrix of communicative beings that form the ‘more-than-human world.’ He
says:
Caught up in a mass of abstractions, our attention hypnotized by a host of

human-made technologies that only reflect us back to ourselves, it is all too
easy for us to forget our carnal inherence in a more-than-human matrix of
sensations and sensibilities. Our bodies have formed themselves in delicate
reciprocity with the manifold textures, sounds, and shapes of an animate earth –
our eyes have evolved in subtle interaction with other eyes, as our ears are
attuned by their very structure to the howling of wolves and the honking of
geese. To shut ourselves off from these other voices, to continue by our
lifestyles to condemn these other sensibilities to the oblivion of extinction, is to
rob our own senses of their integrity, and to rob our minds of their coherence.
We are human only in contact, and conviviality, with what is not human.71
Abram illustrates the perceptions of indigenous peoples who do not use written
language, offering this different experience of language as an example of an approach that
68
69
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (London: Routledge & K. Paul,
1962).
70
Edmund Husserl, Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology, trans. Dorion Cairns (The
Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1960).
71
Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous, 22.
24
ascribes meaning and expressive power to a range of nonhuman beings and phenomena. As
he puts it, “In indigenous, oral cultures, nature itself is articulate…. There is no element of
the landscape that is definitively void of expressive resonance and power: any movement
may be a gesture, any sound may be a voice, a meaningful utterance.”72 He then suggests
that written phonetic language has usurped the role once held by the natural world, and that
human sensual interactions are now focused on the expressive powers of human-made texts,
making us blind and deaf to the sources of communication and meaning we once read and
heard in the ‘more-than-human world,’ so that we see instead only our own creations.
Abram concludes by arguing that we must reawaken our senses to “the
encompassing discourse of an animate earth.”73 He suggests that we may find the wellspring
of our language and our perception in the land, and in those same others from whom we have
isolated ourselves. We may rediscover that we live in a “storied universe,”74 surrounded by
voice, expression, and meaning. This will require us to expand our perceptual framework to
embrace all of the living earth, to see the earth as “a collective field of experience lived
through from many different angles.”75
By considering and applying the insights provided in theories like these, it becomes
clear that if we want to understand our collective actions, especially when those actions pose
such vast danger to ourselves and the entire planet, we must consider our discourse. If we
hope to produce the sort of ecological consciousness that will be essential for creating a
sustainable future, we must explore the symbolic power we wield when we speak of other
beings and of the land. We must make explicit the ways that contemporary mainstream
72
Ibid., 116-117.
73
Ibid., 117.
74
Ibid., 109.
75
Ibid., 39.
25
discourses often promote anthropocentrism and mask, deny, or denigrate interdependence.
And we must challenge those discourses with alternative ways of speaking and thinking
about the more-than-human world. By consciously tracing and then intentionally subverting
the discursive practices that establish and maintain dominant social patterns, we may render
the invisible visible and the unquestioned vulnerable to critique, perhaps making space to
forge alternative conceptions within the public consciousness.
In this way the transformative power of discourse lies not only in fostering awareness
of how it constitutes structures of cultural perception, but also in how its constitutive power
can be enacted as a source of resistance and creativity that serves to create such space for
alternatives, to both challenge and reshape cultural norms. Authors like Joan Dunayer and
Traci Warkentin have proposed active engagement in these sorts of efforts. Dunayer
suggests intentional “relanguaging,”76 making lexical and grammatical choices that do not
reinforce species bias or objectification. Warkentin encourages the deliberate use of
alternative metaphors for the natural world; she recommends “fabric and webs” as a positive
framework for fostering “biocentric ethics.”77
Supplying our citizenry with the tools to develop such “strategies of discursive
dissent and resistance,”78 to engage in this transformative analysis and reinvention of our
dominant modes of symbolic action and the patterns of thought they support, can and should
become a central goal of education. In the next section I outline the newly-emerging notion
76
Joan Dunayer, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (Derwood, MD: Ryce, 2001).
77
Traci Warkentin, “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 Environmental Education
7, no. 2 (2002): 241.
78
Teun Adrianus van Dijk, Discourse and Power (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan,
2008), 24.
26
of critical ecoliteracy as an educational endeavor organized around this goal and informed by
the insights and techniques of critical social theory and discourse studies.
C. Ecoliteracy
David Orr has stated, “All education is environmental education…. By what is
included or excluded, students are taught that they are part of or apart from the natural
world.”79 Indeed, any educational practice communicates to students certain attitudes about
the world, either reinforcing or questioning dominant perspectives.
For this reason, and motivated by increasing concern about global environmental
degradation, educators in the United States and elsewhere throughout the world have in
recent decades begun working to develop ‘environmental education’ programs. Such
programs often focus on providing students opportunities to interact with the natural world
through ‘outdoor education’ activities, and through these activities to learn about ecological
processes and modern threats to those processes. This sort of environmental education can
be traced back to the late 1960s and William Stapp’s “The Concept of Environmental
Education,”80 and to the UNESCO Tbilisi Declaration of 1978,81 the result of the first
intergovernmental conference on environmental education, which “noted the unanimous
accord in [sic] the important role of environmental education in the preservation and
79
Qtd. in “What Is Schooling for Sustainability?,” Center for Ecoliteracy, 2010, para. 6,
http://www.ecoliteracy.org/discover/what-schooling-sustainability.
80
William Stapp, “The Concept of Environmental Education,” Journal of Environmental Education 1, no. 3
(1969): 31-36.
81
Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, UNESCO, and United Nations Environment
Programme, “The Tbilisi Declaration,” Connect: The UNESCO/UNEP Environmental Education Newsletter 3,
no. 1 (January 1978).
27
improvement of the world's environment, as well as in the sound and balanced development
of the world's communities.”82
In the intervening decades a great deal of excellent work has been done to develop,
implement, and evaluate environmental education programs.83 However, the environmental
education movement has not been without its problems and limitations. As Richard Kahn
tells us, environmental education has in some cases “contributed to progressive causes and
fostered forms of ecoliteracy,” while in other instances it “became co-opted by establishment
powers, functioned technocratically, and has remained altogether marginal in schools of
education….84 Kahn also comments that environmental education programs often present an
incomplete or counterproductive focus, “promoting the sort of outdoor educational
experiences that can advance outdated, overly-essentialized and dichotomous views about
nature and wilderness” that can be “insufficient or even harmful towards promoting
multiperspectival ecological politics and environmental justice strategies that seek to uncover
collective environmental action across differences of race, class, gender, species and other
categories of social difference.”85
Furthermore, despite the expansion of environmental education programs in the last
four decades,86 studies still indicate a striking lack of basic environmental knowledge and
82
“Tbilisi Declaration,” The Global Development Research Center, n.d., para. 3,
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html.
83
A useful review of the research is Mark Rickinson, “Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A
Critical Review of the Evidence,” Environmental Education Research 7, no. 3 (2001): 207–320.
84
Richard Kahn, “Towards Ecopedagogy: Weaving a Broad-based Pedagogy of Liberation for Animals, Nature,
and the Oppressed People of the Earth,” in The Critical Pedagogy Reader, ed. Antonia Darder, Marta P.
Baltodano, and Rodolfo Torres, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2009), 525.
85
Ibid., 527-528.
86
Ibid., 527.
28
pro-environmental behaviors among US-Americans.87 Given this situation, Kahn comments
that we are facing “ecological issues that require a much deeper and more complex form of
ecoliteracy than is presently possessed by the population at large….”88 Kahn also tells us:
Sensing the limitations of environmental education theorized merely as

experiential forms of “outdoor education” (e.g., “No Child Left Inside”), the
United Nations began in 2005 the Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development with the hope that a new field of sustainable development
education… that engages with social, cultural, and environmental themes will
become better theorized, evaluated and ultimately instituted around the
world….89
Kahn describes a shift currently underway in conceptions of education for
sustainability, from traditional environmental education and environmental literacy to
ecoliteracy. He suggests that traditional approaches to environmental education seek to
create “functional environmental literacies” that involve “learning to understand basic
scientific ecology, geology and biology… and how society can affect basic ecological
systems for better or worse….”90 But, he argues, such literacy does not go far enough;
instead it should move from basic functional literacy to cultural and critical literacy. He
states:
To speak of cultural environmental literacies is to enact a crucial move from an

environmental to an ecological order of knowledge. For once an understanding
has been reached that culture and nature are in dialectical relationship… to
speak simply of “environmental literacy” is inaccurate and insufficient. For the
literacy itself no longer relates primarily to an (or the) environment, but rather it
aims to delineate potential knowledge about an ecology of relations between
particular cultures and the way in which those cultures inhabit their bioregions
87
Kevin Coyle, Environmental Literacy in America: What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper Research and Related
Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S. (Washington, D.C.: The National Environmental
Education & Training Foundation, 2005).
88
Kahn, “Towards Ecopedagogy: Weaving a Broad-based Pedagogy of Liberation for Animals, Nature, and the
Oppressed People of the Earth,” 527.
89
Ibid., 525-526.
90
Ibid., 533.
29
and habitats. Thus, to realize a primary cultural-aspect of environmental
literacy is immediately to recognize the necessary move from an environmental
literacy to a cultural ecoliteracy.91
Ecoliteracy is increasingly becoming a focus of educational efforts aimed at
addressing sustainability. The Center for Ecoliteracy describes its mission of “schooling for
sustainability” as such: “young people… are faced with a long litany of pressing
environmental issues…. They need to learn to think ecologically, understand the
interconnectedness of human and natural systems, and have the will, ability, and creativity to
respond to these issues.”92 And in his book Ecological Literacy, David Orr comments, “Until
we see the crisis of sustainability as one with roots that extend from public policies and
technology down into our assumptions about science, nature, culture, and human nature, we
are not likely to extend our prospects much.”93 Jeannette Armstrong adds that ecoliteracy
education must generate in students “a holistic view of interconnectedness that demands our
responsibility to everything we are connected to.”94
But I argue alongside Richard Kahn that education for genuine sustainability must go
a step further. It must not only provide appreciation for interconnectedness and an
understanding of the relationship between cultural and ecological systems, but it must also
bring critical perspectives to bear, questioning dominant social structures, resisting
hegemonic tendencies toward othering and exploitation, and engaging in transformative
action. Richard Kahn describes his definition of critical ecoliteracy, which is closely parallel
to my own:
91
Ibid.
92
“What Is Schooling for Sustainability?,” 1.
93
David W. Orr, Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World (New York: State
University of New York Press, 1992), 1.
94
Jeannette C. Armstrong, “En’owkin: Decision-Making as if Sustainability Mattered,” in Ecological Literacy:
Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World, ed. Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 1st ed. (San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005), 13.
30
A critical ecoliteracy involves the ability to articulate the myriad ways in which
cultures and societies unfold and develop ideological political systems and
social structures that tend either towards ecological sustainability and
biodiversity or unsustainability and extinction. In addition, critical ecoliteracy
means being able to recognize one’s own critical literacy… which contains
within itself a range of transformative energies, life forces, and liberatory
potentials capable of affecting the future. Moreover, in the particular example
of Western society, a critical ecoliteracy would mean (amongst other things)
understanding… the ways in which industrial capitalism (including modern
science and technology) has worked ecologically and anti-ecologically on the
planet…, [and] the manner in which an ideological image of “humanity” has
served to functionally oppress all that has been deemed Other than human by
interested parties.95
This view of critical ecoliteracy and its potential as the most comprehensive and most
promising approach to educating for sustainability is what I take up here, and I hope that my
work may offer a blueprint for curriculum design that pursues a commitment to this sort of
complex, culturally- and critically-aware ecoliteracy.
D. Research Questions
In order to pursue the transformative goals described above, it is necessary to
investigate the processes that produce cultural attitudes toward the more-than-human-world;
to formulate an understanding of what attitudes, worldviews, and belief systems lead to a
respectful, sustainable connection and identification with the more-than-human world; and to
develop strategies for helping students to cultivate these understandings effectively in
educational settings. These are the tasks I take on here. My efforts to accomplish these tasks
will consist of three components; first, I engage in theoretical exploration, carefully building
my own understanding and argument. This task is one of conceptual research. Next, I find
95
Kahn, “Towards Ecopedagogy: Weaving a Broad-based Pedagogy of Liberation for Animals, Nature, and the
Oppressed People of the Earth,” 533-534.
31
ways to apply the theory I have developed to the classroom, designing educational materials
that put my argument into practice. Finally, I evaluate these materials, looking to determine
whether they achieve the goals I lay out in my argument. Each of these components is a step
in an ongoing cyclical process of research, implementation, and reflection, and each is
equally essential to any effort to create positive change. As I take up each of these
components, the following questions will shape my focus and guide my efforts:
Questions Guiding the Conceptual Research:
• What discursive, conceptual, and cultural processes and practices lead to the othering
of nonhuman beings?
• In what ways does our dominant US-American cultural discourse shape our
conceptions of self, other, and the nonhuman world?
• What components of a conceptual framework or worldview might lead to sustainable
behavior, rather than destructive behavior?
• What discursive, conceptual, and cultural practices can produce an empathetic,
inclusive, and just conception of the more-than-human world?
• What strategies, particularly educational and discursive strategies, can be employed to
cultivate these conceptual frameworks and approaches?
Questions Guiding the Implementation and Evaluative Research:
• How can these educational, discursive, and cultural strategies be incorporated into
secondary and post-secondary school curricula and pedagogy?
32
• What impact would such a curriculum have on student attitudes, perceptions,
worldviews, and behaviors in relation to the more-than-human world?
• How would teachers respond to employing such a curriculum?
E. Personal and Educational Stance
An undeveloped field next to a track of power lines in suburban Maryland. Walking
there with my father, picking wild raspberries from abundant brambles, each one like
discovering a little treasure. Wading ankle-deep in the shaded, shallow stream that cut
through the field, watching shimmering fish flicker past my feet. The azalea and lily of the
valley and phlox that grew in the yard of my childhood home. The cats, gerbils, fish, and
other animals who were my companions at varying points in my childhood. These creatures,
beings, and places are the subjects and participants in many of my formative memories from
the early years of my life. I forged a relationship with each of them; they were the characters
whose presences populated my experiences, each speaking to me in its own way, each
becoming a part of who I am, a facet of my identity. Each represents a component of my self
as surely as each strand of my DNA; each a member of my extended family as surely as my
biological relatives.
And as I grew older, more places and beings came into my life and became a part of
me. The moss-draped tree I sat next to on spring days in the woods of Acadia National Park.
The steadfast potted lilac I grew on my back porch and brought with me each time I moved.
The vivid roses, the graceful mulberry tree, and the fervent trumpet vine I planted in my own
backyard. The dogs and cats who were part of my household and of my family over the
years. And the one dog I lived with and cared for over so many years, who became not only
33
one of my closest family members and friends, but my guide, teaching me more than I could
ever have expected about interspecies communication, intelligence, loyalty, strength of
character, and about bonds so powerful they span the distance between self and other, even
when that divide is as wide as the gulf between species.
I would not be who I am without these dear loved ones, friends, and companions.
And it is through my personal relationships with them that I have forged an indelible affinity
with the entirety of the more-than-human world. Each place, each budding flower, each
fluttering bird and bounding animal is linked to me. I feel for them, and with them, as I feel
for and with other humans across the globe, even those I have never met. My family spans
the surface of the earth. When they flourish and are joyful, I exult with them in the wonder
of life. When they suffer and are harmed or destroyed, I grieve for them and for myself at
their loss.
This deep emotional and visceral link to the larger world is at the center of my
experience of ecoliteracy. Everything I have learned about environmental, animal rights, and
human rights issues, every effort I have made in my life to live and behave in ways that
support sustainability and justice for all creatures, all stem from personal connection, respect,
and affection for my co-inhabits of this more-than-human world. Just as I would always
wish to care for, help, and protect the members of my immediate family, I am unquestionably
called to do the same for my extended family of the earth. I act as I do because I could not
do otherwise. And although each of us may come to and experience the development of
socio-environmental awareness and the motivation to act somewhat differently, something of
the sort of connection I have experienced is one part of what I hope to strengthen or awaken
in others.
34
Beyond this, I hope to offer pathways to guide, inform, and channel such feelings of
care and connection into critical understanding and thoughtful action. The educational
opportunities I have experienced in my own life have offered such a guiding framework,
providing me with a chance to investigate and forge broader knowledge of the problems I
sensed in the world around me, to make connections between social and environmental
conditions, and to have the power to intentionally select the conceptual approaches I choose
to employ to engage with the world. My education, and most essentially those parts of my
education that cultivated awareness of the dynamics of discourse, language, and cultural
perceptions, has allowed me to join my feelings of care with an understanding of social
beliefs and behaviors that I can apply to every decision and action I make in my daily life and
in my attempts to generate positive change. By developing these understandings, I was able
to transition from having a strongly-felt but bewildered and sometimes directionless need to
advocate for my global ecological family, to feeling genuinely equipped to navigate the
cultural and conceptual waters around me and to work to effect their flow and content.
I hope to allow other to experience this transition as well; both to encourage a deeply-
held desire to live ways that support the larger socio-ecological good, and to cultivate the
skills and understandings that will inform and direct this essential desire to act for the good
of the earth, as my own educational experiences have directed this desire for me. Linking
connection and compassion to broad, critical understandings of how and why the world is in
its current state, and equipping these feelings and understandings with the intellectual and
social tools to effect positive change, is in my view the surest way to encourage a positive,
transformative, and sustainable approach to the world. For me, acquiring these conceptual
resources has provided the invaluable opportunity to better understand the events I witness
35
unfolding around me and to fulfill my need to act on behalf of the earthly family I love; I
believe it can do the same for others.
There are many venues and contexts where such knowledge and sentiments could be
formed. For some, like me, they may start to develop on their own as the result of our
childhood and life experiences. But even those who have had such experiences can benefit
from their reinforcement, expansion, articulation, and analysis. And many others have not
had the opportunity to forge these awarenesses independently. I believe one of the best
places to begin the process for those who have not experienced it, and to develop it further
for those who have, is the classroom. Education holds one of the best hopes to create
contexts that allow us to consider, question, contest, and transform our world.
My educational stance derives from this belief in the significant role education can
play in encouraging critical awareness of the world. As such, I find myself strongly aligned
with the philosophy and approaches of critical pedagogy and related progressive,
intentionally transformative educational practices. I received my own teacher certification in
secondary language arts from an extremely progressive educational studies program, and
have been fortunate enough to gain experience in interdisciplinary teaching and curriculum
design at the secondary and post-secondary level, working with students from a range of
social, class, racial, and political backgrounds, from middle-class, predominantly white, high
school students in a small town in Maine; to students engaged in grassroots environmental
activism from across the country; to working class students in an African American
neighborhood in western Baltimore City. These students had very different experiences of
life, different views of the world, different skill levels, and different educational and personal
goals. But there are some needs and desires they all shared: To find meaningful connections
36
to others. To express themselves. To feel understood by others. To find or forge a sense of
self, voice, and identity. To comprehend the processes that have made the world what it is.
To feel they have the power and ability to shape their own lives and the world in some
positive way.
Each of us has these core needs. To connect, to hear and be heard, to be part of a
community, to be an agent in our own lives, to do good. And I believe that as human
members of the more-than-human world, each of us, on some level, has the built-in,
primordial need to live in connection with the larger world. To know, appreciate, and engage
with others of all sorts. To be an active and positive part of the larger whole that we are all
inextricably already part of. To know our family, in its broadest sense, and by so doing, to
know who we are.
This is who I am. And this is the mission I continue to work toward.
F. Notes on Terms
There are a number of concepts explored in this dissertation for which scholars and
the contemporary public have struggled to find satisfactory terms. It may be a manifestation
of the difficulty that many modern human cultures have in conceptualizing their relationship
with the elements of the earth that are beyond human society that we find it so challenging to
find words and phrases that effectively reflect the interconnected systems of life of which we
are a part, and that accurately and evocatively capture our place within those systems. In my
own work I follow several paths established within the literature of environmental
philosophy, environmental ethics, and environmental discourse, employing an imperfect but
37
widely-used set of terms that I hope can accomplish the practical task of concisely conveying
ideas and relationships that our culture is still working to understand, develop and invoke.
I use the term nonhuman world to refer to all beings, landscape features, atmospheric
elements, and ecological components that are not human beings or of human making. This
word is intended to refer to living beings and to the land beyond those spaces and artifacts
built by humans. A subcategory within this term is nonhuman beings, which I use to
describe living creatures not of the human species, including plants and nonhuman animals.
The question – raised by many thinkers across a range of cultures and time periods –
of whether the earth itself, and each feature of the land, should be viewed and described as
presences, as sensing, interacting, and perhaps spiritually active participants in the
community of life, is one that I leave open here. Whether to discursively approach a river, or
a mountain, or a forest, or a rainstorm, or the planet itself as a living being, as an animate and
enspirited agent, is an issue that I encourage us as individuals and as a culture to engage with
much more deeply. In my work I follow David Abram’s lead and attempt to write in ways
that accord such presences consideration, respect, and an acknowledgment of their capacity
to contain and convey meaning. My writing about these elements of our world may appear
flexible in meaning, but this flexibility is intentional, and I hope it leaves space for personal
and collective questioning of the boundaries created by our definitions of life, community,
relationship, spirit, and awareness.
To describe the fullness of the world, including humans and nonhumans, I most
frequently employ David Abram’s term more-than-human world. I use this term to describe
the entirety of our planetary community, including both human and nonhuman life. It is
intended to capture the holistic quality of interconnected beings, life systems, and planetary
38
features, and to acknowledge and remind us that humankind is an important part of this
matrix of life, but not its only or central player. A large proportion of scholars have adopted
this term, finding it more useful than any other currently available alternatives.
Additionally, although I generally try to avoid the layered and problematic issues
associated with the word nature,96 for the sake of brevity and variety I do at times use the
phrase natural world, as a shorthand to refer to those features of the earth that are not part of
the human-built environment.
I use the term speciesism to describe systematic, normative, and institutionalized bias
against nonhuman beings. And although there is some debate as to whether the term
anthropocentrism designates an approach to the world that is necessarily destructive, I use
this term here to identify a viewpoint that, as it focuses almost exclusively on human
experiences and human interests, is in my estimation too narrow to produce an informed and
empathetic capacity for reasoning about the larger good. I also identify anthropocentrism as
a feature of many dominant contemporary worldviews, and as such I consider it as
representative of an established conceptual framework that has proven ineffective in
producing sustainable behaviors.
There terms are perhaps a clumsy start at formulating a range of challenging and
complex ideas. They may not fully capture the intricate and emotionally-rich concepts they
stand in for, but they are my best effort to gesture at these concepts. And I hope they can
function as a starting place for us to begin filling in the missing conceptual gaps that are
evidenced by the limited language available to discuss such essential components of our
being.
96
The ongoing scholarly debate over this word, and an analysis of the legacy of its use and of the conceptual
constructs that have developed around it, are beyond the scope of the current work.
39
III. Features of Critical Ecoliteracy
A. The Essential Qualities
What does critical ecoliteracy entail? What qualities, ideas, or approaches could be
identified as defining features of a critical ecoliteracy curriculum?
A number of individuals and organizations have offered suggestions as to the sorts of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are necessary components of an ecoliterate approach to
the world, and several educational organizations have outlined related goals for
environmental literacy. The North American Association for Environmental Education
comments:
The ultimate goal of environmental education is the development of an

environmentally literate citizenry…. We are asking individuals to go beyond
the fact by fact, piece by piece examination of our environment and begin to
understand and think in terms of systems bound together. We are asking
individuals to develop a sophisticated set of skills that allow them to solve
novel environmental problems and determine the best set of actions. We are
asking individuals to become thoughtful, skillful, and active citizens in a
democracy.97
In their Excellence in Environmental Education Guidelines for Learning, this organization
lays out a series of ‘strands’ or learning goals that are intended to help students develop “the
basic skills and dispositions they need to understand and act on environmental problems and
issues as responsible citizens – and to continue the learning process throughout their lives.”98
Strand one is “Questioning, Analysis, and Interpretation of Skills”99; strand two is
97
“Excellence in Environmental Education Guidelines for Learning (Pre K-12),” North American Association
for Environmental Education, 2004, 3, http://naaee.org/npeee/learner_guidelines.php.
98
Ibid., 73.
99
Ibid., 74.
40
“Knowledge of Environmental Processes and Systems”100; strand three is “Skills for
Understanding and Addressing Environmental Issues”101; strand four is “Personal and Civic
Responsibility.”102
Some individual states have also outlined standards for environmental literacy. The
Maryland State Department of Education sets out eight standards in its environmental
literacy guidelines: “Issues Investigation,” “Systems, “Matter and Energy Move in Earth’s
Systems,” “Populations, Communities, and Ecosystems,” “Humans and Natural Resources,”
“Environment, Humans and Health,” “Environment and Society,” and “Sustainability.”103 A
number of other states, including Oregon, Maine, Nebraska, and Illinois, to name a few, are
developing their own environmental literacy standards, as well.104
Going beyond environmental literacy to ecoliteracy, the influential Center for
Ecoliteracy lists fifteen ‘competencies’ it identifies as essential for “living in sustainable
communities,” divided into four categories: Head, Heart, Hands, and Spirit.105 Within these
categories the Center for Ecoliteracy lists the following competencies:
Head (Cognitive): Approach issues and situations from a systems perspective;

Understand fundamental ecological principles; Think critically, solve problems
creatively, and apply knowledge to new situations; Assess the impacts and
ethical effects of human technologies and actions; Envision the long-term
consequences of decisions. Heart (Emotional): Feel concern, empathy, and
respect for other people and living things; See from and appreciate multiple
100
Ibid., 76.
101
Ibid., 82.
102
Ibid., 86.
103
“Maryland State Environmental Literacy Curriculum,” Maryland State Department of Education, 2008,
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/environment/tk/els.
104
“Oregon Environmental Literacy Task Force,” Oregon Department of Education, 2010,
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2886; “Environmental Literacy for Illinois Plan,” Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, March 22, 2010, http://www.dnr.state.il.us/el4il/index.htm; “Nebraska
Environmental Literacy Plan Draft for Review,” Nebraska Alliance for Conservation and Environmental
Education, n.d., http://www.nacee.org/; “Environmental Literacy,” Maine Audubon, 2009,
http://www.maineaudubon.org/explore/EnvironmentalLiteracy.shtml; “Environmental Literacy Plans by State,”
No Child Left Inside, n.d., http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=924.
105
“Competencies,” Center for Ecoliteracy, 2010, http://www.ecoliteracy.org/discover/competencies.
41
perspectives; work with and value others with different backgrounds,
motivations, and intentions; Commit to equity, justice, inclusivity, and respect
for all people. Hands (Active): Create and use tools, objects, and procedures
required by sustainable communities; Turn convictions into practical and
effective action, and apply ecological knowledge to the practices of ecological
design; Assess and adjust uses of energy and resources. Spirit (Connectional):
Experience wonder and awe toward nature; Revere the Earth and all living
things; Feel a strong bond with and deep appreciation of place; Feel kinship
with the natural world and invoke that feeling in others.106
The sorts of conceptual strategies, habits of mind, and emotive capacities that have
been highlighted in these lists offer valuable perspectives as to what qualities may lead one to
interact with the world sustainably.
I support an approach such as this that calls for not just increased knowledge, but the
development of intellectual resources that can be applied to approaching the world more
sustainably. However, what is too often missing from these formulations is a focus on
qualities that can be applied to critically analyzing cultural realities and possibilities. A
critical ecoliteracy perspective fills this gap.
Indeed, it is important to note that critical ecoliteracy, as I define it, is about
developing strategies for reflecting upon and transforming the world. Its focus is not on
conveying discrete facts in isolation or imposing particular viewpoints. While I do propose
that critical ecoliteracy curricula should be expressly intended to shift student perceptions,
the shift I am arguing for is not from one set of beliefs to another pre-established set. Rather,
I contend that we must critically examine all of our cultural narratives, how they are
established, and what positive or negative behavior they are likely to produce. So, the
change I propose does not consist of replacing one ideology with another; it is only
106
Ibid.
42
secondarily a change in what we think and is primarily a change in how we think. Anna
Peterson captures this sentiment, saying, “I seek, as Mennonite theologian John Howard
Yoder puts it, not ‘a beautiful vision to impose from above,’ but rather ‘critical resources to
apply from below.’”107
Peterson further comments, “Pragmatic ethics and epistemologies are interested
primarily in the effects of ideas.”108 I suggest that education for critical ecoliteracy should be
interested in the effects of ideas, as well, in challenging students to critically analyze and
question the ideas that constitute our cultural fabric. It should be an endeavor through which
students develop methods to “confront and resist powerful cultural norms that reinforce
nonsustainable habits and preferences.”109
This goal does not mean that educators should take no stand about which narrative or
framework is more positive, just, and sustainable, or that they should hesitate to suggest
alternatives to those that currently dominate – I certainly take my own stands, rejecting many
modern conventional attitudes toward the natural world and supporting new approaches that
are built around compassion, relationality, and supportive co-existence. Promoting love and
connection with the more-than-human world as a social good is an important part of my own
ethical practice, which I attempt to pursue in every aspect of my life just I hope others will
seek to enact their own ethical and emotional stands. But the work of critical ecoliteracy
requires that we voice these stands in the context of dialogue and critical examination, so that
no approach is dogma, and all are evaluated and questioned as to their potential outcomes in
each of our lives. Mick Smith raises a notion proposed by Jean-François Lyotard, of waging
“‘a guerilla war’ of constant subversive interventions in order to undermine the authority of
107
108
Ibid., 130.
109
Ibid., 121.
43
any discourse that threatens to attain hegemony.”110 While I would not frame the educational
practice I envision as warfare, I might suggest a similar goal, which perhaps could be viewed
as a subversive art, a critical and creative process of social invention.
As seen above, proponents of ecoliteracy such as the Center for Ecoliteracy have also
called for cultivating changes in how we think about the world. Fritjof Capra, one of the
founders of the Center for Ecoliteracy, proposes a shift toward systems thinking. He
explains:
Because living systems are nonlinear and rooted in patterns of relationships,

understanding the principles of ecology requires a new way of seeing the world
and of thinking – in terms of relationships, connectedness, and context – that
goes against the grain of traditions in Western science and education. Such
“contextual” or “systemic” thinking involves several shifts of perception….111
Capra outlines his suggestions for those shifts, from “the parts to the whole,” “objects to
relationships,” “objective knowledge to contextual knowledge,” “quantity to quality,”
“structure to process,” and “contents to patterns.112
I commend Capra’s recommendations, but my proposed curricular approach expands
them, as I suggest that we need not only ecological literacy but critical cultural literacy, and
critical understandings of links between the two. I believe we need strategies of mind that
not only allow us to understand ecological systems, but allow us to examine our culturally
constituted selves. As Peterson points out, “We do not have any systematic reflection, in
other words, about how we might make mixed communities [of humans and nonhumans]
110
111
Fritjof Capra, “Speaking Nature’s Language: Principles for Sustainability,” in Ecological Literacy:
Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World, ed. Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 1st ed. (San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005), 20.
112
Ibid., 20-21.
44
both desirable and practicable.”113 I suggest that we do not have methods and structures for
systematic reflection of any transformations we might enact in the future, of how we could
identify and enact transformations that would benefit the entirety of the living world, or as
Peterson suggests, of how we might make such transformations desirable and possible.
To achieve such systematic reflection, I believe we must equip ourselves with a set of
intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources that enable critical reflection and creative re-
evaluation. Here I offer my formulation of eight qualities of thought that I feel are essential
for such a critically aware and socio-ecologically informed examination and reinvention.
These eight essential qualities are:
• Empathy – a deeply-felt understanding and compassion for the feelings and

experiences of others, both human and nonhuman;
• Mutuality – a strong sense of shared identity, community, interconnection, and
interdependence between humans and the more-than-human world;
• Ethical Consciousness – an ongoing commitment to questioning right and wrong and
to considering the responsibilities we each possess in relation to others;
• Context – broad knowledge of the state of the world, and of the dynamics at work in
shaping it, from a socio-environmental perspective;
• Critical Language Awareness – an examination of how language is used, by whom,
and why, and how these uses of language affect our relationship to the more-than-
human-world;
• Cultural Perspective – exposure to the belief systems, foundational narratives, and
practices of a range of cultures, past and present, to gain insight into perspectives that
are different from the dominant American perspectives;
• Imagination – the ability to creatively construct alternative visions of how things
could be and how we might live our lives; and
113
45
• Agency – an empowered sense of one’s own capacity to act to bring about positive
change.
I discuss each of these qualities below.
1. Empathy
“According to Mary Midgley, ‘Love… is a habit or power of the mind, which grows
and develops with use.’”114 Like Midgley, I contend that love, compassion, care, and
empathy are skills that can be cultivated. We can learn to imagine what someone else is
feeling, to see the world from another’s point of view. We can learn to feel for and with
others, to value their subjective experiences as different from our own but equally deserving
of acknowledgment, consideration, and respect.
Wendell Berry has said, “to be grown up is to know that the self is not a place to
live.”115 The cultivation of empathy is partially a process of learning and appreciating this
truth. Berry suggests that we cannot, as individuals or as a culture, live solely inside
ourselves, disregarding the existence and importance of other people, of nonhuman beings,
and of the more-than-human world. Anna Peterson highlights this importance as well,
commenting that, “valuable encounters decenter the self, so that the individual can no longer
be his or her only reality, the sole sun of a personal universe.”116
Empathy not only serves to increase compassion for others; by decentering individual
experiences and expanding the sphere of concern to a larger range of the living beings with
which we share the planet, empathy operates as a tool that can be applied to developing more
114
Ibid., 48.
115
116
46
thoughtful and inclusive approaches of the world. Peterson suggests that by expanding “our
empathetic horizons,” we “stimulate concern for unrelated people, and extend personal
concerns into a longer temporal arc.”117
Indeed, empathy is a skill that supports and contributes to other aspects of cognition
and understanding. Evan Thompson argues that empathy and intersubjectivity are essential
for human awareness in his essay “Empathy and Consciousness.”118 He comments:
the individual human mind is not confined within the head, but extends
throughout the living body and includes the world beyond the biological
membrane of the organism, especially the interpersonal, social world of self and
other…. one’s consciousness of oneself as an embodied individual in the world
is founded on empathy – on one’s empathic cognition of others, and others’
empathic cognition of oneself.119
Other authors have also suggested that humans need empathetic connection to the
nonhuman world. Marc Bekoff echoes sentiments expressed by David Abram, saying “We
are best understood in relationship with others… Animals are sources of wisdom, a way of
knowing.”120
This “way of knowing” can help us gain a wider perspective on the world, recognize
the knowledge and needs of others, and discover the inherent benefits of forging close
relationships with other beings, what Donna Haraway calls “‘encounter value,” an addition to
Karl Marx’s categories of use and exchange value.”121
The cultivation of empathy cannot help but cause a shift in how we view the world.
Anna Peterson explains:
117
Ibid., 50.
118
Evan Thompson, “Empathy and Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 8, no. 5-7 (2001): 1–32.
119
Ibid., 2.
120
Mark Bekoff, “Minding Animals, Minding Earth: Old Brains, New Bottlenecks,” Zygon 38, no. 4 (2003):
911.
121
Discussed in Peterson, Everyday Ethics and Social Change, 35.
47
As the history, interests, needs, and concerns of another become part of our
worldview, we come to value the friend’s values and also her good. Our vision
of and commitment to a common welfare expands as a consequences of the
encounters and affections we share.122
As a result, “It becomes impossible, as Gramsci asserted, to separate love for particular
people from the desire to build a society more hospitable to all people,”123 and all beings.
Despite the personal and collective benefits of engaging in empathy, I suggest that
this skill is often ignored or even rejected in dominant culture and schooling. Leesa Fawcett
explores this issue in an investigation of children’s capacity for empathy with nonhuman
animals.124 She contends that direct experiences with nonhumans are becoming more and
more rare for children, and she argues for the importance of stories in cultivating bonds
between children and nonhuman beings, saying “I believe we live in an ‘ecosystem of
stories,’ as poet Robert Bringhurst describes… and that children’s stories are vital to all
diverse and flourishing communities.”125
Traci Warkentin126 also explores ways to develop empathy with the more-than-human
world, focusing on the value of embodied experience. She explains, “It is my contention that
embodied experience, such that one feels their body continuous with the “flesh of the world”
…will allow one to empathize with other embodied beings to the extent of nurturing an
ethics of respect for all such beings.”127 Warkentin, too, proposes using story-telling and
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid., 48.
124
Leesa Fawcett, “Children’s Wild Animal Stories: Questioning Inter-Species Bonds,” Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education 7, no. 2 (2002): 125–139.
125
Ibid., 126.
126
Warkentin, “It’s not just what you say, but how you say it.”
127
Ibid., 242.
48
metaphor to evoke embodied empathy, saying, “We will no longer ask to hear the story of the
tree. We will become the forest.”128
I propose actively developing such empathy through education, employing stories,
poetry, art, creative writing, metaphor, and other texts and techniques to help students
develop the capacity to see themselves as in relation with other beings, to desire and seek out
positive interactions with others, and to imagine the worlds of these others. To not only want
to know the story of the tree, but to feel the interests of the tree as linked to their own
interests, to be informed by the life of the tree, and to feel themselves as part of the forest.
2. Mutuality
Life is fundamentally about interdependence and reciprocity; all living beings are
dependent on one another as we each play a role in the global ecosystem. In order to
formulate critically-aware and sustainable perspectives on the world, it is essential that we
understand the myriad ways that our lives are interlinked with other lives, both human and
nonhuman. Fritjof Capra tells us, “Sustainability always involves a whole community. This
is the profound lesson we need to learn from nature.”129 Jeannette Armstrong offers a related
point, saying, “a community is the living process that interacts with the vast and ancient body
of intricately connected patterns, operating in perfect unison, called the land. The land
sustains all life and must be protected from depletion in order to ensure its health and ability
to provide sustenance across generations.”130
As seen above, advocates of environmental literacy and ecoliteracy call for increased
knowledge of the immutable facts of ecological interconnection. I agree that such ecological
128
Ibid., 243.
129
Capra, “Ecological Literacy,” 24.
130
Armstrong, “Ecological Literacy,” 13.
49
knowledge is vital. However, finding more sustainable ways to approach the world is not
simply about learning to understand ecological processes, but also about exploring the most
positive ways to conceptualize, value, and support these connections between people, other
beings, and the land. As Anna Peterson reflects, “The task is less to seek out connections to
nonhuman animals and ecosystems than to acknowledge and embrace the connections that
are already part of us.”131
We cannot help but live lives that are interconnected with other beings. But,
depending on the cultural framework we employ, we can either ignore or recognize these
interconnections. Peterson comments, “The issue is not whether we are in relation, then, but
what kind of relations we create, and how we view them.”132
By critically exploring possible conceptualizations of interdependence, we can
recognize what kind of relations we are currently creating, and what kind we wish to create.
Considering what kinds of relations will best serve us and the planet is an essential
element of this exploration. David Orr argues, “even a thorough knowledge of the facts of
life and of the threats to it will not save us in the absence of the feeling of kinship with life of
the sort that cannot entirely be put into words.”133 Orr and others suggest that to truly care
we must also form a bond, an emotional and intuitive connection, to others and to the living
world. Forming such bonds internalizes and naturalizes the knowledge that our welfare is
linked to the welfare of others. It also allows us to explore the full range of ways in which
we are linked to other beings. Peterson notes, “we are emotionally, socially, perhaps even
131
132
Ibid., 41.
133
Orr, Ecological Literacy, 87.
50
neurologically constituted so as to require other species in order to live full and happy lives,
or at least good and honest ones.”134
Etienne Wenger makes a related point, suggesting that through kinship and mutual
recognition we find meaning and generate a sense of belonging and of self. Wenger states,
“In this experience of mutuality, participation is a source of identity. By recognizing the
mutuality of our participation, we become part of each other.”135
To participate with the earth, and as part of the earth, is to view our own interests as
inextricable components of a larger whole. It is to reason about our welfare, and about our
identity itself, in terms of a wider perspective. Exploring this perspective may be essential in
helping us to reformulate our approaches to the world.
3. Ethical Consciousness
It is vital, I would argue, that our society actively engage in ongoing ethical dialogue,
challenging ourselves to consider the motivations and ramifications of our behavior from
ethical perspectives. Such debate is actively underway in the fields of environmental ethics,
ecofeminism, and feminist ethics, among others.136 But while these scholarly examinations
continue, the vital insights they raise seem to barely register in mainstream discourse. Mick
Smith comments that, “Some… do not even recognize the possibility of an environmental
134
135
Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, 1st ed. (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), 56.
136
See Carolyn Merchant, “Ecofeminism,” in Environmental Discourse and Practice: A Reader, ed. Lisa M.
Benton and John Rennie Short (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000), 209-213; Donna Jeanne Haraway, The
Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press,
2003); Mary Midgley, Animals and Why They Matter (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1984); Nel
Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984); Peterson, Everyday Ethics and Social Change; Smith, An Ethics of Place; Christopher D. Stone,
Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2010).
51
ethics…. They are content to continue to view the nonhuman world as of only instrumental
value and to evaluate it using cost-benefit analyses or other economistic tools.”137
By exposing students to ethical analyses, we can equip them to engage in their own
ethical reflection and dialogue. This would include exposure to texts like Peter Singer’s
classic Animal Liberation.138 Singer promotes the fair consideration of nonhuman animals
by discussing foundational theories of ethics and using them to lay out logical and
convincing arguments for why, from an ethical standpoint, we must take the suffering of
nonhuman animals into account. He points out that disregarding the suffering of nonhuman
animals because of arguably arbitrary cultural distinctions between human and nonhuman is
much like other forms of discrimination. He states:
If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that
suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the
principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like
suffering… of any other being…. So the limit of sentience… is the only
defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this
boundary by some other characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be
to mark it in an arbitrary manner. Why not choose some other characteristic,
like skin color?139
Offering other valuable ethical arguments, Christopher stone proposes conferring certain
rights upon “natural objects” and “the natural environment as a whole.”140 He posits:
It is not inevitable, nor is it wise, that natural objects should have no rights to
seek redress in their own behalf. It is no answer to say that streams and forests
cannot have standing because streams and forests cannot speak. Corporations
cannot speak, either; nor can states, estates, infants, incompetents,
municipalities, or universities. Lawyers speak for them….141
137
138
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco, 2002).
139
Ibid., 9.
140
Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?, 3.
141
Ibid., 8.
52
Stone suggests that a person might apply to serve as a guardian or trustee who can act on
behalf of an endangered natural object or region to defend its welfare and integrity.
Raising another vein of ethical insight, Anna Peterson “challenge[s]… the common
academic and popular assumption that acting morally is both difficult and rare,” and argues
for examining the ways that ethical and caring behavior exist in everyday interactions and
“emerge spontaneously from interpersonal relationships and encounters.”142 She explicates:
Few people experience care for children or protection of beloved places as

sacrifices or even as deliberate choices. Rather, such actions feel natural, even
necessary, since they emerge from core aspects of our personal histories and
identities. Everyday experiences and relationships engender commitments and
loyalties that translate into ethical values: commitments to something larger
than our own self-interest.143
Then, Peterson suggests, we must find ways to shift these experiences and commitments into
wider acceptance within the public sphere, to apply the language and wisdom of personal
care to larger ethical approaches to the world.
Carolyn Merchant offers another variation on the notion of ethics arising from the
experience of personal relationship. Merchant suggests:
…a partnership ethic that treats humans (including male partners and female
partners) as equals in personal, household, and political relations and humans as
equal partners with (rather than controlled-by or dominant-over) nonhuman
nature. Just as human partners… must give each other space, time, and care…
so humans must give nonhuman nature space, time, and care, allowing it to
reproduce, evolve, and respond to human actions.144
142
143
Ibid., 134.
144
Merchant, “Ecofeminism,” 212.
53
Each of these theories, and many others, provides insights and innovative possibilities
for how we can and should treat other beings. Considering these sorts of arguments, and
developing strategies that could be used to employ them, should not be an optional or
peripheral feature of society, but central to our cultural and educational discourse.
Mick Smith points out that ethical considerations are valuable not only for their own
sake but also because they provide “the possibility of ethical critiques of current social
relations and ethical arguments for social change.”145 In this way ethical dialogue points out
essential questions we must ask ourselves about our behavior and choices, and generates
mechanisms we can use to critically re-envision our social structures and reformulate
sustainable approaches to the world.
4. Context
In order to formulate sustainable approaches to the world, it is essential that we
understand the impact of our actions, and that we are aware of how our lifestyles affect
others. This requires us to learn about and analyze the social, political, industrial, corporate,
agricultural, and consumer processes at work in the modern world, and the consequences of
these processes for people, nonhuman beings, and the land.
William McDonough and Michael Braungart point out that our current industrial
method of production “puts billions of pounds of toxic material into the air, water, and soil
every year,” “produces some materials so dangerous they will require constant vigilance by
future generations,” “results in gigantic amounts of waste,” “puts valuable materials in holes
all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved,” “requires thousands of complex
regulations – not to keep people and natural systems safe, but to keep them from being
145
54
poisoned too quickly,” “creates prosperity by digging up or cutting down natural resources
and then burying or burning them,” and “erodes the diversity of species and cultural
practices.”146 To these results we must add that it encourages inhumane treatment of living
beings, depletes irreplaceable natural materials, causes dramatic alterations in the earth’s
climate, requires the annihilation of countless lives and habitats, and creates
disproportionately negative conditions for less privileged groups.147
To be aware of these outcomes and to understand the processes through which they
are produced is a vital step toward imagining alternative strategies for living our lives, in
ways that will not produce these devastating consequences. Still, public knowledge of the
reality of socio-environmental conditions remains very low.148 Some suggest this is partially
because of the phenomenon of ‘distancing’ that occurs in societies where consumers are far
removed from the origins of what they consume. Thomas Princen explains:
Consumers in a dynamic, expansive economy are more likely to be insulated

from the consequences of their choices. They are left with little basis for their
decisions beyond price. This insulation occurs in part through the separating of
production and consumption decisions along a chain of resource decisions….149
Anna Peterson also comments on this lack of awareness about the implications of our
production and consumption. She observes:
146
McDonough and Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, 18.
147
Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the
Decline of the American Dream (New York: North Point Press, 2000); Patrick Hossay, Unsustainable: A
Primer for Global Environmental and Social Justice (London: Zed Books, 2006); Wright, A Short History of
Progress.
148
Coyle, Environmental Literacy in America: What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper Research and Related Studies
Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S.
149
Thomas Princen, “Distancing: Consumption and the Severing of Feedback,” in Confronting Consumption,
ed. Thomas Princen, Michael F. Maniates, and Ken Conca, 1st ed. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002),
116.
55
The truth of ecological and social interdependence is that our actions affect
others, regardless of whether we realize or admit it. The fact that we often do
not feel these effects reinforces our illusion of independence and
exceptionalism…. we distance ourselves by living far away from the effects of
our actions and also from the sources of our lives. We do not know where our
water comes from or where our garbage goes. We do not know who sews the
clothes we wear or picks the lettuce we eat. And we do not know how our
actions affect other people, places, and creatures. We believe we are separate
because we live as though we were.150
Peterson suggests that, “Understanding the real environmental and social costs” of how we
live “helps us to see the structural in the everyday, to connect our individual choices to big
ideas and big results.”151 Herein lies part of why an understanding of current socio-
environmental contexts and conditions is so important. Through such knowledge, we can
learn to “see the structural in the everyday” and to connect our actions to larger ideas. This
strategy of thought is essential to a critically ecoliterate analysis of our world.
5. Critical Language Awareness
Pierre Bourdieu has said, “the very motor of change is nothing less than the whole
linguistic field”152 As discussed in previous sections, language and discourse operate as a
powerful mechanism for structuring culture, belief, and action. The influence of discourse
can reproduce harmful modes of perceiving and acting, or it can be applied to create positive
transformation through reframing, relanguaging, and reconceptualizing ourselves and our
interactions with the more-than-human world.153 For this reason, we must develop in
students and in mainstream society critical awareness of the workings of language,
communication, and media, and of their influence on our views of the world.
150
151
Ibid., 106.
152
Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, ed. John B Thompson, trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew
Adamson (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991), 64.
153
For a discussion of relanguaging, see Dunayer, Animal Equality.
56
Echoing scholars such as the New London Group154 and others, I contend that
education must equip students with the conceptual tools to critically examine the influence of
language and communication on their thinking and actions, and to understand and analyze
how language is used, to what effects, and for what (and whose) purposes. Within this
educational focus, I further argue that we must include awareness of how language, and our
other cultural modes of communication, influence our understanding of others (both human
and nonhuman) and of the natural world.155
In a discussion of ‘critical environmental education’ from their article “Beyond
Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist
Turn,” Ann Bell and Constance Russell say:
Despite the call for attention to voices historically absent from traditional
canons and narratives… nonhuman beings are shrouded in silence. This silence
characterizes even the work of writers who call for a rethinking of all culturally
positioned essentialisms…. The anthropocentric bias in critical pedagogy
manifests itself in silence and in the asides of texts. Since it is not a topic of
discussion, it can be difficult to situate a critique of it. Following feminist
analyses, we find that examples of anthropocentrism, like examples of gender
symbolization, occur “in those places where speakers reveal the assumptions
they think they do not need to defend, beliefs they expect to share with their
audiences”….156
These hidden assumptions too often go unquestioned, manifesting through discourse to
naturalize species bias and destructive practices. We must help students develop the skills to
recognize and reflect critically upon these unexamined assumptions, and to actively apply
their knowledge to the development of transformative discursive strategies, envisioning and
154
C. Cazden et al., “A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures,” Harvard Educational Review 66,
no. 1 (1996): 60–92.
155
See the prior section “Discourse, Metaphor, and the Cultural Construction of Worldviews” for further
discussion of this process at work.
156
Bell and Russell, “Beyond Human, beyond Words,” 191.
57
employing alternative linguistic, metaphorical, and cultural formulations that could lead to
more sustainable attitudes and practices.
6. Cultural Perspective
It is important to expose ourselves to other cultural belief systems, past and present,
to help us reflect more critically on our own beliefs and expand our awareness of alternative
approaches. Mick Smith comments that our worldviews, ideologies, and discourses are not
only conceptual “tools” but “the framework[s] within which problems develop and proposed
solutions are judged.”157 By understanding that more than one such framework exists, we
can begin to recognize that the problems and proposed solutions that arise within our culture
are not unalterable truths, but products of the belief systems that engendered them. In this
way, expanded knowledge of the worldviews, foundational narratives, and practices of a
range of cultures, past and present, provides us with a larger ‘toolbox’ of cultural
perspectives.
To illustrate the value of acquiring comparative cultural perspective, I offer two
examples of belief systems that are quite different from dominant narratives within the US or
Western cultural landscape; both examples are drawn from Wisdom of the Elders by David
Suzuki and Peter Knudtson.158
As described by Suzuki and Knudtson, the Desana people in Colombia believe in a
Creator Sun, who brought the universe into being and provided humanity with a code of
conduct to help them maintain a healthy relationship with “the rest of the inhabitants of the…
rain forest.” This set of principles could not be expressed in language; instead it is encoded
157
158
David Suzuki and Peter Knudtson, Wisdom of the Elders: Sacred Native Stories of Nature (New York:
Bantam, 1992).
58
in an “earth-spanning canopy of interconnected silken threads that make up [a] fantastic
‘cosmic web’” that guides human actions.159 This belief system appears to highlight
interconnection and co-existence with other beings, as well as a responsibility, imparted by
divine creation, to support the health of the natural environment and its inhabitants.
In another example, according to the Chewong of Malaysia, “all species of animal
inherently deserve profound human respect.” The sacred laws of the Chewong specify
“proper human attitudes toward other animal species,” and mandate that no nonhuman
animal may be teased, laughed at, or demeaned. Children may not taunt captive animals or
behave “too boisterously in the vicinity of animal flesh that is being prepared, cooked, or
eaten….” Ridiculous or undignified images of nonhuman animals may not be used for
human entertainment. It is also forbidden to treat an animal as “a mere toy” to play with –
this would “[deny] the animal its fundamental right to its own natural identity and its place in
the cosmos.”160 This conceptualization emphasizes the individual subjectivity of other
beings and operates to institutionalize attitudes of respect for nonhuman life.
These cultural frameworks contrast sharply with many of the modes of understanding
that dominate in US culture, including hierarchical formulations of human superiority and
uniqueness,161 and perceptions of nonhumans as inanimate commodities or resources.
Exposure to differing views such as these can inform our critical awareness about our own
culture and fuel creative explorations of possible alternative conceptions.
In a discussion of social crises Alasdair MacIntyre notes, “The ability to respond
adequately to this kind of cultural need depends of course on whether those summoned
possess intellectual and moral resources that transcend the immediate crisis, which enable
159
Ibid., 30.
160
Ibid., 40-43.
161
Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155, no. 3767 (1967): 1203-1207.
59
them to say to the culture what the culture cannot say to itself”162 These are the sorts of
resources I believe we must cultivate through a development of informed cultural
perspective, allowing us to view ourselves from a new angle and ‘say to our culture what it
cannot say to itself.’
7. Imagination
I contend that we are facing a crisis of imagination in our culture, unable to conceive
of new and better strategies to organize our existence in ways that will be healthy for humans
and the more-than-human world. To combat this crisis, we must work to expand and inspire
our creativity, exploring imaginative alternative visions of the world.
William McDonough and Michael Braungart explore this dearth of imagination in
their analysis of contemporary modes of design, engineering, and production. In one part of
their analysis, they critique goals of “eco-efficiency,” suggesting that these objectives imply
that doing ‘less harm’ is the best we can hope for, rather than imagining a system in which
we do no harm, or are even beneficial, to our surroundings. They state of trying to produce
zero pollution:
As long as human beings are regarded as “bad,” zero is a good goal. But to be
less bad is to accept things as they are, to believe that poorly designed,
dishonorable, destructive systems are the best humans can do. This is the
ultimate failure of the “be less bad” approach: a failure of the imagination.
From our perspective, this is a depressing vision of our species’ role in the
world. What about an entirely different model? What would it mean to be 100
percent good?163
162
Qtd. in Smith, An Ethics of Place, 14.
163
60
We can find inspiration for our imagination in experimental design and building
projects, in art and fictional narratives, and, as some authors suggest, in examples from our
own lives. Anna Peterson proposes that we can use the experiences of love, care, and
connection formed in close personal relationships as, “a source of alternative values and
utopian visions.”164 And McDonough and Braungart offer the workings of the natural world
as another source of inspiration. They observe:
…all the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of
humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their
productiveness nourishes plants, animals, and soil. Human industry has been in
full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost
every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn’t have a design problem. People
do.165
If McDonough and Braungart are correct that people have “a design problem,” then
we must work to improve our capacity for creative design, for imaginative envisioning of
possibilities. We must engage in what Marek Oziewicz describes as “social dreaming about
sustainable coexistence.”166 And, by envisioning possibilities for more sustainable
approaches to the world, for compassionate and positive coexistence, we can begin to see
ways to manifest those possibilities, and begin planning and enacting steps to achieve
genuine change.
164
165
166
Marek Oziewicz, “‘We Cooperate, or We Die’: Sustainable Coexistence in Terry Pratchett’s The Amazing
Maurice and His Educated Rodents,” Children’s Literature in Education 40, no. 2 (June 2009): 85.
61
8. Agency
Matthew Fox tells us, “Compassion… is not only about waking up to a consciousness
of interdependence; it is also about living out interdependence.”167 In order to create a just
and sustainable future, in is not enough to develop reflective awareness of the origins and
results of our belief systems and attitudes, nor to gain the intellectual, emotional, and ethical
resources that allow us to cultivate innovative re-envisionings of the future. We must also
“live out” this awareness and vision.
And so, in addition to the other essential qualities that a critical ecoliteracy
curriculum should cultivate in students, it must also develop personal empowerment and
agency, so that students can begin to enact positive change. In a review of research on
environmental literacy, Kevin Coyle describes the Hungerford Volk Model of stages of
environmental involvement. According to this model, “Entry level” involvement consists of
increased “environmental sensitivity.” After this comes the “Ownership” stage, consisting of
“In-depth knowledge of issues,” “Personal investment in issues and the environment,”
“Knowledge of the consequences of behavior,” and “Personal commitment to issues
resolution.” Finally, the “Empowerment” stage involves “Knowledge of and skill in using…
action strategies,” and “In-depth knowledge of issues,” and depends upon individuals’ “locus
of control” and “intention to act.”168
The knowledge, motivation, and confidence to formulate and employ “action
strategies” in an effort to effect change is an essential quality to foster in students. By
developing their voice and a sense of their own power, students become agents of
167
Matthew Fox, Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality Presented in Four Paths, Twenty-Six
Themes, and Two Questions (Santa Fe: Bear & Company, 1983), 281.
168
Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S., 40.
62
transformation. In this way they can put their understandings and imaginations to use,
finding ways to speak, think, and act that will move their own lives, their communities, and
their larger cultural surroundings toward practices and beliefs that support the long-term
health of the more-than-human world.
B. The Educational Tools
To cultivate the skills and develop the critical resources I have identified as ‘essential
qualities’ for critical ecoliteracy, educators must examine not only the course content they
present to students, but their teaching techniques, as well. Proponents of ecological literacy
such as David Orr have suggested that, in addition to their documented course objectives,
schools have “hidden curricula” that are communicated through school facilities, buildings,
practices, and teaching methods.169 Students gain or lose as much critical consciousness,
empowerment, and sense of community, empathy, and place through the methods that
schools and teachers use to approach the process of education as through the subject-matter
in their courses. For this reason, I encourage educators who wish to apply the principles of
critical ecoliteracy to teach and to operate their schools using interdisciplinary strategies
informed by sociocultural learning theory, critical pedagogy, theories of communities of
practice, and understandings of critical textual analysis and language diversity.
Below I outline these approaches and their relevance for creating classroom
environments that promote the qualities of critical ecoliteracy.
169
“Campuses and Buildings That Teach,” Center for Ecoliteracy, 2011, http://www.ecoliteracy.org/real-world-
optimal-learning-environment/campuses-and-buildings-teach.
63
1. Sociocultural Learning Theory and Critical Pedagogy
Few human practices or social institutions are more central to or more constitutive of
identity, community, and culture than education. Through education we transmit knowledge
and values from one generation to the next, reproducing or altering societal norms, attitudes,
and structures. As such, education has long been a focus of inquiry and debate, as we
consider how best to approach the task of teaching and learning, and to what ends.
Approaches to the study of learning are varied and vast. From neurophysiological to
behaviorist to cognitive theories, scholars have examined the means and methods of learning
and thinking from many angles. Some focus on biological processes within the brain, some
emphasize behavior modification and stimulus-response, some concentrate on individual task
completion.170
There is also an avenue of learning theory that focuses not on individual brains or
individual actions, but instead views learning and thinking as situated in and dependent upon
social contexts and interactions. This approach, which has its roots in the writings of such
theorists as John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, and Jerome Bruner, has come to be categorized as
the sociocultural theory of learning. Elements of sociocultural theory include the postulation
that “mental functioning has its roots in social relations” and that “tools and signs in one’s
sociocultural milieu mediate new patterns of thought.”171 Pedagogical strategies based on
sociocultural theory “emphasize dialogue, teacher colearning, peer collaboration,
questioning, students bringing knowledge to class, and joint knowledge construction.” 172
170
For a summary, see Wenger, Communities of Practice, 279-280.
171
Curtis Jay Bonk and Kyung A. Kim, “Extending Sociocultural Theory to Adult Learning,” in Adult Learning
and Development: Perspectives from Educational Psychology, ed. M. Cecil Smith and Thomas Pourchot
(Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1998), 69.
172
Ibid.
64
The work of John Dewey provided one of the earliest influences for sociocultural
theory. Dewey argues that a central purpose of education is to come to shared
understandings in order to engage in the world “in correspondence with others.” 173 He
further contends that this development of social understanding, which we conceive of as
‘knowledge’ or ‘learning,’ can only be done through collective action and experience.
Dewey comments that “participating in a joint activity” is “the chief way of forming
disposition.”174 He further states, “The material of thinking is not thoughts, but actions,
facts, events, and the relations of things.”175 Thus knowledge is, for Dewey, essentially
relational, and cannot exist outside of interaction with others.
Adding another facet to this conception of learning as a social process is the work of
Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s psychological theories have been extensively applied to
education, and they form a central component of the foundation of sociocultural theory. As
Curtis Jay Bonk and Kyung Kim tell us, “Vygotsky… pointed to the social life as the
springboard to individual cognitive development…. his views suggest that human mental
functioning evolves from one’s negotiation and meaning making within a community of
learners.”176
Rafael Díaz, Cynthia Neal, and Marina Amaya-Williams further explain Vygotsky’s
formulation of the socially-situated nature of cognition:
A major premise of Vygotsky’s theory is that the transformation of basic

processes into higher psychological functions occurs within the child’s social
interactions and through the use of culturally determined tools and symbols….
higher psychological functions have social origins in two related ways. First,
higher functions, such as voluntary attention, appear first in the interpersonal,
173
John Dewey, Democracy and Education (Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing, 1916), 33.
174
Ibid., 28.
175
Ibid., 157.
176
Bonk and Kim, “Adult Learning and Development,” 68-69.
65
social plane before they appear as part of the child’s cognitive/behavioral
repertoire in the intrapsychological plane. Second, higher psychological
functions can be understood as the internalization of social regulating
interactions or, more appropriately, as the internalization of culturally
determined adaptations that mediate the child’s relation to his or her
environment. 177
Several key concepts in sociocultural theory were developed or influenced by
Vygotsky’s writings, including zones of proximal development, internalization, scaffolding,
intersubjectivity, cognitive apprenticeship, and assisted learning. As outlined by Bonk and
Kim, the zone of proximal development describes skills that are currently beyond a learner’s
individual abilities, “but still within reach with the right support.” 178 Internalization
describes the process by which "patterns of social activity, first performed externally, are
executed on an internal plane.”179 Scaffolding is a process of “providing learning aids when
needed and fading these away so that the learner can eventually function without the help.”180
Intersubjectivity refers to shared understandings and meanings and the ability to negotiate
problems by incorporating another’s perspective.181 In cognitive apprenticeship, teachers
“expertly model the activity and then gradually cede control of the task to the student….”182
And assisted learning involves engaging in “instructional conversation” in which learners
“coconstruct new meanings and insights.”183
177
Rafael M. Díaz, Cynthia J. Neal, and Marina Amaya-Williams, “The Social Origins of Self-Regulation,” in
Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, ed. Luis C
Moll, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 127-128.
178
179
Ibid., 70.
180
Ibid.
181
Ibid., 71.
182
Ibid.
183
Ibid., 72.
66
James Paul Gee also explores the ways that learners gain understanding and mastery
through social interaction. 184 As a foundational thinker in the field of “New Literacy
Studies,” or, as Gee suggests it might more accurately be called, “integrated social-cultural-
political-historical literacy studies,”185 Gee particularly examines the use of language and
discourses in terms of “concrete social practices” and “the ideologies in which [they] are
embedded.”186
Gee investigates the individual and social applications of what he calls “‘Discourses,’
with a capital ‘D’.”187 To define this conception Gee tells us that Discourses “include much
more than language…. Discourses are ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking,
believing, speaking, and often reading and writing, that are accepted as instantiations of
particular identities.”188 Gee describes these Discourses as “dances” of “enactment and
recognition,”189 through which we construct who we are in relation to others.
Gee then analyzes how we obtain knowledge of various Discourses. To do so, he
outlines a distinction between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning,’ arguing that acquisition involves
achieving knowledge informally through exposure, while learning involves conscious
instruction, reflection, and “some degree of meta-knowledge” 190; Gee specifies that there is
value in both acquisition and learning, and many skills are attained through a mixture of the
two. He then goes on to argue that Discourses are mastered through acquisition; he asserts,
“Discourses are not mastered by overt instruction, but by enculturation (‘apprenticeship’)
into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have
184
Gee, Social Linguistics and Literacies.
185
Ibid., 150.
186
Ibid., 80.
187
Ibid., 2.
188
Ibid., 3.
189
Ibid., 156.
190
Ibid., 170.
67
already mastered the Discourse.”191 Still, he points out that learning must accompany
mastery of Discourses in order for learners to obtain “analytic and reflective awareness.”192
Etienne Wenger draws on many of the influential ideas of Dewey, Vygotsky, and Gee
in his development of the concept of communities of practice.193 Wenger describes learning
as a collective social process that occurs through engagement in a community. He suggests
that the practices of the community generate shared views, beliefs, memories, and values,
and that this shared knowledge influences how we see the world and how we see ourselves.
As such, these communities of practice are, according to Wenger, the most primary and
significant source of learning and meaning-making.194
Wenger’s work goes beyond considering how students develop competence or
expertise; rather, he focuses on the formation of identity through engagement in shared
practices, where identity then provides “ways of relating to the world” and a “source of
cohesion.”195 He asserts, “issues of education should be addressed first and foremost in
terms of identities and modes of belonging….”196 This view of identity is closely related to
Gee’s Discourses, as both describe socially-generated subject-positions that provide
structures for thinking, feeling, and relating to the world.
Wenger suggests three things students need from education: “places of engagement,”
“materials and experiences with which to build an image of the world and themselves,” and
“ways of having an effect on the world and making their actions matter.”197 Indeed, as
191
Ibid.
192
Ibid., 171.
193
Wenger, Communities of Practice.
194
While Wenger notes that these communities of practice often form outside of, or in subgroups within, formal
educational settings, his theory offers valuable insights that can be applied to classroom pedagogy, as do related
notions of ‘communities of inquiry’ (see following section for further discussion.)
195
Wenger, Communities of Practice, 283.
196
Ibid., 263.
197
Ibid., 271.
68
communities of practice co-shape the identities and worldviews of participants and influence
their interactions with the larger world, Wenger points out that this sort of education “is not
merely formative, it is transformative.”198 This highlights a point made by many
sociocultural theorists, that education can and should serve to initiate social change.
The centrality of education in shaping, and potentially altering, society is also
highlighted by Jerome Bruner, another central thinker in sociocultural theory.199 Bruner, too,
tells us that learning is embedded in culture, and that through cultural interactions people
construct reality, perceiving, interpreting, and engaging with the world in specific ways as a
result. He comments:
The ‘reality’ that we impute to the ‘worlds’ we inhabit is a constructed one....

Reality construction is the product of meaning making shaped by traditions and
by a culture’s toolkit of ways of thought. In this sense, education must be
conceived as aiding young humans in learning to use the tools of meaning
making and reality construction, to better adapt to the world in which they find
themselves and to help in the process of changing it as required.200
Bruner points out that education can often serve to maintain and reproduce dominant
social structures; he states, “The ‘official’ educational enterprise presumably cultivates
beliefs, skills, and feelings in order to transmit and explicate its sponsoring culture’s ways of
interpreting the natural and social worlds.” 201 Still, he contends that education is equally
capable of cultivating alternative beliefs and shifting cultural attitudes.
As such, Bruner’s work illustrates the ways that sociocultural theory overlaps with
and inspires critical pedagogy, an approach to education that focuses on cultivating critical
198
Ibid., 263.
199
Jerome S Bruner, The Culture of Education (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1996).
200
Ibid., 19-20.
201
Ibid., 15.
69
personal and social awareness in order to transform society. Providing an overview of
critical pedagogy today, Peter McLaren tells us:
Critical pedagogy asks how and why knowledge gets constructed the way it
does, and how and why some constructions of reality are legitimated and
celebrated by the dominant culture while others clearly are not. Critical
pedagogy asks how our everyday commonsense understandings – our social
constructions or ‘subjectivities’ – get produced and lived out. In other words,
what are the social functions of knowledge?202
Here we see clearly how critical pedagogy and sociocultural learning theory inform
and complement one another. Sociocultural theory looks at the construction of knowledge as
a social process, while critical pedagogy asks about the social implications of the knowledge
that is constructed; sociocultural theory examines how the ‘commonsense becomes
commonsense’ by examining shared meaning-making, shared repertoires, and co-constructed
and co-employed symbolic systems and worldviews, while critical pedagogy examines the
social implications of what is established as commonsense, and how the commonsense
affects power relations and social dynamics.
Perhaps the most foundational theorist in the area of critical pedagogy is Paulo
Freire.203 Freire critiques the traditional, dominant approach to education that, he contends,
functions to maintain oppressive power relations. According to Freire, this traditional
approach views education not as a dialogue or a process of constructing understanding, but as
a matter of ‘depositing’ discrete pieces of information into the minds of students. Freire
explains, “Instead of communicating, the teacher… makes deposits which the students
patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the ‘banking’ concept of education, in which
202
Peter McLaren, “Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts,” in The Critical Pedagogy Reader, ed.
Antonia Darder, Marta P. Baltodano, and Rodolfo Torres, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2008), 63.
203
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra Bergman Ramos, 30th ed. (New York: Continuum,
2000).
70
the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing and storing
the deposits.”204 About the ‘banking method,’ Freire goes on to say:
The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they
develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in
the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they accept the
passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world
as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them. The capability
of banking education to minimize or annul the students’ creative power and to
stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither
to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed…. Those truly committed
to liberation…. must abandon the educational goal of deposit-making and
replace it with the posing of the problems of human beings in their relations
with the world.205
The objectives of critiquing dominant social practices, unmasking power inequities,
transforming oppressive structures, and assisting those who have been objectified or
marginalized by mainstream culture to achieve agency and subjectivity are not only useful to
help learners work to alter the oppressive social structures that exist in human society. They
also all have enormous relevance to issues of sustainability and ecoliteracy.
Critical pedagogy, by employing strategies and insights gained from the sociocultural
theory of learning, has worked to help students develop critical social awareness and
understanding of the underlying processes that have led to unjust attitudes, values, and
behaviors between humans, including (but not limited to) exploitation and discrimination by
gender, race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. So too it has the potential to help
students develop critical awareness of the attitudes and values held by dominant culture,
which have led to the exploitation, marginalization, and destruction of nonhuman animals
and the natural world. Awareness of this ecological destruction and of the socio-
204
Ibid., 53.
205
Ibid., 54.
71
environmental dynamics behind it is referred to as ecoliteracy; an informed questioning of
how these dynamics are developed and reproduced within our culture and how they can be
changed could be described as ‘critical ecoliteracy.’ Critical ecoliteracy involves “the ability
to articulate the myriad ways in which cultures and societies unfold and develop ideological
political systems and social structures that tend either towards ecological sustainability and
biodiversity or unsustainability and extinction.”206
Sociocultural theory and critical pedagogy, when considered together, offer
immensely valuable resources to those pursuing the goals of critical ecoliteracy. Indeed, the
critical examination of cultural practices and the underlying worldviews that produce them,
and the collective endeavor to transform those worldviews, is a primary topic of
consideration within critical pedagogy and sociocultural theory. Many sociocultural theorists
specifically investigate how worldviews are formed through education. Etienne Wenger tells
us, “the concepts we use to make sense of the world direct both our perception and our
actions. We pay attention to what we expect to see, we hear what we can place in our
understanding, and we act according to our world views.”207 He adds that these concepts we
use to make sense of the world are developed, negotiated, and shared within communities of
practice.208
Gallimore and Tharp address a similar point as they discuss the application of
Vygotsky’s theories to education.209 They describe a method of assisted performance called
“cognitive structuring,” which consists of providing a ‘structure for thinking and acting’ such
206
Kahn, “Towards Ecopedagogy: Weaving a Broad-based Pedagogy of Liberation for Animals, Nature, and
the Oppressed People of the Earth,” 533.
207
208
Ibid., 48.
209
Ronald Gallimore and Roland Tharp, “Teaching Mind in Society: Teaching, Schooling, and Literate
Discourse,” in Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical
Psychology, ed. Luis C Moll, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 175-205.
72
as a category, a worldview, an explanation, or a strategy for ‘cognitive activity.’210 In this
way, through education, students are provided with frameworks that structure their thinking,
not only about other humans, but about the more-than-human world as well.
Peter McLaren echoes this idea, raising a question often asked in critical pedagogy:
“How and why are certain types of knowledge used to reinforce dominant ideologies, which
in turn serve to mask unjust power relations among certain groups in society?”211 We could
expand this question to ask, ‘how are certain types of knowledge used to reinforce dominant
ideologies which serve to mask unjust power relations between humans and the nonhuman
world?’ Education has the power to address these questions, and to either reinforce or
challenge dominant ideologies, not only about power relations between groups of humans,
but about relations between humans and the more-than-human world, as well.
Although critical pedagogy and sociocultural theory offer obvious applications to
ecoliteracy, authors such as Anne Bell and Constance Russell212 criticize critical pedagogy
theorists and practitioners for rarely incorporating awareness of environmental issues and of
the nonhuman world into their liberatory mission. Bell and Russell tell us:
In critical pedagogy… the exploration of questions of race, gender, class, and

sexuality has proceeded so far with little acknowledgement of the systemic
links between human oppressions and the domination of nature. The more-than-
human world and human relationships to it have been ignored, as if the
suffering and exploitation of other beings and the global ecological crisis were
somehow irrelevant. Despite the call for attention to voices historically absent
from traditional canons and narratives… nonhuman beings are shrouded in
silence. This silence characterizes even the work of writers who call for a
rethinking of all culturally positioned essentialisms.213
210
Ibid., 182.
211
McLaren, “The Critical Pedagogy Reader,” 64.
212
Bell and Russell, “Beyond Human, beyond Words,” 188-203.
213
Ibid., 191.
73
Richard Kahn also argues for an ‘ecopedagogy’ that draws on the insights of critical
pedagogy and expands them to encompass socio-environmental awareness. He comments:
The field of critical pedagogy has arguably been the leading source of
revolutionary pedagogical ideas and practices to date, but as the philosopher of
education Ilan Gur-Ze’ev has noted, “Until today, Critical Pedagogy almost
completely disregarded not just the cosmopolitic aspects of ecological ethics in
terms of threats to present and future life conditions of all humanity. It
disregarded the fundamental philosophical and existential challenges of subject-
object relations, in which ‘nature’ is not conceived as a standing reserve either
for mere human consumption or as a potential source of dangers, threats, and
risks.” What is required, I argue, is therefore a dialectical blending of critical
pedagogy and environmental education….214
By including the cultivation of critical thinking about the human relationship to the
more-than-human world into the goals of education, we can go beyond the traditional scope
of critical pedagogy, creating critical ecoliteracy. Through critical ecoliteracy, students can
develop an understanding that what is essential for constituting identity and knowledge is not
only relationships and interactions within communities of humans, but relationships and
interactions between humans and the world beyond the human.
2. Building a Green Community of Practice
As Etienne Wenger describes in Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and
Identity, the learning that takes place in schools does not just occur through direct instruction.
Much of what students learn in school is acquired through social interaction. As Wenger
states, “knowing involves primarily active participation in social communities….”215
214
Kahn, “Towards Ecopedagogy: Weaving a Broad-based Pedagogy of Liberation for Animals, Nature, and
the Oppressed People of the Earth,” 526.
215
74
In school, as in many settings in life, we organize ourselves into social groups that
share certain perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors. Wenger refers to these groups as
‘communities of practice.’ He explains:
Students go to school and, as they come together to deal in their own fashion
with the agenda of the imposing institution and the unsettling mysteries of
youth, communities of practice sprout everywhere…. And in spite of
curriculum, discipline, and exhortation, the learning that is most personally
transformative turns out to be the learning that involves membership in these
communities of practice.216
Wenger tells us, “We all have our own theories and ways of understanding the world,
and our communities of practice are places where we develop, negotiate, and share them.”217
In communities of practice, people construct common attitudes and modes of engaging with
the world by participating in shared practices, whether those practices involve “things… to
be done, relationships worked out, processes invented, situations interpreted, artifacts
produced, [or] conflicts resolved.”218 Wenger further clarifies, “Participation… refers not
just to local events of engagement in certain activities with certain people, but to a more
encompassing process of being active participants in the practices of social communities and
constructing identities in relation to these communities.”219
This view of shared participation as a source of knowledge and identity is supported
by other educational theorists as well. Bonk and Kim tell us that Vygotsky’s theories
“suggest that human mental functioning evolves from one’s negotiation and meaning making
within a community of learners.”220 Gallimore and Tharp argue that schools should be
216
Ibid., 6.
217
Ibid., 48.
218
Ibid., 49.
219
Ibid., 4.
220
75
organized to produce joint activity that facilitates “collaborative interaction, intersubjectivity,
[and] assisted performance”221 Garrison, Anderson, and Archer posit that educational
activities should support the formation of “communities of inquiry” in which students and
teacher participate jointly in answering shared questions, building knowledge, and solving
problems.222 And John Dewey comments that “participating in a joint activity” is the “chief
way of forming disposition[s],”223 and that developing habits of thinking “through identity of
interest and understanding is the business of education.”224 It is this identity of interest and
understanding that communities of practice can create.
As Wenger points out above, communities of practice often develop naturally in
schools in one form or another, as they do elsewhere in life. But I suggest that communities
of practice, and/or communities of inquiry, can also be developed intentionally, as part of an
educational strategy. Indeed, to do so is an essential part of any transformative educational
endeavor. Wenger warns us, “If an institutional setting for learning does not offer new forms
of identification and negotiability – that is, meaningful forms of membership and
empowering forms of ownership of meaning – then it will mostly reproduce the communities
and economies of meaning outside of it.”225 In order to help students resist unsustainable
dominant approaches to interacting with the world, educational settings must provide
communities of practice that facilitate the formation and negotiation of meaning and identity
in critical, compassionate, creative, and empowering ways.
221
Gallimore and Tharp, “Vygotsky and Education,” 189.
222
D. Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer, “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment:
Computer Conferencing in Higher Education,” The Internet and Higher Education 2, no. 2-3 (Spring 1999): 87-
105.
223
Dewey, Democracy and Education, 28.
224
Ibid., 39-40.
225
76
Critical ecoliteracy curricula should seek to provide such opportunities to generate
valuable experiences of community participation. Wenger comments, “Curriculum is an
itinerary of transformative experiences of participation,”226 and this is precisely what critical
ecoliteracy materials should provide.
Wenger describes three ‘dimensions’ of communities of practice that are necessary in
order to generate meaningful experiences of mutual understanding and identity; these three
dimensions are ‘mutual engagement,’ ‘a joint enterprise,’ and ‘a shared repertoire.’227
Wenger comments that engagement “is what defines belonging,”228 and states that “The work
of engagement…. requires the ability to take part in meaningful activities and interactions, in
the production of sharable artifacts, in community-building conversations, and in the
negotiation of new situations.”229 The texts, writing assignments, discussions, and activities
of a critical ecoliteracy curriculum should offer this sort of experience – to create
opportunities for students and teacher to generate mutual engagement in meaningful
interactions, to take part together in worthwhile enterprises, to produce and reflect on
relevant artifacts, and to build a repertoire of shared intellectual and cultural resources that
they use together to negotiate with the world.
By participating in this sort of collective endeavor and becoming part of a
community, students witness, learn, internalize, and practice new strategies of thought and
meaning-making. And when the shared practices of the community demonstrate critical
ecoliteracy, students can begin to identify themselves in terms of sustainable attitudes and
practices. As teachers and other students express respect and consideration for other people,
226
Ibid., 272.
227
Ibid., 73.
228
Ibid., 74.
229
Ibid., 184.
77
nonhuman animals, and the natural world; exhibit critical awareness of environmental and
social issues; employ thoughtful analysis of social discourse; and actively engage in
behaviors intended to produce sustainable outcomes, students may begin to adopt similar
thoughtful and aware habits of mind. They may begin to see themselves as part of a ‘green’
or ecoliterate community, and to see themselves as part of the larger more-than-human
community of earth.
Such a view highlights another important component of critically ecoliterate
communities of practice; they should facilitate identification not only with classmates and
teacher, but with the enveloping surroundings of the animate earth as well. Education for
critical ecoliteracy should therefore expand the idea of communities of practice to include
“nature as one more player in the construction of community.”230
Activities, texts, and assignments that encourage students to cultivate and recognize
mutual participation with the more-than-human world and strong bonds to place can help
students engage with the living earth as a community, and to see themselves as members of
this community.231 Etienne Wenger argues that the influence of someone’s participation in a
particular community affects the rest of their lives, even when they are not directly engaged
with that community, saying, “it is a part of who they are that they always carry with them….
It is a constituent of [their] identities.”232 In this way, identification with the more-than-
230
Jim Cheney qtd. in Smith, An Ethics of Place, 6.
231
Authors who have argued for education that encourages sense of place include James M. Cahalan, “Teaching
Hometown Literature: A Pedagogy of Place,” College English 70, no. 3 (2008): 249-274; David A.
Gruenewald, “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place,” Educational Researcher 32, no. 4
(2003): 3-12; Gerald A. Lieberman and Linda L. Hoody, Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment
as an Integrating Context for Learning. Results of a Nationwide Study. (San Diego: State Education and
Environmental Roundtable, 1998); Paul Lindholdt, “Writing from a Sense of Place,” Journal of Environmental
Education 30, no. 4 (1999): 4–10; David Orr, “Place and Pedagogy,” in Ecological Literacy: Educating Our
Children for a Sustainable World, ed. Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Sierra
Club Books, 2005), 85-95.
232
78
human world can continue to influence how people engage in all aspects of their lives,
whether or not they are directly interacting with ‘nature’ at any given time.
3. Critical Analysis of Text and Discourse
Every day, as we go about our lives, we are surrounded by and immersed in texts,
signs, and discourses. Our use of language and other symbol systems forms a central
component of all of our daily interactions. And many theorists have argued that our signs,
utterances, and texts do much more than simply communicate information from one
individual to another. Rather, critical social theorists as well as scholars in rhetoric, narrative
studies, critical discourse studies, sociolinguistics, and an array of other fields have
contended that language and discourse do not simply document and reflect pre-formed and
autonomous ideas and realities to the minds of recipients but actually shape and manifest
social processes and constitute knowledge, attitudes, identities, and ideologies.
Drawing on a range of disciplinary perspectives and vocabularies, these theorists have
argued that knowledge and meaning are continually created and recreated through discourse
and symbolic interaction. Whether they refer to ‘speech acts,’ ‘utterances,’ texts, signs, or
narratives, they argue similar points: to use language is to make meaning; language is a form
of “symbolic action”233; discourse always contains, takes part in, negotiates, and orients
power, positionality, and social structures; and the speech acts, utterances, texts, and
narratives we construct are always part of a larger discursive and sociocultural context.
If knowledge, attitudes, and identities do not simply exist as isolated ‘truths,’ but
rather are constantly co-constructed, reproduced, oriented, and contested through our daily
233
Kenneth Burke, “From Language as Symbolic Action,” in The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Classical Times to the Present, ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 2nd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's,
2001), 1340-1347.
79
engagement in the symbolic action of discourse, then discourse must become a site of critical
examination and study. We must seek to understand how the discourses we take part in, as
both creators and recipients, influence our interactions and structure our lives. As Teun van
Dijk says, “To understand, approve or resist such ideological arguments, the underlying
models and social cognitions of writers and readers need to be made explicit in order to know
what implicit information is ideological….”234 Indeed, many of the scholars mentioned
above have advocated for critical analysis of discourse in order to reveal the underlying
ideologies embedded within them and the power structures they reify and support. To not
engage in such critical analysis may mean we “contribute to the tyranny of the ‘real’” by
encouraging “the exclusion of alternative discourses and ways of perceiving reality”235 and
by allowing dominant discourses and ideologies to establish monologue.236 For this reason, I
believe critical analysis of discourse237 is essential to anyone who wants to act as an engaged
citizen or to effect positive change in society.
Scholars have applied these conceptions of discourse to the examination of a range of
social injustices, including issues of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation,
and more. And in recent years theorists have begun applying these arguments to analyses of
discourses of and about environmental issues and the natural world, as well. A few authors
have pointed out that our language, grammar, discourse, and metaphors constitute particular
types of attitudes toward the nonhuman world, naturalize exploitive and unjust hierarchical
positions between humans and nonhumans, and legitimate and authorize unsustainable
234
van Dijk, “Discourse Semantics and Ideology,” 275.
235
Catherine Fox, “Beyond the "Tyranny of the Real": Revisiting Burke's Pentad as Research Method for
Professional Communication,” Technical Communication Quarterly 11, no. 4 (2002): 366.
236
Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination.
237
I use this term to refer to the broad range of strategies and theories available for critical analysis of text and
discourse, including but not limited to those put forth by the field of critical discourse studies.
80
behaviors in regard to the global ecosystem.238 And a growing body of literature has
emerged that applies these arguments to the discursive analysis of specific texts, seeking
either to analyze the discursive construction of environmental attitudes, to trace ‘pro-
environmental’ or ‘anti-environmental’ discourses, or to investigate humans’ discursive
practices with regard to nonhumans.239
A small number of educational texts on the subject have also started to become
available, primarily in the form of college-level textbooks and readers in environmental
discourse and ecolinguistics.240
These are important and significant steps toward expanding academic knowledge of
the discursive practices that shape our cultural attitudes and behaviors toward the nonhuman
238
Anne C. Bell and Constance L. Russell, “Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical
Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn,” Canadian Journal of Education 25, no. 3 (2000): 188-203; J. Peter
Brosius, “Analyses and Interventions: Anthropological Engagements with Environmentalism,” Current
Anthropology 40, no. 3 (June 1, 1999): 277-310; Saroj Chawla, “Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our
Environmental Crisis,” Environmental Ethics 13, no. 3 (1991): 253–262; Peter Mühlhäusler, Language of
Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics (London: Battlebridge, 2003); Peter
Mühlhäusler and Adrian Peace, “Environmental Discourses,” Annual Review of Anthropology 35, no. 1 (10,
2006): 457-479; Traci Warkentin, “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 Environmental
Education 7, no. 2 (2002): 241-255.
239
See Robert J. Brulle, “Environmental Discourse and Social Movement Organizations: A Historical and
Rhetorical Perspective on the Development of U.S. Environmental Organizations,” Sociological Inquiry 66, no.
1 (1996): 58-83; Chawla, “Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis”; Joan Dunayer,
Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (Derwood, MD: Ryce, 2001); Paul R Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science
and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future (Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1998);
Cathy B. Glenn, “Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry
Discourse,” Journal of Communication Inquiry 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2004): 63-81; Nicky Hager and Bob
Burton, Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign, 1st ed. (Common Courage
Press, 2000); Sharon M. Livesey, “Eco-Identity as Discursive Struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and
Nigeria,” Journal of Business Communication 38, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 58-91; Mark P. Moore,
“Constructing irreconcilable conflict: The function of synecdoche in the spotted owl controversy,”
Communication Monographs 60, no. 3 (1993): 258; Warkentin, “It’s not just what you say, but how you say it”;
Carl Herndl, Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric In Contemporary America (Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1996); Mühlhäusler and Peace, “Environmental Discourses”; Rita Turner, “The Discursive
Construction of Anthropocentrism,” Environmental Ethics 31, no. 2 (2009): 183–202.
240
John S. Dryzek, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, USA, 2005); Lisa M. Benton and John Rennie Short, Environmental Discourse and Practice:
A Reader, illustrated edition. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1999); Mühlhäusler, Language of Environment,
Environment of Language; Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler, Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and
Environment (London: Continuum, 2001).
81
world. However, in order to have genuine transformative value, such understandings must
develop beyond the academy as well. I contend that schooling is a vital way to expand these
types of knowledge, which make up a central component of critical ecoliteracy. Up until
now, based on my own exhaustive review of the literature, I have found no interdisciplinary
curriculum materials for grades 9-16 that incorporate into their objectives the goal of helping
students to cultivate critical linguistic, rhetorical, and discursive awareness and to apply this
awareness to a greater understanding of the cultural construction of human attitudes and
behaviors toward the nonhuman world. This is one of a number of gaps I hope to fill with
my own curriculum materials.
Because of this gap, I consider it extremely important to effectively explain – and
provide examples to illustrate – what discourse analysis entails, what sort of insights it can
produce, why it is relevant to questions of environmental sustainability, and why it is a
valuable practice for students to engage in. That is what I hope to convey in this paper.
To achieve the overview and illustration I hope to provide, I have selected three texts
that I will analyze as examples: a video clip from the Fox News Network, the text of a page
of the oil and energy company BP’s website, and a hip hop song. I will discuss these texts in
more depth in a later section. In what follows I will briefly outline several useful
methodological tools for analyzing texts, and then I will analyze my selected texts as models
of the sorts of insights that can be gained, and of how these insights may serve an important
role in the process of cultivating critical ecoliteracy.
A range of valuable methods have been explicated for analyzing discourse and
rhetoric. Indeed, the study of the features, aims, strategies, and effectiveness of rhetoric has a
long tradition, spanning back as far as ancient Greece. In his On Rhetoric, Aristotle
82
comments that persuasion is built on three features: the first is ethos, or conveying a positive
sense of the character of the rhetor, “in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of
credence.”241 On the subject of ethos Carolyn Miller comments, “ethos is used most often as
a normative term, denoting those positive qualities that warrant assent to contingent claims in
situations of uncertainty….”242
The second persuasive feature Aristotle describes is pathos, or creating an emotional
response in the audience. The third is logos, or conveying a quality of logic, reason, or
‘truth’ in one’s argument; as Aristotle puts it, “when we show the truth or the apparent
truth.”243 Aristotle also outlines a number of other features at work in rhetoric that are still as
relevant today as ever. One of these is the concept of enthymeme,244 in which a conclusion is
presented that is based on a multi-part assumption of which at least one part has been left
unsaid, often because it is treated as established, shared cultural knowledge or ‘common
sense.’
Because enthymemes may draw on hegemonic cultural values and understandings in
order to reinforce assumptions and conclusions, and because these values and assumptions
remain unspoken, serving as the unstated foundation that underlies the stated conclusions,
they can all too easily reify dominant ideologies and attitudes in ways that remain concealed
from view.
Using different terminology to make a related point, Teun van Dijk discusses
‘presupposition,’ a concept similar to Aristotle’s enthymeme. He states:
241
Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, trans. George Kennedy, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, USA, 2006), 38.
242
Carolyn R. Miller, “Expertise and Agency: Transformations of Ethos in Human-Computer Interaction,” in
The Ethos of Rhetoric, ed. Michael J Hyde (Columbia, S.C: University of South Carolina Press, 2004), 198.
243
Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 39.
244
Ibid., 40.
83
Precisely because they pertain to knowledge or other beliefs that are not
asserted, but simply assumed to be true by the speaker, they are able to
'introduce' ideological propositions whose truth is not uncontroversial at all. As
in the case for implications, they allow speakers or writers to make claims
without actually asserting them, and, moreover, take specific beliefs for granted
although they might not be.245
Another author whose work has provided a perpetually valuable set of conceptual
tools for analyzing texts in Mikhail Bakhtin. Bakhtin discusses the dialogic nature of texts,
highlighting that heteroglossia is always present as we respond to, adapt, and adopt one
another’s words. He comments:
Each utterance is filled with echoes and reverberations of other utterances to

which it is related by the communality of the sphere of speech communication.
Every utterance must be regarded primarily as a response to preceding
utterances…. Each utterance refutes, affirms, supplements, and relies on the
others, presupposes them to be known, and somehow takes them into
account.246
Bakhtin further contends that our utterances and texts only have meaning in relation to one
another, that they incorporate multiple layers of voices, meanings, and contexts, and that
competing social forces are always at work within them. He describes these forces as the
centripetal force, a unifying force which seeks centralization and stability, and the centrifugal
force, a disharmonizing force which decenters power and the primacy of dominant voices
and which manifests in heteroglossia.
The work of Kenneth Burke also introduced a number of concepts that are valuable
for analyzing texts. Burke points out the ways that our terminology focuses our attention in
certain directions, saying, “Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very
245
van Dijk, “Discourse Semantics and Ideology,” 273.
246
Bakhtin, “The Problem of Speech Genres,” 91.
84
nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function
also as a deflection of reality.”247 In this way, Burke argues, the “terministic screens” we
employ direct our attention the way different colored filters on a camera lens change a
photograph.248 Burke also discusses the dynamics of ‘identification and division’ in rhetoric,
stressing that rhetoric operates to identify or disassociate people, groups, and concepts with
or from one another.
Other useful tools come from the approach outlined by Carolyn Miller, who points
out that texts and types of texts respond to particular social exigencies.249 The work of
narrative studies provides valuable insights, as well; narrative theorists argue that all of our
texts and utterances are narratives and that our narratives make certain plotlines, scripts, and
possibilities available and deny others. In other words, “narratives are the communal method
by which knowledge is stored and exchanged” and “they thus define what has the right to be
said and done in the culture.”250 Further, narratives position their audience in certain roles,
and audience members must either accept or resist this positioning.251
George Lakoff’s formulation of conceptual metaphor is a valuable tool for analysis, as
well. Lakoff explains that conceptual metaphor is an “ontological mapping across
conceptual domains, from the source domain… to the target domain,” adding that the
mapping “sanctions the use of source domain language and inference patterns for target
domain concepts.”252 Lakoff further comments that, “metaphors impose a structure on real
life, through the creation of new correspondences in experience. And once created in one
247
Burke, “From Language as Symbolic Action,” 1341.
248
Ibid.
249
Carolyn R. Miller, “Genre as Social Action,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, no. 2 (1984): 151-167.
250
Martin McQuillan, “Introduction: Aporias of Writing: Narrative and Subjectivity,” in The Narrative Reader,
ed. Martin McQuillan (London: Routledge, 2000), 2.
251
Ibid., 8.
252
Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” 208.
85
generation, they serve as an experiential basis for that metaphor in the next generation.”253 In
this way, by identifying the root metaphor at work we can better understand the pattern of
reasoning that is being applied to the target domain concept.
Teun van Dijk offers a number of constructs for conducting analysis, as well. Van Dijk
describes ideologies as “group self-schema” which consist of several organizing categories:
identity/membership, tasks/activities, goals, norms/values, position, and resources.254 He
argues that these categories, and the organizing schema they form, are constituted through
discourse. He goes on to describe a number of “propositional structures” in discourse that
may be “ideologically controlled”:
Modalities of ‘necessity’ and ‘probability’ may depend on the ‘definition of the

situation’ by a specific group…. Predicates selected as meanings to describe
(social actors of) outgroups may embody ideologically controlled opinions, as
is well-known from the use of such meanings as “terrorist” and “freedom
fighter.” This may also show in lexicalization…. Semantic roles of
propositional arguments (such as Agent, Patient, Object, etc.) may be assigned
depending on the ideologically attributed roles in a model. Thus, in a social
conflict different social groups may be attributed different types or degrees of
responsibility or involvement in positive or negative actions. As we shall see in
more detail below, ingroup actors will typically be selected as responsible
Agents of positive acts, and non-responsible Patients of negative acts of Others,
and vice versa for outgroup actors.255
Van Dijk further points out that ideology may also influence discourse in terms of the
topics and themes addressed and in the ways that certain information or propositions are
given (or not given) focus and importance, or are “foregrounded or backgrounded.”256 He
adds that this strategy includes “the well-known ideological objective to de-emphasize Our
253
Ibid., 241.
254
van Dijk, “Discourse Semantics and Ideology,” 249-250.
255
Ibid., 258-259.
256
Ibid., 263.
86
bad things and Their good things.”257
I contend that by applying the sorts of insights and strategies for critical investigation
described by the above authors, we can gain active understanding of the texts at work in our
daily lives, and that if practiced by enough people this sort of understanding can potentially
be a transformative force in society. I advocate for engaging in critical analysis of discourse
in schools, and I have incorporated such activities into the critical ecoliteracy curriculum
materials I have designed. And so, in order to illustrate the sorts of activities I believe
students should be participating in, I will provide examples of three brief analyses I have
conducted myself. Below I describe each text I selected and outline my analysis. The three
texts were intended to represent a range of media, sources, and viewpoints, however, my
selection process did not follow any rigorous or structured protocol. My goal with these
analyses is not to offer a complete picture of the sorts of texts that can or should be analyzed
or the sorts of insights that can be gained, but rather to provide a model of how such analysis
can be conducted on readily-accessible texts, and why it is potentially valuable to students to
do so.
The first text I selected is a short clip of a Fox News segment that has been posted on
YouTube.258 I consider footage of Fox News segments to represent not only a particular, and
perhaps fairly widely-supported, political stance, but also to serve as an example of ‘popular
discourse,’ since Fox News is currently the most-watched cable news network on
257
Teun A. van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach,” in Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis, ed. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (London: Sage, 2009), 70.
258
“Fox News: Trees Cause Global Warming,” YouTube, 2007,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnXToHGldxo.
87
television.259 As such, it represents a widely-distributed and potentially very influential
source of discourse.
The clip begins with a newscaster stating, “Item one: treehuggers beware; a new
study is turning conventional wisdom about global warming on its head. Dan?” He then
hands off the story to another newscaster or pundit, who says:
Well you know, Paul, if you go onto a website of Ronald Reagan’s stupidest
quotes, the one you’ll always find is the one he said in 1981, which is that trees
cause more pollution than automobiles. Well, maybe Ronald Reagan was a
genius, because the eminent Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, Germany has
just reported in Nature Magazine that plants – trees, forests – emit 10 to 30
percent of the methane gas into the atmosphere. This is a greenhouse gas, the
sort of stuff the Kyoto Treaty is meant to, ah, suppress, so this is causing big
problems for the treehuggers, that plants in fact do cause greenhouse gases, and
I have just one message for them: the next time you’re out for a walk in the
woods, [takes a deep breath] breath the methane!
As he finishes his sentence, another newscaster laughs in the background.260
A number of analytical tools could provide fruitful insights into the dynamics of this
particular text. To begin, we may notice that, as Bakhtin suggests, this text responds to other
texts, challenging advocates for environmental protection and conservation. It creates a
particular narrative, some of which goes unspoken, in which long-suffering conservatives
were told that they were foolish by unreasonable environmentalists, but have now been
proven right. Conservatives are positioned as the wrongful victims from early in the piece,
where Ronald Reagan is invoked as an almost mythic figure of authority who has been
wrongly mocked as saying something that liberals called “stupid” but that, according to the
narrative, was in fact well ahead of its time, since it is only now, almost two decades later,
259
“Cable News Ratings - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com,”
n.d., http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news.
260
“Fox News: Trees Cause Global Warming.”
88
that science is catching up to the “genius” of Reagan’s statement. Within this narrative
environmentalists are identified as unreasonable through the use of the derogatory term
“treehugger,” which implies that environmental advocates only care about saving plants from
harm and have no interest in human welfare.
With the repeated and casual use of the word “treehugger,” the speakers in the clip
firmly position environmental advocates as not only incorrect, but as worthy of rebuke and
disdain. They are established as ‘outgroup’ members who have less value than those who
identify with the ‘Us’ of Fox News (this can be seen through Burke’s identification and
division and van Dijk’s semantic positioning). “Treehuggers” are defined at least partially by
the fact that they hold different sets of norms and values than the ones held by those who
identify with the ideologies of Fox News (i.e. caring about trees). Because of this, they
become so thoroughly othered that the Fox newscasters do not hesitate to casually and
repeatedly use derogatory language to describe them during an on-air national broadcast.
Additionally, this segment employs an enthymeme based in the assumption that
‘scientific’ reports are the ultimate truth (an assumption that is likely not utilized in many
other Fox News segments, but serves to legitimize the “study” being described in this clip).
The language used by the two newscasters presents this information as wise and
unquestionable, with phrases like, “eminent Max Planck Institute,” “reported in Nature
Magazine,” and “turning conventional wisdom… on its head,” and the story conceals (by not
mentioning at all) the vast body of existing scientific research that establishes the vital role of
trees in the global ecosystem and in contributing to air and water quality and regulating
atmosphere and temperature.
89
This text could be discussed at much greater length, but even with this brief analysis
it becomes clear that ideology, power, and a range of assumptions and attitudes are at work in
this text.
The second text I’ve selected is a page from BP’s website that purports to describe
their environmental ‘strategy.’261 Because of the obvious significance of the gulf oil disaster,
BP’s description of their environmental policies (posted prior to the spill) seems a relevant
choice for my second example.
On BP’s website, under the heading of “Environment and society” and the
subheading of “Our strategy,” 262 (and identified as part of BP’s 2009 sustainability
reporting), BP states:
BP's strategy is to create value for shareholders by producing energy in a way

that is affordable, secure and doesn't damage the environment. To meet
growing world demand, BP is committed to:
- Exploring, developing and producing more fossil fuel resources
- Manufacturing, processing and delivering better and more advanced products
- Enabling the transition to a lower-carbon future
They add, “We aim to do this while operating safely, reliably and in compliance with the
law” (a statement that takes on new irony in light of recent information about BP’s safety
practices).
They next state:
In Exploration and Production our strategy is to invest to grow production

safely, reliably and efficiently by strengthening our portfolio of leadership
positions in the world’s most prolific hydrocarbon basins, enabled by the
development and application of technology and strong relationships based on
mutual advantage. We intend to sustainably drive cost and capital efficiency in
261
“BP Strategy | Sustainability,” BP, 2010,
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9032623&contentId=7059875.
262
Ibid.
90
accessing, finding, developing and producing resources, enabled by deep
technical capability and a culture of continuous improvement. In Refining and
Marketing our strategic focus is on enhancing portfolio quality, integrating
activities across value chains and performance efficiency. We expect to
continue building our business around advantaged assets in material and
significant energy markets while improving the safety and reliability of our
operations.
One of the most notable points to be made about these statements may be the fact that
what BP refers to as their “environment and society strategy” seems to actually be primarily
a description of business strategy, discussing their plans for increasing their profits and
building their company; only once do they mention not damaging the environment. This text
seems to be responding to particular exigencies and particular values and assumptions,
specifically that for a corporation maximizing profit is the highest good.
Although the text repeatedly tries to convey an ethos of trustworthiness, using words
like “safely” and “reliably,” it is notably vague about any specific strategies to ensure human
and environmental well-being.
This text also benefits from application of the ideas of conceptual metaphor.
Applying this approach, we can begin to see that the text operates from particular metaphors
about the planet; these could be summed up as “the earth is a machine” and “the earth is a
stockpile of resources.” Using the metaphor that the earth is a machine, the text applies
reasoning that could be applied to machines to the global ecosystem, using language which
suggests that the best way to address questions of sustainability and environmental well-
being is through engineering and improved technology, as seen in repeated references to
‘manufacturing,’ ‘producing,’ ‘technological capacity,’ and ‘efficiency.’ This metaphor also
employs an enthymeme that depends on the unstated assumption that technology solves
problems, and that technology can be trusted.
91
At the same time, this text also utilizes a related metaphor, that of “the earth is a
stockpile of resources.” This metaphor leads to reasoning which focuses on the importance
of extracting those resources; rather than asking whether extraction of fossil fuels is healthy
for the planet (a line of questioning that might emerge from a different metaphor, such as
“the earth is a living being”), the text only asks how it can more efficiently extract more
resources. Any questions that would position the earth as a being, an agent, a relative, or any
similar constructs are not raised as possibilities.
The third text I’ve chosen is Mos Def’s “New World Water.”263 This text adds to the
range and diversity of my sources, offering a recent opinion from a musical artist who voices
a perspective that draws on an urban, African-American background and employs a popular
musical genre. The lyrics of the song include the following lines264:
Fools done upset the Old Man River/ Made him carry slave ships and fed him
dead nigga/ Now his belly full and he about to flood somethin’
Tell your crew use the H2 in wise amounts since/ it's the New World Water;
and every drop counts/ …F**k a bank; I need a twenty-year water tank
Used to have minerals and zinc in it…/ Now they say it got lead and stink in
it…/ Fluorocarbons and monoxide/ Push the water table lopside
Used to be free now it cost you a fee / Cause oil tankers spill they load as they
roam cross the sea…/ The type of cats who pollute the whole shore line/ Have it
purified, sell it for a dollar twenty-five/ Now the world is drinkin’ it/ Your
moms, wife, and baby girl is drinkin’ it…/ You should just have to go to your
sink for it/ The cash registers is goin "cha-chink!" for it…/ Used to be free now
it cost you a fee/ Cause it's all about getting’ that cash (Money)….
The rich and poor, black and white got need for it…/ Go too long without it on
this earth and you leavin’ it…/ Americans wastin’/ it on some leisure sh*t…/
And other nations be desperately seekin’ it…/ Young babies in perpetual
neediness…
263
Mos Def, New World Water, Black on Both Sides (Priority Records, 1999).
264
“Mos Def Lyrics - New World Water,” AZLyrics, n.d.,
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/mosdef/newworldwater.html.
92
Bacteria washing up on they beaches…/ Don't drink the water, son they can't
wash they feet with it…/ Epidemics hopppin’ up off the Petri dish…/ There are
places where TB is common as TV/ Cause foreign-based companies go and get
greedy….
“New World Water” is clearly an explicitly political song, and it comments on a
range of social inequalities including slavery, pollution, inequities between nations, corporate
greed, and imbalances of privilege, access to resources, and health. However, there are also a
number of more subtle rhetorical moves taking place within the text.
One strategy the text employs is to invoke pathos. The artist presents his own anger,
fear, and pity, and in so doing he positions the audience to share in his emotions. Indeed,
through its first-person perspective, descriptive imagery, and story-telling structure, the song
operates as a personal narrative, encouraging the audience to identify with the story and the
story-teller and to ‘go along’ for the journey.
Further, Mos Def not only narrates his own thoughts, feelings, and actions, but
describes the conditions and actions of others. Throughout this process he engages
extensively in identification and division, identifying himself with those who suffer and as
opposed to those whose acts cause the suffering. In this way the listener is set up to identify
with those who suffer as well; Mos Def even speaks directly to the listener and invokes
personal relationships in lines like, “your moms, wife, and baby girl is drinking it.” The
listener and her/his loved ones are presented as vulnerable to needing water and to having to
drink polluted, bottled, overpriced, or scarce water – as such, the problems the artist
describes are not distant problems experienced by strangers, but are described as having the
potential to affect the listener directly.
93
This text not only establishes a clear ingroup, but a clear outgroup, as well. As van
Dijk describes, the song explicitly assigns certain ideologically attributed roles to the
outgroup members, placing the responsibility for causing the water to be unhealthy, polluted,
and scarce onto particular (dominant, privileged) individuals – especially greedy companies,
and the owners of those companies who oversee oil tankers, pollute shorelines, and
shamelessly sell bottled water back to the people whose shores they polluted. However, the
text also expands blame to include any privileged U.S. residents who “waste it on some
leisure sh*t” and, more indirectly, any who engage in unjust practices in general, such as
owning slaves, as in the line “Fools done upset the Old Man River/ Made him carry slave
ships and fed him dead nigga.”
Here we see a narrative of evil-doers and victims. And underlying all of these
features of the narrative there may perhaps may an enthymeme at work which operates on the
assumption that injustice and inequality have global consequences.
These three analyses offer only glimpses of the sorts of insights that can be gained
from critically analyzing the texts we find around us in our daily lives. But I hope they begin
to show that, by conducting such analyses, it is possible to gain vital understanding of the
workings of our culture and of the forces that seek to influence our own beliefs and actions.
Such understanding will be vital if we hope to re-imagine and enact more sustainable
practices in our society, and I believe that gaining exposure to this type of analysis will serve
students well as they navigate the cultural and discursive waters throughout their lives.
94
4. Language, Power, and Linguistic Diversity
Language communicates much more than just the ideas we seek to express when we
speak. The ways we use language – our word choice, style, delivery, as well as the context
of our language use, when and how we talk, who we talk to, what subjects we talk about and
what we don’t – all communicate information about ourselves. Whether we realize it or not,
the way we use language sends important messages about how we see ourselves, what
cultural groups we identify with, and what attitudes we hold about others. In some cases, the
ways that society uses language function to mark people as insiders or outsiders and to signal
or justify discrimination, intolerance, and marginalization.265 Because language has such
close links to the construction of identity and values, and to the dynamics of allegiance and
exclusion,266 it is important to understand the processes at work behind language use in US-
American culture today, and to thoughtfully apply these understandings to classroom content
and methodology.
Language use, especially where it pertains to language variation, including dialects
and accents, is a highly charged topic. Many Americans hold strong opinions about ‘good’
or ‘proper’ English, about how English is supposed to sound and look, and about who uses it
correctly and who does not.267 As Amanda Godley, Julie Sweetland, Rebecca Wheeler,
Angela Minnici, and Brian Carpenter explain, “negative beliefs about the grammaticality,
265
Rosina Lippi-Green, “Language Ideology and Language Prejudice,” in Language in the USA: Themes for the
Twenty-First Century, ed. Edward Finegan and John R Rickford (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
2004), 289-304.
266
Ibid.; Amanda J. Godley et al., “Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms,” Educational
Researcher 35, no. 8 (2006): 30-37; H. S Alim, “Critical Language Awareness in the United States: Revisiting
Issues and Revising Pedagogies in a Resegregated Society,” Educational Researcher 34, no. 7 (2005): 24-31.
267
Lippi-Green, “Language in the USA”; David Foster Wallace, “Tense present: Democracy, English, and the
wars over usage,” Harper’s Magazine, April 2001; Godley et al., “Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse
Classrooms”; Carolyn Temple Adger, Walt Wolfram, and Donna Christian, “Dialect Awareness for Students,”
in Dialects in Schools and Communities, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007), 151-
186; Alim, “Critical Language Awareness in the United States: Revisiting Issues and Revising Pedagogies in a
Resegregated Society.”
95
logic, and even morality of stigmatized dialects are widespread in U.S. society and difficult
to change.”268
Godley et al., as well as a host of other language scholars including Rosina Lippi-
Green,269 tell us that many Americans have an idealized concept of ‘standard English,’ the
variety of English privileged in dominant American culture and used in schools, politics, and
business. The mainstream conception of ‘standard’ English is that it is the highest version of
English, the one and only form that is ‘correct,’ unchanging, and both aesthetically and
intellectually superior to other varieties.270
In their influential book American English: Dialects and Variation, Walt Wolfram
and Natalie Schilling-Estes comment on this widely-held perception of language. They
suggest that the mainstream public tends to hold ethnocentric attitudes about language
variation, perceiving ‘dialects’ as ways of speaking that are different from their own, peculiar
by contrast to their own, and often ‘deficient or corrupted.’271 Wolfram and Schilling-Estes
argue that, by this view, those who speak a different variety of English have “attempted to
produce the standard English sentence but simply failed,” producing instead a deviation.272
Godley, et al.273 discuss the widespread ‘standard language ideology’ that informs
these attitudes toward language variation. This dominant belief system about language
emphasizes the superiority of standard English and disapproves of ‘nonstandard’ language
varieties like African American English (alternately referred to as African American
Vernacular English or AAVE). Godley et al. comment:
268
Godley et al., “Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms,” 30.
269
Lippi-Green, “Language in the USA.”
270
Ibid.; Godley et al., “Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms.”
271
Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes, American English: Dialects and Variation (Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub, 1998), 3.
272
Ibid.
273
Godley et al., “Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms.”
96
Assumptions about the ungrammaticality, undesirability, and inappropriateness
of AAVE, for instance, are widespread in U.S. society…. Often these
commonsense beliefs, or language ideologies… are grounded in standard
language ideology…, a set of beliefs holding that standard varieties of English
are logically, stylistically, and even morally superior to stigmatized dialects.274
Standard language ideology is constructed in American culture in a number of ways.
Rosina Lippi-Green argues that the dissemination of this ideology is “linked to particular
power structures and interests.”275 She suggests that one way it is maintained is through
social institutions, saying:
Dominant institutions promote the notion of an overarching, homogenous

standard language. That language is primarily white, upper-middle class, and
middle American; it is often claimed to be “unaccented.” But of course it is
accented, like all other language varieties. It just happens to be the accent of
the mainstream…. there are two sides to this process of standardization: first,
devaluation of all that is not (or does not seek to be) politically, culturally, or
socially mainstream; and second, validation of the social (and linguistic) values
of the dominant institutions. The process of linguistic assimilation to an
abstracted standard is portrayed as a natural one, necessary and positive for the
greater social good.276
Lippi-Green also discusses the ways that various media products convey and reinforce
standard language ideology. One case of this process is animated films, which, she contends,
routinely present the “systemic construction of dominance and subordination” through the
racial, gender, and linguistic traits of their characters.277 For example, she provides
numerous examples of instances where negative characters speak with stigmatized dialects or
274
Ibid., 31.
275
Lippi-Green, “Language in the USA,” 293.
276
Ibid., 294.
277
Rosina Lippi-Green, “Teaching Children How to Discriminate: What We Learn from the Big Bad Wolf,” in
English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States (London: Routledge,
1997), 80.
97
accents, while positive characters speak in standard English, thereby conveying and
reinforcing harmful stereotypes through language.
Godley et al. also point to the role of schools in maintaining dominant attitudes about
standard English, commenting that teachers are uniquely positioned as ‘authorities’ on
language. They suggest that teachers often believe themselves to be responsible for guiding
students “to a ‘correct’ understanding of the English language – an understanding that often
frames language as monolithic, static, and prescriptive….”278 H. Samy Alim echoes this
point, arguing that educational institutions are “designed to teach citizens about the current
sociolinguistic order of things, without challenging that order, which is based largely on the
ideology of the dominating group and their desire to maintain social control.”279
Indeed, language and discourse theorists point out that by constructing ‘standard’
English as not only unquestionably superior to any other variety of English, but as the
language of power and access in America, standard language ideology serves to privilege the
status, worth, and authority of certain individuals (i.e. standard English speakers) over others
(i.e. ‘nonstandard’ speakers), and in so doing works to maintain positions of power and
domination in American society.280 As Norman Fairclough explains, standard English “is a
class dialect not only in the sense that its dominance is associated with capitalist class
interests… but also because it is the dominant bloc that makes most use of it, and gains most
from it as an asset – as a form of ‘cultural capital’….”281 In this way language use, and
278
279
Alim, “Critical Language Awareness in the United States: Revisiting Issues and Revising Pedagogies in a
Resegregated Society,” 28.
280
Resegregated Society”; Lisa D. Delpit and Joanne Kilgour Dowdy, eds., The skin that we speak: Thoughts on
language and culture in the classroom (New York: New Press, 2008); Norman Fairclough, Language and
Power (London: Longman, 1989); Heller, “Language Choice and Symbolic Domination”; bell hooks, Teaching
to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (New York: Routledge, 1994).
281
Fairclough, Language and Power, 57.
98
attitudes toward language variation, can act to silence, alienate, and marginalize certain
groups of people – what Lippi-Green describes as the “seizing” and “limiting” of
discourse.282
At the same time that mainstream language ideologies enforce and justify power
imbalances among people, dominant modes of language use produce a similar result for
nonhuman animals and nature. Much the same way that dominant viewpoints have
established a hierarchy of language, according the language of those in power the privileged
position of being considered the ‘best,’ language is also used to impose hierarchies between
species, elevating humankind to the highest position. One discursive strategy for
constructing this hierarchy is to promulgate the supposed distinction that humans alone
possess language; as David Foster Wallace puts it, this view holds that language is “what
separates us from the animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”283
Language use is employed to naturalize discrimination against the nonhuman world
in other ways, as well. Just as popular discourse offers a hegemonic image of those who
speak ‘nonstandard’ varieties of English as being somehow less intelligent, less trustworthy,
or even criminal, and just as this discourse also provides available scripts that hide racial,
regional, or class discrimination behind a veil of linguistic discrimination and employ
particular discourses to marginalize certain groups,284 so popular discourse also provides
numerous opportunities to marginalize the nonhuman world through language choices. This
marginalization is achieved through such strategies as couching destruction and exploitation
282
Lippi-Green, “Language in the USA,” 293.
283
Wallace, “Tense Present,” 41.
284
Lippi-Green, “English with an Accent”; Lippi-Green, “Language in the USA”; Godley et al., “Preparing
Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms.”
99
in terms of commodities and consumption (e.g. “collect” or “take”285), using impersonal and
objectifying language to eliminate nonhuman’s subject-status (e.g. “animal units”286), or
employing conceptual metaphors that frame ‘nature’ as little more than an inanimate
storeroom of materials or backdrop (e.g. “natural resources” or “scenery”287), among many
other methods.288
It is also noteworthy, as ecofeminists have pointed out, that othered human groups are
often linguistically linked to nonhuman groups, further establishing the position of both as
subordinate to those at the top of the social hierarchy.289 Lippi-Green describes this
phenomenon in Disney movies; she comments that in these movies, although standard
English-speaking characters take on a range of forms, including ‘humanoid,’ ‘animal,’ and
‘inanimate creatures,’ “all AAVE-speaking characters appear in animal rather than humanoid
form.”290
The dominant hierarchical view of language that positions ‘standard’ English as
inherently superior to other varieties of English may be an effective tool to justify
discrimination and restrict access to power. But according to sociolinguists, it is a tool that
depends entirely on ‘myths and misconceptions.’291 From a sociolinguistic perspective,
standard English is simply one variety among many, and each variety or dialect is equally
285
Mühlhäusler, Language of Environment, Environment of Language, 50.
286
Glenn, “Constructing Consumables and Consent,” 69.
287
Cronon, Uncommon Ground.
288
Chawla, “Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis”; Dunayer, Animal Equality;
Glenn, “Constructing Consumables and Consent”; Mühlhäusler, Language of Environment, Environment of
Language; Peter Mühlhäusler and Adrian Peace, “Environmental Discourses,” Annual Review of Anthropology
35, no. 1 (October 2006): 457-479; Warkentin, “It’s not just what you say, but how you say it.”
289
Merchant, The Death of Nature; Mies, Ecofeminism; Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature.
290
Lippi-Green, “English with an Accent,” 93.
291
Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, American English.
100
ordered, rule-driven, and sensible.292 As Godley et al. explain, “Contrary to popular
understanding, dialect does not mean a lesser, informal, or ungrammatical way of speaking;
in fact, long-established linguistic research has demonstrated that all dialects are equally
structured and logical, though they may vary in pronunciation, vocabulary, or grammatical
patterns….”293
Sociolinguists tell us that, while standard English enjoys higher levels of social
prestige, it is not objectively more or less effective for communicating meaning than any
other variety of English.294 Godley et al. sum this up by saying, “Scientific research on
language demonstrates that standard dialects are not linguistically better by any objective
measures; they are socially preferred simply because they are the language varieties used by
those who are most powerful and affluent in a society.”295
In much the same way, scholars have demonstrated that society’s ‘commonsense’
belief that humans alone possess language is also false.296 Scientists have discovered well-
developed and sophisticated communication systems among such animals as primates, who
have dialects of their own297 and are also able to employ sign-language to express original
292
Godley et al., “Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms”; Lippi-Green, “Language in the
USA”; William Labov, Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972); Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes, American English:
Dialects and Variation, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2006); Lippi-Green, “English with an Accent”;
Anne H. Charity Hudley and Christine Mallinson, Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools
(New York: Teachers College Press, 2010).
293
294
Charity Hudley and Mallinson, Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools; Godley et al.,
“Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms”; Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, American English.
295
296
Bekoff, “Minding animals, minding earth”; Fritjof Capra, The Hidden Connections (London: HarperCollins,
2002); Matt Kaplan, “Primate Dialects Recorded in South America—A First,” National Geographic Daily
News, December 3, 2009, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090128-primate-language-
dialects-missions.html; Lucie H. Salwiczek and Wolfgang Wickler, “Birdsong: An Evolutionary Parallel to
Human Language,” Semiotica 151, no. 1/4 (2004): 163-182; Tania Soussan, “Scientist: Prairie Dogs Have Own
Language,” redOrbit, December 4, 2004, http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=108412.
297
Kaplan, “Primate Dialects Recorded in South America—A First.”
101
thoughts298; birds, who incorporate creativity and innovation into their song and respond to
the innovation of other birds in an improvisational communicative exchange299; and prairie
dogs, who use specific nouns and adjectives to alert one another to details of their
surroundings and, whose language system, like that of primates, has also been found to
contain dialects.300
In addition to the myriad discoveries that continue to be made about the complexity,
intelligence, and diversity of animal communication, some scholars also argue that human
linguistic diversity has important connections to both social and environmental sustainability.
David Abram points out the ways that human languages are nourished and inspired by
interaction with the ‘more-than-human’ world. 301 And Luisa Maffi and Ellen Woodley
argue that linguistic diversity is linked to biodiversity, which together form the realm of
‘biocultural diversity.’302 Maffi and Woodley outline several aspects of the connection
between linguistic diversity and biodiversity. First, they suggest that linguistic diversity
represents a range of cultural perspectives that offer more ways to express and think about
others, providing valuable cultural resources for finding sustainable ways to interact with the
world. They also assert that the underlying causes of the ever-advancing destruction of
linguistic diversity worldwide are in fact the same as the causes of the destruction of
biodiversity; as such, they comment that those who seek to maintain global cultural and
ecological legacies must address the same root problems. In this way many environmental
scholars find themselves aligned with language scholars in their belief in the value of
298
Capra, “Ecological Literacy.”
299
Salwiczek and Wickler, “Birdsong: An Evolutionary Parallel to Human Language.”
300
Soussan, “Scientist: Prairie Dogs Have Own Language.”
301
302
Luisa Maffi and Ellen Woodley, Biodiversity: Culture, Global Environment Outlook: Environment for
Development (Nairobi: UNEP, 2008).
102
linguistic diversity, flexibility, and creativity as cultural resources.303
Yet there remains a stark contrast between the sociolinguistic understanding and
appreciation of language variation and the popular view of language variation, with its
parallels to racial, class, and regional discrimination, as well as to species discrimination.
These misaligned perspectives have significant implications in the realm of education.
Teachers are rarely equipped with accurate knowledge of language variation, and they
sometimes apply popularly held stereotypes to students who speak a ‘nonstandard’ variety of
English, judging them as unintelligent or unruly.304 Such negative judgments of students can
be extremely harmful, since students’ language use is tied to their sense of personal identity
as well as to their identifications with family, community, and peer groups; for this reason,
devaluing students’ home language all too easily devalues students themselves. Charles
Taylor expresses this point, saying, “our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its
absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer
real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a
confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves.”305
In addition to the personal consequences of impeding learning and cultivating
negative self-image and negative attitudes toward schooling, by acting unreflectively on
303
Resegregated Society”; Charity Hudley and Mallinson, Understanding English Language Variation in U.S.
Schools; hooks, Teaching to Transgress; Donald McCrary, “Represent, Representin’, Representation: The
Efficacy of Hybrid Texts in the Writing Classroom,” Journal of Basic Writing (CUNY) 24, no. 2 (2005): 74-91.
304
Charity Hudley and Mallinson, Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools; Lisa D Delpit,
Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom (New York: New Press, 1996); Godley et al.,
“Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms”; Heller, “Language Choice and Symbolic
Domination.”
305
Qtd. in Lippi-Green, “Language in the USA,” 302.
103
linguistic bias in the classroom teachers and students may also reproduce and reinforce
conditions of power imbalance that exist in the larger society.306
For this reason, scholars and educators interested in critical education for social
change argue that teachers and students must gain critical awareness of language issues.
They believe students must understand how language variation occurs and the rules and
behaviors of various English dialects, as well as the social implications of employing one
dialect over another and the ways that language choices reflect and influence larger social
processes. In other words, they argue for “a language curriculum that addresses the ways
that language choices shape societal structures and conditions, particularly oppressive
ones.”307
It is important to clarify that, while sociolinguistics and critical language awareness
advocates acknowledge the arbitrariness with which ‘standard’ English has been accorded
status over other language varieties in American society, most agree that schools should
teach standard English to all students, though they insist that teaching standard English must
be accompanied by valuing the home languages and language varieties that students bring
with them to school.308 They point out that standard English serves a ‘gate-keeping’ function
in society,309 and that, as a source of cultural capital, knowledge of standard English provides
greater access to power than is generally unachievable without it. As Lisa Delpit puts it,
306
Resegregated Society”; Fairclough, Language and Power; Charity Hudley and Mallinson, Understanding
English Language Variation in U.S. Schools.
307
308
Charity Hudley and Mallinson, Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools.
309
Lisa D. Delpit, “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children.,”
Harvard Educational Review 58, no. 3 (1988): 280-98; Fairclough, Language and Power; Lippi-Green,
“Language in the USA.”
104
“pretending that gatekeeping points don’t exist is [to] ensure that many students will not pass
through them.”310
Many scholars argue that enabling student to understand the uses and social dynamics
of language not only allows students the ability to resist cultural forces that may work to limit
their social status and power, but also helps them become more aware and self-reflective
about the role language plays in shaping their thoughts and attitudes about themselves and
others. Educational theorist Jerome Bruner, for example, discusses whether and how much
language may constrain our thoughts and perceptions, as is suggested by the ‘Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis’; he states, “All that is known for sure is that consciousness or ‘linguistic
awareness’ seems to reduce the constraints imposed by any symbolic system. The real
victims of the limits of language or of the Whorfian hypothesis are those least aware of the
language they speak.”311 Bruner goes on to say, “if the limits imposed by the languages we
use are expanded by increasing our ‘linguistic awareness,’ then another function of pedagogy
is to cultivate such awareness.”312
Developing such critical language awareness can help students and teachers gain
tolerance, empowerment, and understanding of social behavior313 and of “the role of
language in social stratification.”314 It can also provide students with a wider “repertoire” of
language facility to draw from, equipping them to communicate effectively in a range of
varying social contexts.315
310
Delpit, “The Silenced Dialogue,” 292.
311
Bruner, The Culture of Education, 19.
312
Ibid.
313
Adger, Wolfram, and Christian, “Dialect Awareness for Students.”
314
315
Charity Hudley and Mallinson, Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools; Godley et al.,
“Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms”; hooks, Teaching to Transgress.
105
Critical language awareness is also essential to set the stage for critical awareness of
the role that language and discourse play in shaping attitudes toward the nonhuman world, by
providing the critical understanding and conceptual resources necessary to reveal the impact
of language on our thinking about the nonhuman and to develop alternative formulations that
frame the nonhuman in more sustainable ways.
With these points in mind, it becomes clear that school is an essential site for
reflection upon and exploration of language. The principles, concepts, and approaches of
critical language awareness can benefit students in every classroom and subject-area, and by
incorporating this awareness into pedagogy and instruction, teachers can better equip
students to understand and engage with the linguistic and discursive processes at work all
around them.
In order to interact with students in ways that are linguistically aware and
linguistically tolerant, there are several key concepts that teachers should understand about
language variation, and about language and the nonhuman world, as explicated by the above
authors. These include: (1) An understanding that language variation is normal; (2) An
understanding that each variety or dialect of English is equally rule-driven and logical, and
that, from a linguistic perspective, there is nothing inherently ‘better’ or ‘more correct’ about
the dialect known as “standard English”; (3) Knowledge of the rules of common American
English dialects, including (but not limited to) such varieties as African American English,
Southern English, and standard English, and of the differences between them; (4) Awareness
of the ‘gate-keeping’ function of standard English and of its importance for providing
106
students access to all arenas of society; and (5) An understanding that students are best
served by having as much linguistic knowledge and flexibility as possible.316
In addition to these essential understandings, it is also vital that teachers consider
certain key concepts with regard to environmental discourse and the linguistic construction of
environmental attitudes, including: (1) The importance of carefully considering what
language choices we employ when speaking about others, both human and nonhuman, and of
critically reflecting on how our language choices shape our attitudes toward these others; (2)
An understanding that linguistic diversity and biodiversity are both valuable resources that
should be respected, and students benefit from learning more about each; and (3) An
awareness that humans are not the only creatures that use language, nor is language as we
understand it the only complex method of communication creatures employ.317
An understanding of these ideas can and should be applied to both pedagogical
strategies and lesson content in the classroom. As teachers talk with students about language
use and language variation, and as they engage with students in reading and writing
activities, they can point out instances and features of dialects in use, discuss the social,
316
Delpit and Dowdy, The Skin That We Speak; Howard Fogel and Linnea C. Ehri, “Teaching elementary
students who speak Black English Vernacular to write in standard English: Effects of dialect transformation
practice,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, no. 2 (2000): 212-235; Amanda J. Godley et al.,
“Preparing teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms,” Educational Researcher 35, no. 8 (2006): 30-37; John
R. Rickford, African American Vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational implications (Malden,
Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1999); Geneva Smitherman and Víctor Villanueva, eds., Language diversity in the
classroom: From intention to practice (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003); Rebecca S
Wheeler and Rachel Swords, Code-switching: Teaching standard English in urban classrooms, Theory &
research into practice (Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English, 2006); Walt Wolfram, Carolyn
Temple Adger, and Donna Christian, Dialects in schools and communities, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 2007); Brock Haussamen et al., Grammar alive!: A guide for teachers (Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English, 2003); Adger, Wolfram, and Christian, “Dialect Awareness for
Students”; Charity Hudley and Mallinson, Understanding English Language Variation in U.S. Schools.
317
Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous; Bekoff, “Minding animals, minding earth”; Capra, The Hidden
Connections; Chawla, “Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis”; Dunayer, Animal
Equality; Glenn, “Constructing Consumables and Consent”; Kaplan, “Primate Dialects Recorded in South
America—A First”; Maffi and Woodley, Biodiversity: Culture; Mühlhäusler, Language of Environment,
Environment of Language; Mühlhäusler and Peace, “Environmental Discourses”; Salwiczek and Wickler,
“Birdsong: An Evolutionary Parallel to Human Language”; Soussan, “Scientist: Prairie Dogs Have Own
Language”; Warkentin, “It’s not just what you say, but how you say it.”
107
aesthetic, and communicative benefits of various dialects, and contrast the rules of each
dialect to help students learn to translate between them. They can also help students reflect
on how literary and personal uses of different dialects may achieve different purposes and
convey different qualities and meanings. Teachers can also encourage students to reflect on
varying examples of how language is employed to talk about the nonhuman world,
considering the attitudes and values communicated by each, and they can give students
opportunities to use language in creative ways to imagine the lives and experiences of others,
both human and nonhuman, and to cultivate empathy and connection.
If teachers bring each of these sets of concepts to bear in their curriculum design,
their instruction, and in all of their interactions with students, they will be able to arm
students with the knowledge and skills to creatively and self-reflectively employ a range of
linguistic and conceptual resources for communication and meaning-making, to challenge
often unexamined social structures of domination, to dismantle the illusions of superiority
between groups of humans and between humans and other species, and to actively employ
linguistic, discursive, and social strategies that can generate attitudes, beliefs, and practices
which are more tolerant, more equitable, and more sustainable.
5. Educational Outcomes of Critical Ecoliteracy
In a range of recent studies, researchers have found that levels of socio-environmental
knowledge are very low within the US population. The National Environmental Education
and Training Foundation’s Environmental Literacy in America report states, “Our years of
108
data from Roper surveys show a persistent pattern of environmental ignorance even among
the most educated and influential members of society.”318 The report elaborates:
At a time when Americans are confronted with increasingly challenging

environmental choices, we learn that our citizenry is by and large both
uninformed and misinformed…. we have a confused public that performs
poorly on basic environmental literacy questionnaires. But 95% of this public
supports environmental education in our schools. And most Americans want
environmental education to continue into their adult lives. Over 85% agree that
government agencies should support environmental education programs. A
large majority (80%) believe that private companies should train their
employees to help solve environmental problems. People want to understand
environmental issues and how they apply to their daily lives. Environmental
education can and must respond.319
There seems to be both widespread desire and widespread need for increased understanding
of issues relevant to sustainability. An educational approach that utilizes critical ecoliteracy
materials can satisfy this need, and significantly, it can satisfy elements of this need that
remain obscured or unidentified in public dialogue, filling gaps in understanding not only
about problems facing the global ecosystem, but about effective ways to think about those
problems, their cultural origins, and ways to generate visions of potential transformation.
What’s more, curricula in critical ecoliteracy can not only increase students’ socio-
environmental, cultural, and discursive knowledge and critical understandings, they can
increase skills and knowledge in traditional educational subject areas as well. Repeated
studies have found that environmental education programs produce strong positive
educational outcomes in a range of contexts and across academic subject areas. The National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation states:
318
Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S., vii.
319
Ibid., iv.
109
the overall weight of the evidence today is impressive. Environmental
education (EE) is producing higher-performing students, improved test scores,
and quality character education; it even contributes to later career success…. a
number of newer studies have shown that environment-based learning programs
with suitable depth, duration, and rigor can boost standardized test scores.320
Making a related point, they add:
SEER research since 1997 has shown that environment-based education

improves academic performance and learning across the board, regardless of
socioeconomic or cultural factors (Hoody, 2002). Indeed, environment-based
education appears to be a kind of educational equalizer, improving reading,
science achievement, and critical thinking skills across ethnic and racial
groups.321
These improvements occur not only in science courses, but in subject-areas that deal
directly with language, text, and culture, as well. The same report notes:
For many, the idea that environment-based education advances reading and
language skills seems less obvious than that it supports science learning or
investigative skills. But 93% of educators observing students in environment-
based programs report that the children read and write better as a result of the
exposure. And 94% of them say the children in these programs communicate
with one another much better (Hoody, 2002).322
An influential report by the State Education and Environment Roundtable found similar
results while studying the benefits of “Using the Environment as an Integrating Context for
Learning (EIC).”323 In the report, researchers Gerald Lieberman and Linda Hoody state:
The observed benefits of EIC program are both broad-ranging and encouraging.
They include: better performance on standardized measures of academic
achievement in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies; reduced
discipline and classroom management problems; increased engagement and
320
Ibid., xii.
321
Ibid., 75.
322
Ibid., 73.
323
Lieberman and Hoody, Closing the Achievement Gap.
110
enthusiasm for learning; and, greater pride and ownership in
accomplishments.324
The report discusses benefits of EIC within traditional educational disciplines, including
language arts. On this subject Lieberman and Hoody state:
All 17 comparative studies of language arts achievement data found that

standardized measures affirm the academic benefits of EIC-based learning for
reading, writing, and general language skills. On the average, the EIC students
outperformed their peers from traditional programs at all nine of the schools
that conducted the analyses.325
They add that, “As EIC students concentrate on subjects of interest and importance to them,
they become more capable and confident readers, writers, and speakers.”326 The study found
similar results in social studies:
Ninety-six percent of teachers and principals responding to the Learning Survey

reported that EIC-based learning helped their students develop and improve
their knowledge of social studies…. In the context of their local environment,
students begin to make connections between geography, history, politics,
economics, and natural resources in their region. Making such connections
sparks students’ interests, engages them in their schoolwork, and helps them
learn the significance of social studies within a context that is personally
meaningful.327
These studies offer extensive evidence to suggest that educational programs
incorporating environmental education and environmental literacy can enhance student
learning, comprehension, and skill levels in numerous areas of importance. I suggest, by
extension, that such benefits can be derived from critical ecoliteracy curricula as well. And I
324
Gerald A. Lieberman and Linda L. Hoody, Executive Summary: Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the
Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. Results of a Nationwide Study. (San Diego: State
Education and Environmental Roundtable, 1998), 1.
325
Ibid., 4.
326
Ibid.
327
Ibid., 7.
111
stress that these sorts of course materials can and should also increase students’ capacity for
critical thinking and social reflection. Lieberman and Hoody’s study offers evidence of this
outcome in EIC courses, as well. They report:
In addition to traditional subject-matter knowledge and basic life skills, EIC

students gain a wealth of added educational benefits, including: a
comprehensive understanding of the world; advanced thinking skills leading to
discovery and real-world problem-solving; and, awareness and appreciation of
the diversity of viewpoints within a democratic society.328
And they add:
Ninety-six percent of Learning Survey respondents reported that students in

EIC programs developed higher-level, critical thinking skills than those of their
traditional peers. Educators reported that EIC has important effects on
students’ thinking skills including… increased ability to think creatively…
greater proficiency in solving problems and thinking strategically… [and] better
application of systems thinking” which “help students develop their capacity to
examine and understand the complex interrelationships and interactions that
take place among diverse socio-cultural and natural systems.329
Such findings provide significant support for the value and effectiveness of education in
ecoliteracy and, by extension, in critical ecoliteracy.
C. Materials and Methods of a Model Critical Ecoliteracy Curriculum
In what follows I discuss my own critical ecoliteracy curriculum, a set of materials,
texts, assignments, and strategies I have designed as a model and a resource for educators
who would like to integrate critical ecoliteracy into their classrooms. The curriculum
materials I have designed are intended to apply the theoretical and pedagogical insights
328
Ibid., 2.
329
Ibid., 8.
112
outlined above in order to cultivate capacities and habits of mind that will help students
approach the more-than-human world in more compassionate, aware, and sustainable ways.
In order to foster this critically ecoliterate consciousness, the materials seek to encourage the
eight ‘essential qualities’ I have described: empathy, mutuality, ethical consciousness,
context, critical language awareness, perspective, imagination, and agency. I have carefully
selected texts and developed assignments in my curriculum toward this end. At the same
time, I have also worked to make sure the materials foster other core skills every student
should possess. Below I discuss some of the intended benefits of the texts and assignments
included in my curriculum materials.
1. Why a Secondary and Post-Secondary Humanities Curriculum?
With its broad exploration of cultural and discursive processes, socio-environmental
phenomena, and comparative frameworks for understanding and interacting with the world,
critical ecoliteracy is an educational endeavor that both requires and supports teaching from
interdisciplinary perspectives.
A number of studies and authors have highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary
approaches to environmental education and ecoliteracy, and have suggested that studying
socio-environmental issues offers valuable educational tools to integrate diverse topics,
subject-areas, and skills with issues that are directly relevant to students’ lives. The National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation’s report Environmental Literacy in
America recommends using environmental education “as a subject integrator nationwide.”330
The report adds:
330
113
The National Science Foundation has pointed to environmental education… as
serving an important role in integrating disparate subject matter in ways that
students can both understand and apply. Isolated disciplines presented in a more
confined classroom setting have documented weaknesses. Integration requires
new thinking and a challenge to educational delivery.331
And in the Center for Ecoliteracy’s Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability, Michael
Stone makes a similar suggestion, proposing, “using schooling for sustainability as an
opportunity to look at existing subjects through another lens.”332
Fritjof Capra comments on the value of art and humanities content for cultivating
systems thinking and ecological awareness, stating, “Whether we talk about literature and
poetry, the visual arts, music, or the performing arts, there’s hardly anything more effective
than art for developing and refining a child’s natural ability to recognize and express
patterns.”333 A number of other authors have also raised powerful insights as to the value of
art, story, and writing for inspiring and deepening critically ecoliterate approaches to the
world.334
Indeed, the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation has
recommended, “Encourag[ing] state departments of education to certify, fund and support”
educational models that use the “environment as an integrating context” “under programs for
331
Ibid., 72.
332
Michael K Stone and The Center for Ecoliteracy, Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability, 1st ed.
(Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2009), 181.
333
Capra, “Ecological Literacy,” 22.
334
Ivan Brady, “Poetics for a Planet: Discourse on Some Problems of Being-in-Place,” in The Sage Handbook
of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 2005), 979-1026; Fawcett, “Children’s wild animal stories”; John Felstiner, Can Poetry Save the
Earth?: A Field Guide to Nature Poems (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009); Anastasia Graf,
“Representing the Other: A Conversation among Mikhail Bakhtin, Elizabeth Bishop, and Wislawa
Szymborska,” Comparative Literature 57, no. 1 (Winter 2005): 84-99; James Hatley, “Techne and Phusis:
Wilderness and the Aesthetics of the Trace in Andrew Goldsworthy”, 2003,
http://faculty.salisbury.edu/~jdhatley/technephusis.pdf; Lindholdt, “Writing from a Sense of Place”; Warkentin,
“It’s not just what you say, but how you say it.”
114
reading and science,”335 thereby recognizing the benefits and connections of such material to
reading and language arts skills as well as to science skills. I support this recommendation.
Further, given the components of cultural and discursive analysis that I identify as vital to
critical ecoliteracy, I strongly encourage the incorporation of critical ecoliteracy course
content across the curriculum, and I particularly highlight its relevance within humanities
classrooms whose function is to examine the literary, artistic, and social products of human
culture.
I also emphasize the value of applying such materials within secondary and post-
secondary classrooms. Although the majority of current environmental education programs
operate in early childhood and elementary education settings, The National Environmental
Education and Training Foundation points out:
In an examination of causes and possible consequences of climate change, one

study found that an appreciation of the mechanism of global warming takes
time to become established over the course of secondary education (Boyes &
Stanisstreet, 1993). While children were aware of a range of environmental
problems and understood some environmentally friendly and unfriendly
actions, they could not link particular causes with particular consequences.
Some of this problem may be inherent in the age of the students and their
capacity for higher order thinking. Unfortunately, as research by the NAAEE
and the Environmental Literacy Council (2000) shows, EE is taught by 83% of
elementary school teachers, but only 44% of high school teachers. Thus, older
students who have more developed higher-order thinking capacity and are more
able to absorb complex environmental subject matter (Myers & Stanisstreet,
1999) probably receive less EE than younger students. This indeed may be one
of the reasons why younger adults who received EE in school are not
substantially more knowledgeable than older generations – much of the EE they
were exposed to was in elementary school, where it was used as engaging
subject matter rather than being taught in a systematic, grounded fashion.336
335
336
Ibid., 57.
115
These studies raise the point that some aspects of environmental or ecoliteracy education are
best addressed once students have developed the capacity for “higher-order thinking” and can
understand complex processes and concepts. The Foundation adds that in another study,
college level environmental courses “evidenced clear and significant positive effects in eight
of nine instances.”337
For these reasons, my own model curriculum in critical ecoliteracy is designed to be
taught in secondary or post-secondary humanities classrooms, and incorporates a wide range
of disciplinary perspectives and materials, including poetry, visual art, literary texts,
scholarly texts, journalistic reports, film, music, ancient mythology, and more.
The goals of critical ecoliteracy could and should be applied in other sorts of
educational contexts as well, in classrooms with various subject-matter orientations and age
levels and in less formal educational settings outside of traditional schooling. I encourage
educators to take the recommendations and materials that I have formulated and design their
own materials, or modify mine, to suit these diverse contexts. I also hope that in the future
critical ecoliteracy curricula may be linked to other environmental and place-based
educational endeavors and to hands-on and community-interactive projects that provide
opportunities for direct interaction with the natural world, experiential and situated activities,
and service learning undertakings. I believe that such connections can enhance both the
goals of critical ecoliteracy and of any other educational undertaking with which it is
integrated. However, for my own model critical ecoliteracy curriculum I have endeavored to
produce materials that can be easily applied to formal educational settings, and I have
focused on text-based activities that can work within relatively traditional secondary and
337
Ibid., 59.
116
post-secondary humanities classrooms, because I feel these are forums in which such
materials are severely lacking and dearly needed.
2. Purpose of the Texts
The ability to think critically, to comprehend and interpret texts, to seek and evaluate
sources of information, to solve problems, to communicate effectively for various purposes –
no matter what its other goals, any educational endeavor should, by design and by execution,
advance students’ capacities in each of these areas. There are many forms of literacy
necessary in order to be an informed, engaged, and empowered citizen in the modern
world.338 My curriculum recognizes the importance of these multiliteracies – of the ability to
navigate and contribute to meaning-making in multimodal forms and diverse cultural
contexts – and it seeks to help students cultivate and further their attainment of these skills.
Each lesson helps students further their ability to negotiate, question, and utilize discourses,
texts, and cultural artifacts in various forms and contexts, while it adds a vital addition to the
list of multiliteracies students must develop – that of critical ecoliteracy.
Every lesson in my curriculum is designed with several components, including
readings, viewings, opportunities for class discussion, and writing assignments. As they are
primarily humanities-oriented and address questions of language, discourse, and culture, the
lesson materials in this curriculum contain a sizable number of readings (including literary
passages, nonfiction books and essays, news articles, and poetry), as well as viewings of a
variety of media including films, television episodes, television news segments, and visual
338
See Paulo Freire and Donaldo Macedo, Literacy: Reading the Word & the World (Boston: Bergin & Garvey,
1987); Gee, Social Linguistics and Literacies; Bertram C Bruce and Ann Peterson Bishop, “New Literacies and
Community Inquiry,” in Handbook of Research on New Literacies, ed. Julie Coiro et al. (New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 2006), 699-742; Cazden et al., “A pedagogy of multiliteracies.”
117
art. I consider all of these to be texts, each containing and communicating layers of cultural
meaning. The ability to critically analyze the content, message, and cultural impact of each
of these types of texts is part of what being multiliterate is about. And the ability to draw
from these texts, and from the experience of analyzing and discussing them, a greater sense
of emotional connection to others (both human and nonhuman); a greater understanding of
socio-environmental dynamics and their cultural relevance; a greater capacity for self-
reflection; and the inspiration and drive to act for positive change is part of what being
critically ecoliterate is about. The readings and viewings in this curriculum are intended to
develop each of these abilities in students.
To choose the texts I use in my curriculum, I have drawn on my own exposure to
materials through my academic and personal pursuits, and I have also conducted extensive
research to identify, evaluate, and select materials that I feel effectively address the range of
topics, explore the range of questions, and model and evoke the range of capacities I desire to
address within the curriculum. In order to achieve these goals, I have approached the
selection of texts, and the design of the activities and assignments that accompany these
texts, using the insights and strategies of sociocultural learning theory and critical pedagogy.
As described above, these educational philosophies emphasize “dialogue, teacher colearning,
peer collaboration, questioning, students bringing knowledge to class, and joint knowledge
construction.”339 From the view of sociocultural theory and critical pedagogy, texts can
serve as social and intellectual resources that can be utilized to offer structures for new
patterns of thoughts, to spark instructional conversation, to generate intersubjectivity, to help
foster the ability to construct and interpret meaning, to provide shared experiences and a
shared repertoire, and to allow students the ability to reflect on their world and on
339
Bonk and Kim, “Adult Learning and Development,” 69.
118
themselves. I have selected the texts in my curriculum with these purposes in mind; below I
elaborate on each of these roles that texts can play in the classroom.
Sociocultural learning theory points to the importance of tools and signs “in one’s
sociocultural milieu,” suggesting that these tools and signs, including written language and
texts, “mediate new patterns of thought and overall human mental functioning….”340 The
texts selected in my curriculum are intended to serve this purpose, to mediate new patterns of
thought so that students may begin to think about others, about human society, and about the
world differently, and to encourage new qualities of mental functioning, helping students to
develop the traits, habits, and skills to approach the challenges we face in new ways, and
better equipping them to interact with one another and to make informed, compassionate,
thoughtful, and forward-thinking choices.
Sociocultural learning theorists also highlight the importance of engaging in
conversation with students. Indeed, Gallimore and Tharp argue for ‘instructional
conversation,’ commenting that, “To truly teach, one must converse; to truly converse is to
teach.”341 They describe such conversations as instances where “expert and apprentice
weave together spoken and written language with previous understanding.”342 They
encourage small discussion groups, “where text and personal understanding can be
compared, discussed, and related,” saying that these are “prime opportunities” for “unique
modes of social interaction and thinking.”343 My curriculum is designed to create many such
opportunities, as teacher and students discuss texts and share their reactions. Each reading
and viewing is intended to be accompanied by discussion and writing, so that students learn
340
Ibid.
341
Qtd in Gallimore and Tharp, “Vygotsky and Education,” 196.
342
Ibid.
343
Ibid., 195.
119
to respond critically and self-reflectively to the texts they encounter, to articulate and analyze
their reactions, to share and compare their reactions with others, and to apply the insights
they gain from this process to their own lives and to their understandings of the world.
I hope the texts I have selected will also serve as a vehicle for generating
intersubjectivity. As described by Gallimore and Tharp:
Intersubjectivity refers to the way a group of people think about the world and
share meaning or situational definitions…. It is a temporary shared collective
reality of basic processes, thoughts, ideas, emotions, content, values, or goals.
Sociocultural theorists indicate that these common values and understandings
help learners negotiate meaning, build new knowledge, and restructure
problems in terms of the perspectives of another….344
This experience of intersubjectivity is closely related to helping students cultivate both
empathy and critical understanding of discourse and cultural processes. Reading and
viewing texts and discussing them as a class links students to the discourse of the larger
society; it provides points of reference, shared analogies and archetypes, examples, plots, as
well as ways of analyzing discourse, tools for viewing it critically, and the experience of
discussing it with a group and developing emergent understandings. All of this better equips
students to engage critically with the world, and generates a ‘community of practice’ that
values critical thought, creative ideas, and active discussion (see my more elaborated
discussion on communities of practice in a later section).
By generating this sort of intersubjectivity the texts also achieve a related purpose; to
provide tools for, “improving… the human capacity for construing meanings and
constructing realities.”345 As Jerome Bruner puts it:
344
Bonk and Kim, “Adult Learning and Development,” 71.
345
Bruner, The Culture of Education, 19.
120
The ‘reality’ that we impute to the ‘worlds’ we inhabit is a constructed one....
Reality construction is the product of meaning making shaped by traditions and
by a culture’s toolkit of ways of thought. In this sense, education must be
conceived as aiding young humans in learning to use the tools of meaning
making and reality construction, to better adapt to the world in which they find
themselves and to help in the process of changing it as required.346
Reading, viewing, analyzing, and discussing texts can help students do just this, as they begin
to recognize examples of our cultural construction of reality at work and as they learn to
negotiate processes of meaning-making in ways that allow them to be critical participants
who contribute to and challenge shared meanings, rather than simply powerless consumers of
the meanings presented to them by dominant society. Bruner comments further, arguing that
we must equip students with the skills to recognize, critique, and employ the narrative
strategies that we are constantly exposed to in our culture:
We devote an enormous amount of pedagogical effort to teaching the methods

of science and rational thought…. Yet we live most of our lives in a world
constructed according to the rules and devices of narrative. Surely education
could provide richer opportunities than it does for creating the metacognitive
sensitivity needed for coping with the world of narrative reality and its
competing claims. Is it so bizarre, given what we now know about human
thought, to propose that no history be taught without historiography, no
literature without literary theory, no poetry without poetics? Or that we turn
our consciousness to what narrative construal imposes on the world of reality
that it creates?347
Related to this goal is the role these texts can play in providing a ‘shared repertoire,’
as Etienne Wenger puts it. He states:
Over time, the joint pursuit of an enterprise creates resources for negotiating
meaning…. The repertoire of a community of practice includes routines, words,
tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or
concepts that the community has produced or adopted in the course of its
346
Ibid., 19-20.
347
Ibid., 149.
121
existence, and which have become part of its practice…. It includes the
discourse by which members create meaningful statements about the world, as
well as the styles by which they express their forms of membership and their
identities as members.348
Texts can provide this shared repertoire, giving students and teacher the collective
intellectual and cultural resources to compare, examine, and relate to each other and to
society, and to “build an image of the world and themselves.”349
Providing students with these resources also gives them opportunities for personal
and social reflection, another essential purpose of education and another essential role that
texts can play in the classroom. As Paulo Freire states, “Liberation is a praxis: the action and
reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it.”350 This sort of
transformative reflection upon the world is at the core of what my curriculum aims to
achieve.
To provide educational opportunities for students to engage in critical reflection,
conversation, intersubjective analysis, and active meaning-making should be part of the
central purpose of any curriculum. These goals are not merely parallel or compatible to the
specific mission of my materials, developing the eight essential qualities of empathy,
mutuality, ethical consciousness, context, critical language awareness, perspective,
imagination, and agency. Indeed, the educational objectives described here are interwoven
with the cultivation of these eight essential qualities, and are indispensible to their
development. By modeling and offering opportunities for critical thought, conversation,
interpretation, and reflection, the texts in my curriculum encourage students to employ
empathy to relate to others; to ask themselves and each other critical questions about society,
348
Wenger, Communities of Practice, 82-83.
349
Ibid., 271.
350
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 60.
122
language, ethical choices, and sustainable practices; to build a toolkit of alternative
perspectives, ideas, and possibilities that allow them to think differently about the world; to
share these new approaches in the joint experience of constructing and challenging reality;
and to identify examples of others who are connecting to the more-than-human world and
acting to produce positive change and find ways to apply these examples and insights to their
own actions.
3. Purpose of the Writing Assignments
Paulo Freire tells us, “To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it. Once
named, the world in its turn reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new
naming. Human beings are not built in silence, but in word, in work, in action-reflection.”351
This process of naming, this using words to see and transform the world, is the purpose of the
writing assignments I have designed in my curriculum. Much like the readings and viewings,
each writing assignment is intended to cultivate the eight essential qualities, while at the
same time fostering foundational thinking, writing, and communication skills and helping
students learn to negotiate, challenge, and change their world.
The writing assignments in my curriculum were developed based on the insights of
sociocultural theory and critical pedagogy. They range in type from personal reflection to
text analysis to creative fictional writing and poetry to research papers, and they are intended
to achieve a range of goals. They are designed to help students learn to write for personal
expression; for creative and artistic exploration; to compile, evaluate, and share information;
to critique and analyze texts and discourse; and to persuade and inspire in order to achieve
specific ends. They also help students gain practice in participating thoughtfully in the
351
Ibid., 69.
123
writing process, including drafting, revision, and peer review, in order to produce effective
and polished final products that employ language intentionally and skillfully to achieve their
purposes.
Each writing assignment, whether more formal and intended to speak to a larger
audience or more informal and created to encourage personal reflection, should still be part
of students’ ongoing collective practice of critical reflection; shared, intersubjective
conversation; and active, transformative meaning-making. The assignments are intended to
be both thought-provoking and creative, and to involve students in the inventive and
exuberant use of language as a tool for engaging with and shaping the world.
Joan McLane comments on the importance of providing students with playful ways to
use language. She states:
Jerome Bruner has noted that to play with something is ‘to open it up for
consideration’… because play allows the freedom to use materials and ideas in
a nonliteral, hypothetical, creative, ‘as-if’ manner. The player does not have to
worry about the risk of failure because in play the focus in on exploring and
manipulating means rather than accomplishing predetermined goals…. Play
thus confers a sense of freedom and control, encouraging the player to try out
materials, activities, roles, and ideas in new and inventive ways. Playing at and
with writing – playing with forms and conventions, using writing as an
extension of dramatic play – may serve to open up the activity of writing for
consideration and exploration.352
My curriculum should encourage students to play with language, to own it, and to use
it for larger purposes. Etienne Wenger comments that teachers must open students’ horizons
and involve them “in actions, discussions, and reflections that make a difference to the
352
Joan B. McLane, “Writing as a Social Process,” in Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and
Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, ed. Luis C Moll, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), 311.
124
communities that they value.”353 The writing assignments I have developed, like the
readings and viewings, are designed to expand students’ horizons, offer new modes of
thought, and provide genuine opportunities for students to engage with the world, to
participate in the larger discourse of society, and to effect change.
Again, these goals are incontrovertibly linked to the development of the eight
essential qualities my curriculum aims to facilitate. Through writing, students are
encouraged to explore their capacities for empathy and imagination, to reflect on their own
attitudes and practices, to forge and strengthen their bonds to the nonhuman world, to
investigate difficult questions and imagine creative solutions, to analyze the strategies and
motivations others employ in their use of various forms of discourse, to encourage others to
change their attitudes and practices, and to plan and enact strategies to create positive change.
4. Envisioning a Sustainable Future
In order to create a better world we must be able to envision a better world.
Therefore, one of the most essential skills that education can help to cultivate in students is
the ability to imagine possibilities that are different than those presented by dominant culture.
Education can serve as a valuable tool for helping students develop the skill of imagination,
and for helping them learn to apply their imagination toward productively planning and
acting to create a better world. Imagination allows students to better understand how others
experience life, to envision the potential long-term consequences of modern social practices,
to consider alternative modes of structuring society and industry that may be more
sustainable, and to generate creative ideas about how to achieve those alternatives. Wenger
comments:
353
125
Through imagination, we can locate ourselves in the world and in history, and
include in our identities other meanings, other possibilities, other perspectives.
It is through imagination that we recognize our own experience as reflecting
broader patterns, connections, and configurations. It is through imagination
that we see our own practices as continuing histories that reach far into the past,
and it is through imagination that we conceive of new developments, explore
alternatives, and envision possible futures.354
Education can help students cultivate their imaginative capacities in several ways. As
Wenger describes:
Imagination requires the ability to disengage – to move back and look at our
engagement through the eyes of an outsider. It requires the ability to explore,
take risks, and create unlikely connections. It demands some degree of
playfulness. Characteristically, the work of imagination entails such processes
as: …recognizing our experience in others, knowing what others are doing,
being in someone else’s shoes… sharing stories, explanations, descriptions…
creating models, reifying patterns, producing representational artifacts…
documenting historical developments, events, and transitions; reinterpreting
histories and trajectories in new terms; using history to see the present as only
one of many possibilities and the future as a number of possibilities…
generating scenarios, exploring other ways of doing what we are doing, other
possible worlds, and other identities.355
The readings, writing assignments, and activities in my curriculum are designed to
cultivate these sorts of abilities. Reading and viewing the texts, and responding to them
through writing and conversation, allows students to explore life from another’s point of
view, to consider the utopian or dystopian outcomes of specific cultural choices, to imagine
worlds that operate differently from our own, and to consider, as Wenger put it in the above
quote, “other ways of doing what we are doing.”
Coupled with texts that flex students’ imaginative capacities, the writing assignments
in the curriculum encourage students to apply imagination to creative tasks and to experiment
354
Ibid., 178.
355
Ibid., 185.
126
with different possibilities of thinking, of seeing themselves, of seeing others, and of
envisioning the future. By sharing and discussing these imaginative possibilities, students
may begin to participate in a community of practice and of inquiry that values, encourages,
and expects creative thinking and imagination, and to develop skills which allow them to
envision possible futures that are different from the world as it currently is.
5. Links to State and National Learning Standards
The model curriculum in critical ecoliteracy I have designed is intended to be flexible
and easily modified to work within a range of secondary and post-secondary humanities
classrooms, in both private and public institutions. Because it makes heavy use of language
skills, textual analysis, writing, and cultural critique, it easily fulfills many public school
system standards, objectives, and learning goals in areas like language arts and social studies,
as well as standards in environmental literacy. This is a goal supported by the National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation, which recommends better alignment of
environmental education with state standards of learning, proposing:
Creation of a searchable inventory of grade-adjusted EE activities and mini-

courses that reinforce science, language arts and social studies standards [and]
Small grants through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Education Department to support the alignment of leading EE programs with
state and national standards.356
As an example of alignment between critical ecoliteracy curricula and content-area
learning standards, I have included in Appendix B a list of the Maryland State Standards in
Language Arts that are fulfilled by my curriculum materials, as well as the Maryland
356
127
Environmental Literacy standards met by the materials. I have also listed the national
Common Core Standards for English Language Arts met by the curriculum, as these
standards have been adopted by nearly all states.357 My curriculum could easily be linked to
learning standards in other states, as well, and the features of critical ecoliteracy could be
applied to develop materials that fulfill learning standards in any subject area.
6. My Own Employment of the Teaching Strategies
When teaching the curriculum materials myself, throughout the semester, I employ
the pedagogical approaches of sociocultural learning theory and critical pedagogy outlined in
the prior sections in order to scaffold critical thinking, cultivate a supportive atmosphere of
inquiry and community, and support students’ development of the conceptual resources I
have identified as essential to critical ecoliteracy. With each new set of readings and
viewings that I present to students, I support students through the process of developing their
own analyses of the work. I urge them to engage in discussion both in class and through
their online discussion board postings, connecting their own reactions and interpretations to
those of their classmates. I endeavor to keep class time highly student-centered, and I focus
my own role on facilitating and advancing class discussion, posing pointed questions to
evoke further thinking and analysis, highlighting key points made by authors, and at times
informing students of alternative viewpoints to those they have thought of. However, I
always seek to pose these alternatives as options to consider, not as “right” or “wrong”
conclusions.
At the beginning of the semester, I briefly introduce and foreshadow some of the
questions that will be raised within the course. I show students a host of images to spark
357
“In the States,” Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010, http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states.
128
their emotional and intellectual imaginations. I include images of the natural world in both
‘healthy’ and ‘polluted’ states, of nonhuman animals in loving interaction and in cruel
circumstances such as within factory farms, and photographs and artist renderings of possible
sustainable structures such as green buildings, solar panels, and vertical farms. I ask students
to consider how we see our world, what the natural world or “the environment” represents to
us, and what sort of relationship we as a society and as individuals see ourselves having with
it.
During each new two-week topic I also introduce students to some key questions to
consider as they engage with the materials, and I make sure that, as a group, we have
successfully highlighted the central arguments and issues raised by the course materials. I
support and guide students to do this themselves as much as possible, filling in missing
points and exposing unconsidered angles as necessary, and challenging students to make
connections between the materials, and to apply the concepts raised by particular authors to
their analyses of other readings, viewings, and topics. Along the way, I continue to urge
students to link course materials to their investigation of cultural attitudes and to use the
ideas and examples within the materials to help them formulate deeper understandings of the
dynamics of meaning-making and the development of conceptual frameworks within culture.
I often ask students to consider what a particular text contributes to US culture, what message
it hopes to convey to readers, and how this might reflect, influence, or comment on cultural
attitudes and behaviors with regard to the natural world.
Although my own use of the curriculum materials is in a classroom-centered
educational setting, I also attempt to create opportunities for students to directly interact with
the natural world. I hold class sessions outside when possible, and I require students to
129
complete a digital story assignment in which they describe a particular place in the natural
world that is important to them. I ask them to spend time in this place and to collect
photographic or video images of it, as well as to describe its history and features. By
viewing these digital stories in class, students are able to witness the places their classmates
hold dear and the sentiments these places evoke, collectively sharing the experience of
bonding with a place.
I encourage other instructors to utilize whatever strategies are appropriate for their
educational contexts in order to encourage students to experience direct interaction with the
nonhuman world. Instructors will likely find, as I have, that some students have had the
experience of forming close bonds with nonhuman beings and nonhuman nature, while
others have not. For this reason, I believe that hearing about the bonds others have formed –
both classmates and the authors included in the course readings – is a key step for students
who have not had these emotional encounters themselves. Through this process, they are
exposed to the idea that such bonds are possible and valuable. I suggest that teachers build
on this idea by helping students who have not had bonds to a particular place or nonhuman
being to actively reflect on their lack of these experiences. In my classroom, I have
encouraged students to explore such questions as what it means to have lived their entire
lives in an urban environment with exposure to no larger areas of nonhuman nature than
small back yards or city parks, or how they have negotiated the experience of moving from
state to state throughout their childhood as part of a military family. This process of self
reflection, juxtaposed against narratives of intimate connection with the nonhuman world
presented by authors, poets, and classmates, provides an opportunity for the class as a whole
130
to confront contemporary conditions of disconnection and to consider the need to seek out
connection in their own lives.
In my teaching of these course materials, I use the curriculum as a whole, allowing
students to progress through the materials step by step. I have structured these materials in
order to provide students with a cumulative development of concepts, new ideas, and
intellectual resources, each new layer equipping students to address the topics of the course
in more depth and informed by more critical understandings. However, it is not necessary to
employ the materials as a solid unit; they are designed with the flexibility to be broken apart
as well. It is my hope that the materials can be easily applied and adapted to work within
other classrooms, and I encourage teachers to employ individual lessons and sections,
integrating them into existing course assignments or using them as a starting place to develop
other activities. As such, each section of the materials is designed to support the larger
trajectory of the curriculum but also to further the goals and develop the qualities of critical
ecoliteracy on its own.
131
IV. Methodological Frameworks for Evaluation
The project I am undertaking here can be viewed as consisting of three major
components, which proceed from three primary tasks I am attempting to accomplish. The
first task is one of theory and argumentation. To complete this task I draw on existing
literature and apply my own thinking and analysis, developing my theories of critical
ecoliteracy, its importance, its components, and strategies to cultivate it. This task involves
establishing what Phil Francis Carspecken calls a “sound social ontology,”358 a social theory
to work from that supplies the researcher with “useful conceptual tools for looking at social
phenomena in a manner that fruitfully raises questions of interest and establishes… linkages
between different levels of analysis.”359 Formulating my own social ontology, outlining my
conceptual tools, and applying these tools to raise questions about existing attitudes toward
the more-than-human world and about the process of fostering a shift to more sustainable
attitudes; this work occupies most of Section 1 of this document.
A second central task of my work is then to find ways to apply this process of theory
development, and reproduce it in the classroom with students, so that they, too, may
formulate critical analyses and begin asking important questions about their world. To do
this, I design curriculum materials that employ the theoretical arguments I have constructed.
The third task of my work, then, is to enact what I have developed and made manifest
in tasks one and two, by putting my curriculum materials into practice in classrooms, and
making some determination as to their effect on students and on teachers who use them.
Here I investigate to what extent the curriculum materials have or have not encouraged
358
Phil Francis Carspecken, Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide
(New York: Routledge, 1996), 26.
359
Mouzelis 1991, qtd. in Ibid.
132
students to construct, explore, and question their own worldviews, attitudes, theories, and
ontologies, and to what extent their conceptions of and interactions with the world reflect
newly-forged qualities that may help them develop ways to live more sustainably. Further, I
assess the experience of teaching the materials for myself and other teachers, examining
teachers’ impressions of the materials, their ability to employ the materials in their own
classrooms, and their opinions as to the value and effectiveness of the materials.
In some ways these three tasks are quite distinct, each requiring me to employ
different techniques and each producing different products. But in other ways they are all
facets of the same task, and are all intended to accomplish the same goals.
Joe Kincheloe and Peter McLaren comment that, “Whereas traditional researchers see
their task as the description, interpretation, or reanimation of a slice of reality, critical
researchers often regard their work as a first step toward forms of political action….”360 I see
my work this way, as a first step toward action, not only political but social, cultural, and
personal, as well. Each task I undertake here is a piece of that goal, a goal which firmly
positions my work within the criticalist tradition. As Kincheloe and McLaren describe:
We are defining a criticalist as a researcher or theorist who attempts to use her

or his work as a form of social or cultural criticism and who accepts certain
basic assumptions: that all thought is fundamentally mediated by power relations
that are social and historically constituted; that facts can never be isolated from the
domain of values or removed from some form of ideological inscription; that the
relationship between concept and object and between signifier and signified is
never stable or fixed and is often mediated by the social relations of capitalist
production and consumption; that language is central to the formation of subjec-
tivity (conscious and unconscious awareness); [and] that certain groups in any
society and particular societies are privileged over others and, although the reasons
for this privileging may vary widely, the oppression that characterizes
360
Joe L. Kincheloe and Peter McLaren, “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research,” in The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 2005), 305.
133
contemporary societies is most forcefully reproduced when subordinates accept
their social status as natural, necessary, or inevitable ….361
Employing this definition and others discussed by Carspecken,362 Denzin and
Lincoln,363 Ladson-Billings and Donnor,364 and Plummer,365 I classify my work under the
umbrella of criticality. It originates from an activist stance, seeks increased justice, and is
intended to be transformational. Denzin and Lincoln say of Ken Plummer’s ‘critical
humanist and queer theory’ approach to research that it emphasizes “symbolic interactionism,
pragmatism, democratic thinking, storytelling, moral progress, and social justice…. It is
committed to reducing human suffering, to an ethics of care and compassion, a politics of
respect, and the importance of trust.” 366 I find this description quite applicable to my own
work, as well.
In a similar vein, Gloria Ladson-Billings and Jamel Donnor describe critical race
theory as, “a new analytic rubric for considering difference and inequity using multiple
methodologies – story, voice, metaphor, analogy, critical social science, feminism, and
postmodernism.”367 I see my own work as a necessary and logical expansion of such rubrics,
employing the paradigms of critical ethnography, critical humanism, critical race theory,
feminist theory, and queer theory, but extending their perspectives and goals beyond the
human.
361
Ibid., 304.
362
Carspecken, Critical Ethnography in Educational Research.
363
Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln, eds., “Paradigms and Perspectives in Contention,” in The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2005), 183-190.
364
Gloria Ladson-Billings and Jamel Donnor, “The Moral Activist Role of Critical Race Theory Scholarship,”
in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln, 3rd ed.
(Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2005), 279-301.
365
Ken Plummer, “Critical Humanism and Queer Theory: Living with the Tensions,” in The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 2005), 357-373.
366
Denzin and Lincoln, “Paradigms and Perspectives in Contention,” 188-189.
367
Ladson-Billings and Donnor, “The Moral Activist Role of Critical Race Theory Scholarship,” 291.
134
In the past, the focus of critical research has remained almost entirely on applying the
concepts of justice, empowerment, and positive social change to human groups, leaving the
broader more-than-human world in silence. But by taking the methodological concepts that
criticalists have used to explore issues of ‘othered’ human groups and applying them to a
consideration of ‘othered’ nonhuman groups, I am able to formulate a critical socio-
ecological methodology that asks humans to examine not only their own attitudes toward the
nonhuman world, but also to foster consideration for the nonhuman world on its own terms.
Just as Ladson-Billings and Donnor advocate for “scholarship that will take a stance on
behalf of human liberation,”368 I advocate for scholarship that takes a stance on behalf of the
entirety of the more-than-human world.
A. Establishing a Consensus on Value
Any work that seeks to be socially transformative must not be created in a vacuum.
Every task I pursue must be undertaken reflectively, and its value and validity must be
explored. In order to productively consider the merit of what I create, I employ Carspecken’s
discussion of establishing value by winning a community consensus on truth claims.369
Carspecken explains:
Critical epistemology borrows extensively from the American pragmatist

school of philosophy, which defined truth in terms of consensus to truth claims.
A truth claim is an assertion that something is right or wrong, good or bad,
correct or incorrect. According to pragmatist philosophers like Dewey, Peirce,
and James, the truth of [a] statement… can only be determined through the
ability of this statement to win the agreement of a cultural community.370
368
Ibid., 281.
369
See Carspecken’s discussion of consensus on truth claims, Critical Ethnography in Educational Research,
56-57.
370
Ibid., 56.
135
Drawing on Habermas, Carspecken argues, “With truth, what should be concentrated upon is
not whether [claims] are true or false in the traditional sense but rather whether they meet
certain validity conditions necessary to win consensus.”371 From this perspective, according
to Carspecken, in order to win consensus on any truth claim one must understand what
ontological category that claim is referencing and what sorts of conditions are required to
validate it. Making extensive use of Habermas’ work, and adding his own additions,
modifications, and interpretations, Carspecken outlines three ontological categories –
objective, subjective, and normative-evaluative – and discusses the necessary conditions for
achieving consensus on validity claims based on each.
First Carspecken explains the objective ontological category, which in this context is
not related to neutrality but to ‘multiple access.’ Here the objective category refers to entities
that we consider “accessible to multiple observers,” that “other people could observe in the
same way….”372 Carspecken elaborates, saying:
The objective category is presupposed by all statements that can be understood

and then judged as true or false according to the principle of multiple access.
Objective-referenced truth claims are claims that others would agree with one’s
observations and thus depend upon a presupposed ontological category to
which all humans in principle have access through their senses.373
The second ontological category, the subjective, addresses statements that “concern
emotions, desires, intentions, levels of awareness…” and is “characterized by privileged
access rather than multiple access.”374 Carspecken points out that people may choose to
reveal their subjective states or not, adding that there is a difference between subjective states
371
Ibid.
372
Ibid., 64.
373
Ibid., 65.
374
Ibid., 69.
136
and “the behaviors we take to indicate them. The behaviors in question are objective-
referenced events open to multiple access; the subjective states we associate with them must
be inferred and are not by nature perceivable.”375
The third ontological category is the ‘normative-evaluative’ realm. Carspecken
states:
The normative-evaluative realm is an ontological category presupposed by all

meaningful action It consists of truth claims about what behavior is proper,
appropriate, and conventional. Normative-evaluative claims can always be
articulated as ‘should claims’…. [they] thus concern the nature of our world
rather than ‘the’ world or ‘my’ world.376
Carspecken suggests that normative-evaluative-referenced value claims are supported
or disputed through a process in which participants try to find a value claim or claims that
they agree on and then ‘develop arguments’ from that value ‘toward the value claim in
dispute.’ In this way, these claims depend on establishing a ‘beginning consensus.’ Then,
“With a beginning consensus in place, argumentation proceeds through efforts to logically
link the beginning consensus to the value position in dispute.”377
Because my work is so directly about dialogue in and with the world, it necessarily
depends upon developing some level of community consensus as to the value of the
processes it initiates and the goals it seeks to achieve. Along the way it employs all three of
Carspecken’s ontological realms; it references the objective category to make claims and
raise questions about the state of the world, asking readers and students to apply the principle
of multiple access in order to critically consider global social and ecological conditions. It
demands reflection on personal perspectives and emotions, and expects students to not only
375
Ibid.
376
Ibid., 83.
377
Ibid., 76.
137
engage in self-reflection but to articulate and discuss their reflections, as well. It also asks
each of us to investigate, negotiate, and challenge existing cultural norms and values, to
analyze their validity, and to propose and potentially adopt alternative ideas of what ‘should’
be and how people ‘should’ live in the world.
What my work seeks to do is what it asks others to do as well: to arm ourselves with
social-ontological understandings and use them to question, resist, evaluate, and reformulate
our culturally-held truth claims. Perhaps, then, the best way to establish the value and
validity of my work is to assess its effectiveness at raising such questions, at generating
dialogue and at launching a process of critical cultural analysis. In order to do this, I
examine the effects produced by my curriculum materials as they are used in practice,
looking for evidence in students of developing critical awareness and shifting perspectives
about the more-than-human world and how we all ‘should’ live in it. Since critical
awareness and cultural perspectives are subjective and normative-evaluative in nature and
therefore not directly open to multiple access, I look for objective-referenced behaviors that I
take to indicate these states, including but not limited to what students say and write as they
participate in the curriculum, and I present and analyze these behaviors, offering them as
evidence to establish consensus on whether or to what extent my work produces its desired
effects.
B. Assessing the Effects of a Model Critical Ecoliteracy Curriculum
1. Methods
In order to assess whether my work achieves its intended effects – that is, whether it
launches a process of critical cultural analysis, generates dialogue and questions about the
138
implications of human attitudes toward the more-than-human world, and equips students with
the resources and qualities of mind I have identified as essential to help them reflect
thoughtfully on cultural belief structures about humans, nonhumans, and the land – I studied
the outcomes of the curriculum materials I have developed as they are employed in practice.
To do this, I put the curriculum materials to use in classrooms and collected writings and
observations from students and teachers, performing qualitative content analysis to
investigate student and teacher thinking and reactions.
I collected classroom data from two sample groups. I taught the materials myself as a
semester-long introductory course at a local university, repeating the course over two
semesters and collecting data from both groups of students. From this first method I drew
three sorts of data: my own observations of how the materials played out in the classroom,
my students’ writing, and my students’ answers to course evaluation forms and to a pre- and
post-test survey. I also asked a volunteer teacher, whom I’ll call Jason, to use selections
from the materials in a series of developmental writing classes at an area community college
and to provide feedback about the experience. From this second method I drew two sorts of
data: written feedback from the teacher about his experience of using the materials, and
excerpts of student writing. Thus, my curriculum materials were used in four classes; two
taught by me, and two taught by a volunteer teacher. Selection of these classes was a result
of nonrandom convenience sampling, based on my own opportunity to teach the materials as
I designed them and on the willingness of a volunteer teacher to select portions of the
materials to teach as well. Below I elaborate on my sampling groups and methods of data
collection and data analysis.
139
Teaching the Curriculum in a College First-Year Seminar
For my own implementation of the materials, I taught a self-designed course at a local
four-year public university in Maryland. The course was a first-year seminar, part of a
program for incoming students in which they have the opportunity to take an
interdisciplinary seminar-style class to help familiarize them with the demands of college and
with the University. I taught my course twice, during the fall semester of 2010 and the
spring semester of 2011.
Each semester I informed students enrolled in the class that I had designed the course
as part of my research and that I was evaluating its effectiveness. Students were given the
opportunity to provide consent for me to retain confidential copies of the writing they
submitted in response to course assignments. Students were not asked to complete any
additional tasks beyond required course activities and assignments. I assured students that
participation was voluntary and would not affect their treatment or standing in the course in
any way. Students privately signed consent forms, which I kept in a locked file drawer and
did not view until semester grades had been submitted, so that my interactions and grading
would not be consciously or subconsciously influenced by knowledge of whether they had
given consent. Once the semester was concluded, I reviewed consent forms and saved
electronic copies of the writing assignments of all students who had given consent, removing
their names and identifying information. One hundred percent of students who completed
the course gave consent in both semesters. Three students had withdrawn from the semester
early for personal reasons and were not present to participate in the study.
My fall semester class consisted of 18 students, eight females and ten males. Nearly
all were first-year college students (two were sophomore transfer students) and all were
140
between 18 and 19 years of age. The majority of my students were white, with three students
of Asian descent and one of Indian descent. All were native English speakers who had lived
in the U.S. their whole lives, most in the Maryland suburbs. Although one student described
her family as ‘having no money,’ my students’ socioeconomic status all fell roughly within
the middle class, as evidenced by the fact that their families all owned homes and they were
all able to attend a four-year college. The students in my fall semester all possessed a fairly
high academic skill level and had high reading comprehension skills and writing skills that
varied from coherent if sloppy to excellent. Although several of the students indicated that
they had not known what the class was about prior to registering for it (and had registered
simply to fulfill a requirement for a course in the Arts and Humanities), nearly all expressed
interest in the subject matter from the first day of class, and all appeared eager and excited to
discuss questions and possibilities relating to “sustainability.” Throughout the fall semester
nearly all of my students remained extremely engaged in and enthusiastic about the material.
During the spring semester I also had 18 students, although one withdrew partway
through the semester, so the spring semester finished with 17 students.378 The class consisted
of six females and 12 males. The student who withdrew was one of the six females, so the
class ended with five females. The spring students consisted of a more diverse mix of
backgrounds, races, and ability levels than those in the fall. Ten students were white, four
were African-American. Four were non-native English speakers who had lived most of their
lives outside the U.S., three from the Middle East and one from Africa. Four were transfer
students and therefore not freshmen. (The freshman seminar program was open to all
students who were new to the University, whether they were freshman or transfer students.)
378
Two other students, one in the fall and one in the spring, each withdrew within the first two weeks of the
semester due to personal circumstances.
141
Two of these transfer students had completed two years at a local community college before
transferring to a four-year university. One student, while technically a freshman, had
recently completed active military duty in the Middle East, and so was starting college in his
early twenties. The rest were between 18 and 20 years old. Most students, with the
exception of those who were not native to the U.S., had grown up in the Maryland suburbs.
Two had lived their whole lives in Baltimore City. One had relocated to several different
states over the course of her life. Most, again, were middle class, although two of the non-
native students appeared to have financial means that may have exceeded the classification of
‘middle class.’ The academic skill levels of these students also ranged more widely than
those of the fall. A few had very high skill levels. Some struggled to interpret the more
dense readings and had proficient but rough writing abilities. These students were still able
to successfully complete all of their assignments, comprehend the materials, and participate
in class effectively. Three of the non-native English speakers had extremely low English
reading and writing skills, and struggled significantly with written assignments and readings.
In the spring, like the fall, when asked why they had signed up for the course many students
stated that it was to fulfill a requirement and that they had had no idea what the subject-
matter of the class would be before arriving. Unlike the fall, some of these students were
initially unenthused about the material, and did not express excitement at the prospect of
discussing questions of sustainability. However, by the end of the semester, nearly all of the
students seemed thoroughly engaged in the material, with the exception of three students who
did not complete the majority of their readings and written assignments.
In both the fall and spring semester, the mixture of intended majors among my
students ranged greatly. In each semester a small number of students in the class identified
142
their planned major as environmental science or environmental studies, but these students
were a small minority, with three in the fall semester and two in the spring. Other majors
included psychology, social work, English, public policy, economics, visual arts, and in each
semester a sizeable proportion of the class – roughly half – entered with science majors
including engineering, biochemistry, biology, and computer science. Although some of the
students with science majors were initially hesitant about their ability to successfully
participate in the amount of reading and writing required for the class, as the semester
progressed nearly all showed willingness and enjoyment at engaging with the assignments
and at responding to text, narrative, and visual images.
Teaching the Curriculum Materials in a Community College Writing Course
The course materials were also employed by a volunteer teacher, “Jason,” at a
Baltimore-area community college. Jason reviewed course readings and assignments and
selected portions of the materials to use in two developmental writing classes. These classes
are intended for students with writing skills below the required standard necessary for entry
into the college’s introductory English course. Jason used my course materials during the
spring semester of 2011 and during a 2011 summer-session course. Students in both courses
reflected a wide diversity of ages, races, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds. Student ages
ranged from 17 to 45. Students had varying academic skill levels, although their writing
skills were all below the college’s identified level of proficiency. Jason had two years of
teaching experience and had taught developmental writing courses at the same institution
several times during previous semesters.
143
Jason was informed of the purpose of the research and completed consent documents.
After using the materials, he filled out a questionnaire describing his observations and
experiences. He was asked to describe student responses, and to provide short anonymous
quotes from student reactions to the materials. He submitted his own written observations
and his descriptions of student reactions electronically. I had no contact with the students
from his classes and at no time was I privy to their names or any identifying information.
It is my hope that my curriculum materials will be applicable to a range of classrooms
and grade levels from secondary to post-secondary, that they will be easy for different
teachers to adopt and employ, and that they will produce valuable and transformative effects
each time they are used. By gathering data from more than one classroom, from groups of
students of different ages, skill levels, and backgrounds, and from teachers in varying
contexts (myself and my volunteer), I have a greater breadth and depth of material to analyze
in order to evaluate the efficacy and applicability of my materials.
Data Collected
I collected several forms of data from my own teaching of the course materials. The
primary form of data was student writing. During both semesters, students completed
weekly response papers that they posted to an online discussion board, as well as replies to
classmates’ response papers within the same discussion forum. They also submitted creative
writing assignments, other in-class and outside writing assignments, a digital story with
accompanying narrative, and a final paper. I reviewed and drew analytical insight from all of
these writings. However, in order to conduct effective qualitative content analysis it was
necessary to limit the scope of the texts I used so that I could engage in in-depth coding and
144
analysis. I chose to focus on the weekly student discussion boards, to which students posted
their required response papers and replies to classmates, as my primary units of analysis.
Each student was required to submit at least three posts per week throughout the semester,
including their initial response paper and two replies to classmates. As such, these
collections of weekly discussion board postings provided extensive data. In their postings,
students discussed and critiqued the weekly readings, voiced personal reactions and opinions,
shared insights and attitudes about course subject matter, and engaged in ongoing
conversation with each other through which they collectively shared and formulated
understandings of the material. Their postings not only provide detailed articulations of their
thinking about the course, but because they are posted in weekly units they create an
extended picture of the evolution of student reactions over the timeframe of the semester.
In addition to student writing, I also asked students to submit an end-of-semester
course evaluation form and to complete a pre- and post-test survey at the beginning and end
of the semester (see below for further discussion of the survey instrument). In addition, I
kept my own teacher-researcher journal; after each class I took field notes describing the
events and conversations that took place during each class session and my observations about
the class.
For the classes conducted by my volunteer teacher Jason, data took the form of
written observations submitted by Jason, in response to a questionnaire asking him to
evaluate his experience with the materials. Within his written observations he included
quotes he had made note of from students in his classes.
These varied types of data contributed to my evaluation of the course materials in
distinct ways. I focused my most extensive analysis on the data I had selected as my primary
145
units of analysis, student discussion board submissions from my fall and spring semester
classes. To gain insights from these writings, I applied qualitative content analysis. My
approach to this process was based on discussions of critical humanist research, qualitative
content analysis goals and procedures, and insights from fields that engage in critical
discourse analysis and textual analysis.379
Drawing on these theoretical frameworks, I conducted a four-stage process of coding
and analysis, using as a guide methods outlined by Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah Shannon,
Marilyn White and Emily Marsh, and Yan Zhang and Barbara Wildemuth.380 First, I
assembled and read my students’ collected discussion board postings. This was my second
time reading the posts, as I had already read them during the semester when they were
submitted and was therefore already familiar with them. As I re-read each post, I engaged in
open coding, identifying types of responses, insights, or reactions I found in my students’
writing.
The list of categories I identified was produced primarily inductively, although I used
my research questions, theoretical insights, and list of ‘essential qualities’ to form a
preliminary analytical model that guided my analysis.381 Informed by this guiding construct,
and in addition to coding openly for any unexpected patterns, themes, or cases that emerged
379
Carspecken, Critical Ethnography in Educational Research; Norman Fairclough, Analysing Discourse:
Textual Analysis for Social Research (New York: Routledge, 2003); Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon,
“Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis,” Qualitative Health Research 15, no. 9 (November 1,
2005): 1277 -1288; Kincheloe and McLaren, “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research”; Teun
Adrianus van Dijk, Discourse, Knowledge and Ideology: Reformulating Old Questions, LAUD Series A:
General and Theoretical Papers (Essen: LAUD, 2002), Google Scholar; Marilyn Domas White and Emily E.
Marsh, “Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology,” Library Trends 55, no. 1 (2006): 22-45; Yan Zhang and
Barbara M. Wildemuth, “Qualitative Analysis of Content,” in Applications of Social Research Methods to
Questions in Information and Library Science, ed. Barbara M. Wildemuth (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited,
2009), 308-319.
380
Hsieh and Shannon, “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis”; White and Marsh, “Content
Analysis”; Zhang and Wildemuth, “Qualitative Analysis of Content.”
381
For further discussion of this process see White and Marsh, “Content Analysis”; Zhang and Wildemuth,
“Qualitative Analysis of Content.”
146
from the data, I approached the coding process looking to see if there were instances in
which students engaged in the sorts of thinking I have described as features of critical
ecoliteracy. The manner in which such instances manifested themselves, and therefore the
sorts of statements that became representative of the codes I developed, emerged from the
data as I began reading and coding. Themes that emerged included cases where students:
-made statements that raised critical questions about culture, society, socially-
held attitudes, or dominant beliefs or behaviors
-expressed consideration for the point of view or feelings of another person or
being
-commented on ways in which human life is dependent on ecological systems
-asked questions about ethically or morally ‘right’ behavior or raised opinions
about how beings ‘should’ be treated
-articulated increased knowledge about environmental conditions or processes
of production and consumption (with statements such as “I didn’t know
that…”)
-analyzed language use or commented on the influence of language, metaphor,
and media on cultural attitudes
-expressed increased knowledge about the belief systems of diverse culture or
analyzed the potential effect of those belief systems on structures of thought
-pondered potential inventions or methods for producing future sustainability
-voiced intended changes in their own action
In addition to these categories that are linked to my guiding analytical model, others themes
that emerged from the coding process include instances where students:
-vocalize disagreement or critique of a reading

-express feelings that modern society has “become disconnected” from the
nonhuman world
-voice positive feelings about the benefits of interaction with the natural world
147
-make statements expressing changes in opinion
-build shared understanding of a reading by discussing possible interpretations
or commenting that a classmate’s response provided new insight into a reading
(See Appendix A for a full list of coding categories.) These codes were not mutually
exclusive and in many cases I assigned more than one code to a portion of text; Yan Zhang
and Barbara Wildemuth identify this potential overlap as a feature of qualitative coding.
They also point out that coding categories should be “defined in a way that they are internally
as homogenous as possible and externally as heterogeneous as possible,”382 a criteria I
attempted to fulfill in my own generation of categories.
Once I had read and coded five weeks of response papers, I had formed an extensive
list of codes that seemed to effectively cover each theme I had identified in my students’
writing. At this point, I read back through the five weeks I had already coded, to check my
initial judgment about the codes against my later judgment after completing more weeks of
coding, and to look for any codes I had identified later in the process that I might have
missed in the first weeks of coding. Having completed this process, I proceeded to read
through the rest of the 27 weeks of student response papers, looking for all instances of the
established coding categories and any additional themes that appeared.
When the response papers were fully coded, I tallied the codes for each week, and
categorized some of the more narrow and specific codes into more general groups and
themes. Next, I reviewed all of the coded response papers, reading each coded passage and
selecting excerpts that I felt, based on the entire body of data, were either particularly
representative of a certain code or especially well suited for further analysis.
382
Zhang and Wildemuth, “Qualitative Analysis of Content,” 311.
148
I marked all of these selected passages, and collected them all into a single electronic
document, arranged chronologically by semester. Once all of these selected passages were
organized and ordered, I read through them all again, looking for further themes and patterns.
At this point I grouped the passages into common themes, types of thinking, and types of
reaction. Upon further examination, I discovered that many of the themes that were
emerging in these excerpts fell within timeframes that aligned with the two-week blocks of
the semester during which specific topics were discussed in class. For this reason, I next
organized the quotes by two-week period. I then identified each theme that appeared within
the quotes in each of these two-week periods, and grouped the quotes by theme within the
larger two-week groupings. Using these themes as a framework, I conducted further analysis
of each specific quote, identifying particular words, phrases, and approaches to the material
employed by students and analyzing student thinking based on this evidence.
Before conducting this final round of analysis, I re-read my field notes and other
student writing to provide further insight into class dynamics and developments in student
thinking. In my final analysis I do quote briefly from two other student writing assignments
in addition to the discussion board postings; however, I used the rest of the student writing
and field notes primarily to inform my analysis and understanding of where students’
attention was focused throughout the semester, how they reacted to particular readings,
viewings, ideas, and assignments, what questions they raised, and what opinions they voiced
in class and in their writing.
In addition to my analysis of student writing, I also reviewed students’ answers to an
end-of-semester course evaluation form I generated, in order to provide an added layer of
data consisting of reported student opinions about the class.
149
To further triangulate these materials, I conducted a pre- and post-test survey with
students on the first and last class session of the semester, using a survey instrument designed
to capture some degree of information about environmental attitudes. I made use of this
instrument as a supplement in the interests of further garnering consensus; while my critical
stance as a researcher leads me to question the efficacy of positivistic assumptions about
what can be learned through such research tools as survey instruments, I also understand that
they offer a useful way to translate subjective states into objective events that are accessible
to multiple observers, and I recognize and respect the large segment of the social science
research community that supports their use. Within that community, the New Ecological
Paradigm (NEP) instrument I employed has been validated and accepted as a useful gauge of
environmental attitudes – I therefore supply information about the instrument’s development,
reliability, and validity because I acknowledge that many value those concepts and because I
want the worth and significance of my results to speak to a wider audience than just other
critical researchers whose methodological stance is perfectly aligned with my own.
The NEP scale was developed by Dunlap and Van Liere383; as explained by Dunlap,
Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones:
Recognition that human activities are altering the ecosystems on which our
existence--and that of all other living species--is dependent and growing
acknowledgment of the necessity of achieving more sustainable forms of
development give credence to suggestions that we are in the midst of a
fundamental reevaluation of the underlying worldview that has guided our
relationship to the physical environment…. Sensing that environmentalists were
calling for more far-reaching changes than the development of environmental
protection policies and stimulated by Pirages and Ehrlich's (1974) explication
of the antienvironmental thrust of our society's dominant social paradigm
(DSP), in the mid-1970s Dunlap and Van Liere argued that implicit within
environmentalism was a challenge to our fundamental views about nature and
383
R. E Dunlap and K. D Van Liere, “A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results: The ‘New
Environmental Paradigm.’,” Journal of Environmental Education 9, no. 4 (1978): 10–19.
150
humans’ relationship to it. Their conceptualization of what they called the New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP) focused on beliefs about humanity’s ability to
upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human
societies, and humanity’s right to rule over the rest of nature.384
Originally composed of 12 Likert-type scale items, the scale exhibited internal consistency
and high levels of validity, and has been used in a number of extensive surveys. Dunlap et
al.385 have updated and revised the scale to include a total of 15 items, and have renamed it
the New Ecological Paradigm. They suggest that “a proecological orientation or ‘seeing the
world ecologically,’ reflected by a high score on the NEP Scale, should lead to
proenvironmental beliefs and attitudes on a wide range of issues.”386 They go on to say,
“The revised NEP Scale should prove useful in tracking possible increases in endorsement of
an ecological worldview, as well as in examining the effect of specific experiences and types
of information in generating changes in this worldview.”387
The NEP Scale “has become the… widely used measure of… ‘ecological’
worldview”388, and has been used with a variety of populations, both broad and specific, in
the U.S. and internationally.389 In their discussion of the updated NEP Scale, Dunlap et al.
offer a thorough analysis of the scale’s reliability and validity. I will provide just a few
excerpts of this extensive discussion. The NEP Scale has been shown to exhibit internal
consistency, with a coefficient alpha of 0.83390, and it “strongly discriminate[s] between
known environmentalists and the general public.”391 Indeed, findings from a number of
384
R. E Dunlap et al., “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale,”
Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 3 (2000): 426-427.
385
Dunlap et al., “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm.”
386
Ibid., 428.
387
Ibid., 439.
388
Ibid., 427.
389
See examples in Dunlap et al., “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm.”
390
Ibid., 438-439.
391
Ibid., 427.
151
studies have demonstrated that the NEP Scale has “known-group validity.”392 In addition,
“numerous studies have found significant relationships between the NEP Scale and various
types of behavioural intentions as well as both self-reported and observed behaviors,”
indicating “predictive validity.”393
Dunlap et al. also discuss the content validity of the NEP scale, drawing on an in-
depth ethnographic study by Kempton et al.394 that explored Americans’ environmental
perspectives. They explain that this study found three sets of environmental beliefs which
play ‘crucial roles’ in how Americans understand environmental issues, and that these three
beliefs were ‘nearly identical’ to “those forming the major facets of the NEP Scale – balance
of nature, limits to growth and human domination over nature,” which they believe provides
“strong confirmation of the scale’s content validity.”395 They go on to discuss a host of other
factors and findings, including construct validity, longitudinal endorsement of the NEP, and
directional balance.396
To support my analysis of course materials from my own classroom, I gathered the
aforementioned additional data from Jason, my volunteer, in the form of written
observations. I analyzed this data based on insights gained from my analysis of student
writing from my own classes. I compared Jason’s descriptions of his students’ reactions to
the course material with the reactions I identified in my own students, looking for similarities
and differences in themes and categories of response across each group of students. From
this comparison, I drew conclusions as to the transferability of my observations about student
392
Ibid., 429.
393
Ibid.
394
Willett Kempton, James S Boster, and Jennifer A Hartley, Environmental Values in American Culture
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995).
395
Dunlap et al., “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm,” 429.
396
See Dunlap et al., “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm.”
152
outcomes from my own students into other contexts. I also analyzed Jason’s statements
about his own experience using the materials to gain insight into the possible ease and
effectiveness of applying these materials in diverse classrooms.
2. Ethics, Limitations, and Considerations
My work is motivated by my own ethical stance from the start, and one of its explicit
goals is to encourage students to cultivate more critical and empathetic ethical stances of
their own with regard to the attitudes and behaviors they adopt that affect others (both human
and non) and the global ecosystem. As such, it is important to explore the ethical
considerations and limitations of my work.
The question of bias is always relevant to any discussion of research. In the tradition
of critical research, I do not deny my own philosophical and political stance, but rather I hope
to have offered an explicit articulation of my own position and agenda. This articulation
does not eliminate bias, but rather acknowledges that there is no such thing as neutrality, and
that all research supports an agenda, even if it is only to reinforce dominant cultural
perspectives. As Kincheloe and McLaren comment, “mainstream research practices are gen-
erally, although most often unwittingly, implicated in the reproduction of systems of class, race,
and gender oppression….”397 They add:
criticality and the research it supports are always evolving, always encountering
new ways to irritate dominant forms of power, to provide more evocative and
compelling insights…. The forms of social change it supports always position it
in some places as an outsider, an awkward detective always interested in
uncovering social structures, discourses, ideologies, and epistemologies that
prop up both the status quo and a variety of forms of privilege. In the
epistemological domain, white, male, class elitist, heterosexist, imperial, and
397
Kincheloe and McLaren, “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research,” 304.
153
colonial privilege often operate by asserting the power to claim objectivity and
neutrality.”398
I do not seek to claim such objectivity or neutrality, but rather hope to use my own stance as
researcher effectively to produce positive social change. I hope that the validity of my work
will be judged not in terms of impartiality or separation from real-world interests, but in
terms of the openness of my approach, the significance of my goals, and the clear
presentation of my views, observations, and findings, so that others may reach their own
conclusions as to their value.399
Another concern of any work that seeks to represent or advocate for an oppressed
group involves questions of who is speaking for the group, and how or whether members of
the group in question are enabled to contribute to the process of meaning-making about their
own lives and experiences. This concern is even harder to address in work such as mine that
advocates for nonhuman others who do not have the option of communicating in human
language. Our interactions with the more-than-human world are always, to some extent,
filtered through our own conceptual and communicative mechanisms. Still, we can seek to
remember and respect the agency and subjectivity of nonhuman others.
Ladson-Billings and Donnor discuss the idea of “enlisting race to resist power”400; my
work hopes to do something similar, to enlist our identities as part of the natural world to
resist those powers that exploit that world. If we all begin to see ourselves as parts of the
larger whole – the more-than-human world, the global ecological family – then we will begin
to think and act on behalf of this larger ‘us.’ ‘Our best interests’ will include the interests of
398
Ibid., 306.
399
See Jan L. Arminio and Francine H. Hultgren, “Breaking Out from the Shadow: The Question of Criteria in
Qualitative Research.,” Journal of College Student Development 43, no. 4 (2002): 446-60.
400
“The Moral Activist Role of Critical Race Theory Scholarship,” 290.
154
those who had previously been othered. Then, as we ‘diagnose systemic injustice and
organize to resist it,’ as Ladson-Billings and Donnor call for,401 we will be identifying and
resisting systemic socio-ecological injustice, as well, and resisting what is bad for all
members of our planetary family.
As any other, my study also entails methodological limitations that must be
considered. One such concern is reactivity and “social desirability bias.”402 Although as an
instructor I was careful to limit my own vocalizations of opinion and to avoid prescriptive
recommendations as to how students should approach the issues discussed in class, the stance
of the course materials is clearly critical of established social norms and interactions with the
more-than-human world. In my teaching I sought to support diversity of opinion and
encourage civil and productive debate when appropriate. Still, students may have felt a
desire to voice opinions they felt that I, or their classmates, would agree with or approve of.
In my analysis of student writing (see later sections) I address student comments that seem to
demonstrate frank articulation of opinions, even when such opinions represent minority or
dissenting viewpoints. This evidence leads me to the conclusion that students were not
overly hesitant to be honest about their reactions to the course material. However, some bias
of this sort may be unavoidable, and my analysis and conclusions should be considered with
this in mind.
Another methodological limitation relates to the fact that each collection of student
writing I use for my analysis was submitted during the semester, directly following exposure
to course readings, viewings, and discussions. Evaluating student reactions that occur
immediately after participation in course assignments has many significant advantages, and I
401
Ibid.
402
Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao, The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science
Research Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004), 928.
155
am pleased to have access to such material to analyze. However, to achieve more
contextualized findings it would be desirable to supplement this data with student writings or
interviews that took place both before exposure to course materials and some time after the
conclusion of the semester. It is a failing of my methodology that I did not require students
to complete any writing prior to their first reading assignment. As a result, the first instance
of student response papers available for me to examine consists of student reactions to the
reading assignments of the first week of the semester. Although students have had limited
exposure to course materials at this point, their thinking is already influenced by the readings
they have just completed. As I analyzed their written work, I was pleased to see students’
enthusiasm to explore the ideas contained in the first week’s readings. However, these
writings do not provide me with a baseline that conveys information about student thinking
prior to influence by the first week’s course materials. Students did take a pre-test survey
prior to beginning their course assignments, but this does not provide qualitative information
about their pre-course attitudes and modes of thought.
In a related observation, it would also be extremely valuable to acquire some form of
data about student thinking and attitudes after they have been away from the course for a
period of time. By interviewing students or collecting a written reflection on course topics at
a point weeks or months after the completion of the class, it would be possible to draw
further conclusions as to the durability of any changes in thought or attitude I identified
during the semester. This is a noteworthy avenue to pursue in future research.
156
Section 2: Critical Ecoliteracy in Action: Model Curriculum and Results
I. About the Curriculum
To develop a model curriculum in critical ecoliteracy that would cultivate the
intellectual resources and qualities of mind I have described previously, I designed and
selected a series of assignments, readings, viewing, and activities. Each of these activities
and materials is intended to cultivate one or more of the ‘essential qualities’ I outline in
Section 1, and to employ the pedagogical strategies I have advocated. Lesson topics include
explorations of literary and cultural formulations of ‘self’ and of ‘nature’; reflections on
personal experiences interacting with the natural world; analyses of the experiences and
viewpoints of nonhumans; examinations of ecological and social interdependence between
humans and the more-than-human world; theoretical and practical examinations of the
influence of language, religion, and culturally-constructed belief systems in shaping attitudes
toward nonhumans and the land; analyses of modern procedures and patterns of
development, production, and consumption; arguments for rights and ethical treatment of
nonhumans; and imaginative proposals for potential change.
I formulated these materials so that they could be modified to suit the needs and
conditions of a range of classrooms and students, focusing on high school, community
college, and undergraduate four-year college students in humanities-oriented classrooms.
For this reason, the materials are intended to be taught either as a full course, or to be used
piecemeal interspersed within preexisting course frameworks.
To evaluate the efficacy of these materials I taught them myself in a four-year college
classroom setting, and I asked a volunteer teacher to use them in a community college
157
classroom. In my own teaching I utilized the full collection of materials, organizing them
into a format that would be suitable for a 14-week college semester.
In order to adapt my materials to the context of a college course, I divided them into a
set of seven topics, to which I devoted two weeks each for the fourteen weeks of the
semester. Each of these topics focuses on a different facet of humankind’s relationships and
interactions with the more-than-human world, on how those relationships are conceptualized
within society, and on the socio-environmental conditions and challenges that have arisen
from past and current modes of behavior in regard to the global ecosystem. These topics are:
Weeks 1-2: Nature and the Self: Looking at expressions of personal relationships with the
natural world
Weeks 3-4: Masters, Stewards, Family: Views of humankind’s relationship to the natural
world
Weeks 5-6: Language, Media, and the Environment: Looking at how the natural world,
animals, ecosystems, and environmental issues are presented and discussed in public
discourse
Weeks 7-8: Place and Space, or Where We Live: Looking at human and animal habitats,
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
(See Appendix B for the full syllabus of my critical ecoliteracy course as I organized it to be
used in a college freshman seminar.)
In the following sections I explore the results of student participation in these course
materials.
158
II: Evaluating the Curriculum in Use
A. Survey Results
To provide a first facet of data for analysis, I asked students to complete the New
Ecological Paradigm Survey on the first and last day of each semester (see Methods section
for more detail). The NEP survey is intended to measure “endorsement of an ecological
worldview”403 versus endorsement of “antienvironmental” or anthropocentric social
paradigms.404 I scored my students’ completed surveys following established procedures for
the NEP instrument405: I calculated total NEP scores by adding all Likert items, correcting
for the directionality of each item as alternating items represent ‘pro-NEP’ or ‘anti-NEP’
viewpoints and are scored in ascending or descending point order between 1 and 5.406 A
maximum score of 75 would represent a strong ecocentric stance and a minimum score of 15
would indicate a strong anthropocentric stance. I then tallied and averaged each set of scores
for the beginning and end of the fall and spring semester. I excluded three surveys, one from
the fall and two from the spring, which I could not score because the student had circled
more than one answer to the same survey question.
Pre-test scores for fall semester students averaged 53.9 and fall post-test scores
averaged 56.73, showing a modest 2.83-point increase, a 5.3% change from their initial
scores. Spring semester pre-test scores averaged 51.19 and spring post-test scores averaged
54.53, showing a 3.34-point increase, a 6.5% change from initial scores. Both semesters,
403
Dunlap et al., “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm,” 439.
404
Ibid., 426-427.
405
See Dunlap and Van Liere, “A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results”; Dunlap et al.,
“Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm.”
406
For further discussion and examples, see Bruce Rideout, “The Effect of a Brief Environmental Problems
Module on Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm in College Students,” The Journal of Environmental
Education 37, no. 1 (October 2005): 3-11.
159
then, showed similar survey results, with a 5 to 6.5 percent increase in final scores. Spring
semester students started with lower, or more ‘anthropocentric-leaning,’ scores than fall
semester students, and showed a slightly larger change between start and end of semester.
While these changes appear fairly small, they are consistent between semesters, and
represent a similar scale of change to that seen in other studies utilizing the NEP
instrument.407 As such, they may offer initial evidence of the effect of the critical ecoliteracy
curriculum. Because these survey results show a reduction in support for anthropocentric
worldviews, they suggest that students’ tendency to engage in anthropocentric belief systems
may decrease as a result of participation in the curriculum.
Still, these survey results offer only very cursory conclusions, and simple analysis of
survey answers does not capture the more nuanced aspects of student thinking. A number of
statements on the NEP survey that are designated as representative of anthropocentric
stances, such as “Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable,”
could evoke complex responses that are not easily captured by a Likert scale. Other
questions, too, such as “Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit
their needs,” seem to evoke less decisive answers from students at the end of the semester
than at the beginning. Although this shift to neutral or unsure responses does not translate to
strong numerical increases in survey results, I consider it a productive step, as I believe it
indicates that students are more aware of a complex range of questions and debates and are
407
Mark W. Anderson et al., “Attitude Changes of Undergraduate University Students in General Education
Courses,” The Journal of General Education 56, no. 2 (January 1, 2007): 149-168; Shari Hodgkinson and J.
Michael Innes, “The Attitudinal Influence of Career Orientation in 1st-Year University Students: Environmental
Attitudes as a Function of Degree Choice,” The Journal of Environmental Education 32, no. 3 (2001): 37-40;
Rideout, “The Effect of a Brief Environmental Problems Module on Endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm in College Students.”
160
more deeply embedded in dialogue about these issues than they had been at the beginning of
the semester.
For this reason, I consider the NEP survey a very limited tool, and I use these results
only to provide a preliminary indicator of student reactions to the course materials, a
snapshot that can be more deeply examined and fleshed out through qualitative content
analysis of student writing. In the following two sections I present my findings from this
content analysis.
B. Content Analysis of Student Reactions to the Course
To begin my process of qualitative content analysis, I compiled the 27 weeks of
discussion board postings produced by my fall and spring semester students during the
course I taught using my curriculum materials. In the class students were required to post at
least one response paper and two replies to classmates every week. During the fall semester,
students were asked to complete 13 weeks of posts, excluding the week of the Thanksgiving
holiday. During the spring semester, students were asked to complete 14 weeks of posts.
Having collected these weeks of student posts, I began the process of reading and
coding (see my previous discussion of methods for a full description of this process). I
developed and applied my list of coding categories, then tallied the instances of each code.
Next I narrowed my focus to the categories relevant to my research, and further organized the
specific categories into larger groups that represented broad themes. My identification of
these themes was guided by the analytical model that arose from my conceptual research and
my development of the ‘essential qualities’ and features necessary for thinking in a critically
ecoliterate manner. This organizing of codes resulted in 13 overarching groups, each
161
containing between two and nine coding categories. These groupings begin to provide an
image of the sorts of thinking my students demonstrated throughout the semester. (In my
next section I pursue a more detailed analysis of specific themes and types of reaction that
emerged over the course of the semester.) The broad themes that I identified as a result of
my coding tallies are as follows:
Theme A: Empathy and Decentering Human Viewpoints
In the coding categories grouped within this theme, students make statements in which they
imagine the experiences of another, especially a nonhuman other; express distress at negative
experiences endured by another; question similarities between nonhuman and human feelings
and capabilities; compare nonhuman and human oppression; and voice opinions as to the
importance of acknowledging others’ experiences, points of view, and interests.
Theme B: Exploring Bonds with Nonhumans and the Land
In the categories that fall within this theme, students voice opinions about the benefits of
interaction with nonhuman others and with the natural world; reflect on personal experiences
of forming bonds with a place or nonhuman being; question the prevalence or lack of such
bonds with the nonhuman world in modern society; and explore possibilities for relating to
and appreciating nonhuman others and natural spaces.
Theme C: Interdependence and Relational Identity
In these categories, students make statements about human dependence on the natural world
and the interconnected nature of ecosystems; they express thoughts about humankind as part
of a larger whole or community of living beings; they voice opinions that humans are shaped
162
by interaction with the larger world; or they raise discussion of humans falsely believing
themselves to be disconnected or isolated from the nonhuman world in ways students cite as
inaccurate, foolish, or destructive.
Theme D: Ethical Reflection
In these categories students make statements about behavior they describe as ‘right’ or
‘wrong,’ and they use phrases with words like ‘should’ or ‘need to,’ as in “people should stop
thinking that it’s okay to use nonhumans this way” or “society needs to think about what
they’re doing to the planet and make changes.” Comments in these categories also reference
human qualities that students consider negative, such as “people are so greedy” or “people
are being selfish.” Students also voice opinions referencing responsibility, making informed
decisions, and legal rights, such as “we have a responsibility to protect other creatures,” or
“we need to consider the long-term consequences of our actions,” or “nonhuman animals
should have rights similar to those of humans.” In a minority of cases, students voice
opinions on ethical issues that express dissent with a reading or the stance of other students,
such as “I believe humans have the right to use animals as resources” or “I believe it’s a
natural part of the cycle of life to eat animals.” These statements also represent ethical
consideration, questioning, and conversation, and so they fully fall within the bounds of this
theme.
Theme E: Contextual Knowledge of Socio-Environmental Conditions and Phenomena
In these categories, students vocalize knowledge about environmental conditions such as
pollution, deforestation, and climate change, or about processes of production, consumption,
development, waste disposal, and industrial food production, typically describing the
163
information as new knowledge they have just been exposed to, and often voicing shock,
surprise, or horror. These sentiments often take the form of statements like, “I had no idea
that the situation was this bad” or “how can people be unaware that this is going on?” Other
comments that fall within this category include students vocalizing ‘how bad things are’ in
the world or critiquing current policies or behaviors of major industries, corporations,
governments, and societies, in statements like “the American focus on materialism is leading
to all of this waste” or “companies like Monsanto are trying to take over the agriculture
industry and put small farmers out of business.”
Theme F: Critical Analysis of Society
In this group, students question culturally dominant opinions and behaviors, often expressing
disagreement with mainstream stances or reflecting on instances of oppression or destruction
and linking them to societal trends and tendencies.
Theme G: Critical Analysis of Language, Discourse, Metaphor, Media, and Culturally-
Constructed Perceptions of the Nonhuman World
In these categories, students reflect on the role of language in shaping opinions; voice
support or disapproval of specific metaphors for the natural world; comment on how they
believe the natural world ‘should be viewed’; and discuss media strategies of persuasion and
attitude-formation. This theme also includes instances of students pondering whether
language should serve to draw a distinction between nonhumans and humans; questioning
nonhuman communicative capacities; expressing interest in human-nonhuman
communication; and reflecting on the ways that language choices can promote or reduce
species bias.
164
Theme H: Reflection on Comparative Worldviews and Belief Systems
In this group students make statements comparing the implications of different worldviews
and belief systems, and reflecting on the potential ramifications of particular founding myths,
narratives, and religions for influencing cultural attitudes and approaches to the nonhuman
world.
Theme I: Imagined Alternatives for the Future
In this theme students voice opinions about proposed changes and innovations presented by
course materials, comment on fictional accounts of possible futures, and make statements
about their own ideas and preferences for methods of change that could lead to greater
sustainability.
Theme J: Agency
This theme addresses expressions of increased agency. I have organized and charted this
theme two ways. The first singles out one coding category, in which students make direct
statements about changes they intend to make in their own behavior and choices, and about
eagerness to contribute to collective transformation. I chart this category alone, and then I
also combine it with categories containing more indirect expressions of agency. In these
indirect statements, students voice comments about changes that ‘need’ to occur, such as
“society needs to change how we treat nonhuman animals.” They comment on the need to
expand public awareness and education and to collectively make informed decisions. They
voice admiration in response to examples from the materials of people acting to generate
change, often describing these people and actions as a source of inspiration and hope. They
165
also raise questions about how to go about implementing or developing change. These sorts
of comments do not provide direct evidence of changes in students’ own intentions to act, but
they demonstrate that students are thinking about possible ways to act to implement positive
transformation, which I contend is part of a process of developing personal empowerment
and agency.
Theme K: Anthropocentrism and Skepticism about Change
In this group of categories, students voice opinions that a particular change proposed in the
materials is unlikely to occur or impossible. They also articulate beliefs that humans should
‘use’ nonhumans and natural elements as resources; that humans should be ‘in control’ of the
natural world; or that nonhumans are not as valuable, intelligent, worthy of consideration and
respect, or deserving of rights as humans. This category would also include instances of
students stating that they do not believe socio-environmental issues are a concern or that they
do not believe changes in human behavior are necessary, but there were no instances of such
comments from any students. This is a broad range of categories of response that certainly
warrants further qualitative investigation, but I group them here because they seem to
represent instances in which students are resisting consideration of alternative approaches
and viewpoints raised within the course.
Theme L: Critiquing the Course Readings, Miscellaneous Critical Thinking, and
Collective Construction of Knowledge
In this theme, students critique the assigned readings for the class, either disagreeing with the
author’s stance or evaluating the strength of the argument. In some cases this involves
pointing out whether a reading seems to lean in a particular political direction, or whether the
166
authors seem to be presenting a biased argument. This group of categories also involves
cases of general critical thinking and of questioning information and wondering about its
origins. Also within this theme are cases where students work together through their
discussion board postings to generate increased understanding of a reading, such as instances
where one student expresses confusion about an author’s point and another posts a reply
positing an interpretation, or cases where one student posts a critique or interpretation and
another student replies that the post clarified the reading for them, or opened their eyes to
another way to think about the author’s points.
Theme M: Expressions of Changed Opinion and Self Reflection
This grouping represents cases where students directly articulate that a reading or viewing
has changed their mind or altered their perspective. Often students comment that a reading
caused them to think about the topic in a new way. This group also includes instances of
students reflecting critically on their own behavior or experiences and linking these
experiences to information and perspectives presented in the course materials. This often
involves analyzing their own consumption habits or their own experiences interacting with
the natural world.
Once I had identified these themes and grouped my coding categories within them, I
tabulated and charted the incidence of each theme over the course of each week through the
semester for both fall and spring. Tables of the total occurrences of each theme are included
in full in Appendix A; below I highlight some of the relevant patterns I found in the
tabulations, and I chart and discuss patterns of specific themes.
167
Occurrences of Themes During Fall and Spring Semesters
Upon examination of the totals for each theme during the fall semester, the themes
that occurred most often in student writing were Theme D, Ethical Reflection; Theme E,
Contextual Knowledge of Socio-Environmental Conditions; Theme G, Critical Analysis of
Language, Discourse, and Metaphor; and Theme J, Agency – when tallied as combined
incidents of direct and indirect statements of agency. Excluding my tabulation of Theme J in
which I used a single coding category instead of the combined group of codes, since this is
the only case in the chart where one coding category is tallied alone, there are two themes
that occurred with significantly lower frequency than the others. These are Theme K,
Anthropocentrism and Skepticism, and Theme L, Critiques of Readings and Critical
Thinking. It is important to consider, however, that many aspects of critical thinking are
captured within the other themes, including critical examination of society and of language.
Since these instances were coded separately from the codes that make up Theme L, this
theme should not be viewed as the only tally of instances of critical thought. Rather, it
captures general cases of critical thinking that did not fall within the other themes. However,
many of other themes are also strong examples of students applying critical modes of thought
and analysis.
Tallies from the spring semester present a number of similarities. As with the fall, the
two themes with the lowest rates of occurrence during the spring semester are Theme K and
Theme L. There are lower overall tally results for the themes in the spring, with the most
common themes occurring 210, 214, 319, 218, and 259 times respectively. These are lower
totals than the fall, where the most common themes occurred 328, 433, 373, and 373 times
respectively. This may be partially due to the fact that during the spring semester three to
168
four students regularly did not submit their assigned posts to the discussion board, so the total
number of posts was lower.
The themes with the highest rates of incidence in the spring semester were Theme B,
Bonds with Nonhumans and the Land; Theme D, Ethical Reflection; Theme E, Contextual
Knowledge of Socio-Environmental Conditions; Theme F, Critical Analysis of Society; and
Theme J, Agency, when tallied as combined categories.
From these numbers, it appears that Themes D, E, and J appear as among the most
frequently-occurring in both semesters. However, the high numbers of Themes D and J may
be somewhat misleading; many of the incidents I identified of Themes D and J could be
considered somewhat ‘empty’ statements, in which students articulate opinions on general
actions they feel ‘should’ be done by generic ‘people,’ rather than providing a more nuanced
analysis of the cultural structures that have led to current conditions or of possible strategies
to enact change. Still, many of the other themes do provide ample cases of such nuanced
analyses, and these other themes occur with notably high frequency as well. With the
exception of the low-scoring themes already discussed above, no theme occurs with fewer
than 174 instances in the fall semester. In the spring semester, the next lowest instances after
the low-scoring themes discussed above are Theme C, with 113 cases, and Theme H, with 80
cases.
In order to better visualize the patterns produced by specific themes over the course
of the semester, I created graphs of each theme and its total occurrences per week. I include
some of these graphs here and discuss their significance. (Note that fall semester graphs list
data for 13 weeks, numbered as 1-13, but the final week of response papers are actually from
week 14, as students did not write papers during week 13.)
169
Graph 1: Occurrences of Theme A During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'12'3#45607'58+'9%:%86%&;8<'="#58'>;%?4(;86,'
+"#
!"#
!"#
%(#
%"# $'#
$%#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
(*#
$"# ,-./-0)#
()# ("#
("# )'#
)(#
&#
)"# %#
(# )#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
As I graphed the occurrence rates of each theme, I noted that many themes have
peaks in their numbers during particular weeks. This typically correlates with the subject-
matter being discussed during those weeks in class. Since I organized course materials to
focus on different topics during different parts of the semester, it is easy to track parallels
between the focus of the materials and the sorts of reactions those materials seem to inspire
in students. During the fall semester Theme A experiences a few such spikes, although fairly
high numbers of this theme occur over a majority of weeks throughout the semester. The
highest numbers, however, occur during weeks 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11. The course topics of these
weeks seem especially effective at evoking the sorts of thinking described by this theme. (In
the following section of this document, I conduct in-depth narrative analysis of student
writing, and I discuss the topics of focus during each week of the semester and the links
between these topics and student writing.)
One example of a theme with strong spikes in level of occurrence during the fall
semester is Theme C, graphed below.

170
Graph 2: Occurrences of Theme C During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'*2'@86%&+%4%8+%8:%'58+'A%B5C(85B'@+%8C67'
+"#
%+# %&#
!"#
%"#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
$(#
$"# ,-./-0)#
)&# )&# )'#
("#
)"# &# )"# &#
)"# $# %#
(#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
Spikes during weeks 2 and 7 likely relate to readings during those weeks in which
authors examine ecological and emotional interconnection between humans and the more-
than-human world. The highest spike, during week 4, is particularly interesting because this
week focused on questions of how humans perceive the natural world and what metaphors
they use to describe it. The high occurrence of this theme during week 4 seems to be linked
to student interest in reformulating or adopting conceptualizations of the world that would
frame humans and nonhumans as connected and as part of one another.
171
Graph 3: Occurrences of Theme D During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'92'360;:5B'A%D%:C(8'
%"# $'# $'#
$!#
$!# $)#
$"# ('#
(!# (!# (!#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
(!# ((#
("#
("# )&# ,-./-0)#
)+#
)!# )"#
)"#
!#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
Comments expressing ethical reflection remain surprisingly consistent throughout the
semester. However, this is partially due to easy comments in the vein of ‘people should treat
the world better.’ Such comments convey interest in improving the state of human
interactions with the world, but are not necessarily grounded in strong critical analysis.
Peaks during weeks 8, 11, and 12, however, may reflect not only greater frequency but also
greater foundation, as these weeks feature coursework that examines modes of human
development and its impact on nonhumans, outlines of environmental racism and
environmental justice, and arguments for nonhuman rights and ethical consideration for the
nonhuman world.
172
Graph 4: Occurrences of Theme E During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'32'*(86%E6"5B'F8(?B%+<%'()'G(:;(H
38I;&(8#%865B'*(8+;C(8,'58+'J0%8(#%85'
*"#
''# '%#
&"#
'"# +"#
+"#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
!"# %!#
$!# ,-./-0)#
%"# $$#
$"# (%# (!#
()#
("# )!#
))# *#
)"# %#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
Incidence of these codes peak during weeks 9 and 10, when course materials focus on
modern methods of production and consumption, including industrial agriculture and factory
farming. These weeks provide the most detailed information about current socio-
environmental conditions, and so it is not surprising that they generate the highest
occurrences of this theme. Week 11 also shows high numbers of this theme, likely because
students read examples of environmental racism and inhumane treatment of nonhuman
animals, which also increase their knowledge of events currently taking place in the world.
173
Graph 5: Occurrences of Theme F During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'K2'*&;C:5B'185B7,;,'()'G(:;%67'
%"# $&#
$!#
$!#
$"# ('# ('#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
(!# ("#
("# )&# )&# )'# ,-./-0)#
)!# ))# )(# ))#
)"#
%# %#
!#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
As seen in graph 5, fall semester students engage in some critical analysis of society
during every week of the semester, and they do so in relatively high numbers throughout the
second half of the semester, suggesting an increase in their tendency to think in this way.
The highest numbers occur during week 5, when students are examining dominant metaphors
and ways of viewing the natural world at use in US culture, and during week 10, when
students are exploring US consumption patterns and industrial food production.
174
Graph 6: Occurrences of Theme G During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'L2'*&;C:5B'185B7,;,'()'M58<"5<%N'O%6540(&N'
O%+;5N'58+'J%&:%4C(8,'()'60%'!(80"#58'-(&B+'
)("#
)")#
)""#
&"#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
+"# !(# ,-./-0)#

$%# $'#
%"#
("# ($# ("# ()# ("#
)'# )&#
("# '#
)#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
Frequency of this theme appears relatively high during many weeks of the fall
semester (note the difference in scale between this and other charts, so that even weeks which
appear to have lower numbers actually contain 20 or more instances of the theme). Week 5
presents an especially high peak at 101 occurrences, certainly due to the fact that this week
course materials focus directly on theories of how language can shape attitudes, and
examples of language serving to influence views of nonhumans and the natural world.
175
Graph 7: Occurrences of Theme J (Single Code) During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'P2'1<%8:7'Q@8:;+%8:%'()'G;8<B%'*(+%R'
*# &# &#
&#
'#
+# !#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
!#
,-./-0)#
%#
$# (#
(# )# )# )# )# )#
)# "# "# "# "#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
Direct statements of agency occur fairly infrequently throughout the semester, with
few weeks rising above 2 incidents. Interestingly, the highest peaks occur during weeks 3
and 5, when students are analyzing metaphors, worldviews, and linguistic influence of
attitudes toward the natural world. Perhaps this is because this topic encourages students to
examine their own embedded metaphors and language use, and to engage in relanguaging
themselves as a valuable and accessible first step toward altering attitudes. Another peak
occurs during week 9, when students examine the consequences of modern production and
consumption and often resolve to alter their own consumption practices.
176
Graph 8: Occurrences of Theme K During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'F2'1860&(4(:%86&;,#'58+'G.%4C:;,#'5$("6'
*058<%'
*# &#
&#
'#
+# !# !#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
!# %# ,-./-0)#
%# $# $#
$# (# (#
(#
)# "# "# "# "# "#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
Comments expressing support for anthropocentric worldviews, or comments that
reflect skepticism about the possibility of positive change, occur very infrequently during the
fall semester. The highest peak, during week 5, most likely represents certain students’
initial hesitation at exposure to arguments that language can influence perception and that
relanguaging can reduce species bias and encourage more positive views of the natural
world. While many students seem eager to adopt critical approaches to language as
encouraged by course materials during this week, some question whether cultural and
discursive habits can be changed, or whether dominant views and practices are too
entrenched. Most weeks that contain instances of this theme represent cases where students
voice a hope for change, but lament their lack of faith that change is possible. The only
weeks in the fall during which students make any comments arguing in favor of human
dominance over nonhumans, of human ‘use’ of nonhumans as resources, or of human
superiority over nonhumans are during weeks 1-4, with three comments of this sort during
week 1, two during week 2, and three during week 3. While it is impossible to definitively
177
say whether students who held these views at the beginning of the semester experiences a
change in attitude as a result of engaging with course materials, this evidence does suggest
that students may not have continued to view the world with these sorts of anthropocentric
belief systems after the initial weeks of the semester.
Graph 9: Occurrences of Theme M During Fall 2010 Semester
/0%#%'O2'3E4&%,,;(8,'()'*058<%+'S4;8;(8'58+'G%B)'
A%D%:C(8'
%"# $!#
$!#
$"#
(%#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
(!# ((# ((#

)*# ("#
("# )&# ,-./-0)#
)!# )+# )!#
)!#
)"# &# '#
!#
!#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$#
-%%.'
As seen in graph 9, during the fall semester student frequently engage in self-
reflection, examining their own behaviors and attitudes in light of the insights they gain from
course materials. They also make frequent comments directly stating that a course reading or
viewing changed their thinking, provided a new perspective, or convinced them to adopt a
new opinion. The dip in this theme during the last two weeks of posts should not necessarily
be seen as negative, since at this point in the semester students have already adopted new
modes of thinking and new perspectives, and have already extensively examined their own
practices, so they are now approaching the materials from a different stance. They are no
longer surprised, but rather approach the final weeks’ materials with an eye toward enacting
change.
178
Viewing graphs of these themes as they occur during the spring semester reveals
many similarities. As seen in graphs 10 and 11, spring students’ reactions also tend to
organize into peaks that parallel the focus of course materials.
Graph 10: Occurrences of Theme B During Spring 2011 Semester
/0%#%'T2'3E4B(&;8<'T(8+,'?;60'!(80"#58,'58+'60%'
M58+'
!"#
%(#
$&#
%"#
$)#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
$"# (%#
,-./-0)#
("# )'#
)$# )(# )"#
)"# '#
%# %# $# %#
)#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$# )%#
-%%.'
Graph 11: Occurrences of Theme E During Spring 2011 Semester
/0%#%'32'*(86%E6"5B'F8(?B%+<%'()'G(:;(H
38I;&(8#%865B'*(8+;C(8,'58+'J0%8(#%85'
&"#
+&#
+"# !%#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
%"# ,-./-0)#
(+# (*# (&#
(%# ((# ((#
("# )!#
))#
+# !# $# +#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$# )%#
-%%.'
One theme that maintains relatively high levels of occurrence throughout the semester
is theme F, Critical Analysis of Society. These numbers are presented in Graph 12.
179
Graph 12: Occurrences of Theme F During Spring 2011 Semester
/0%#%'K2'*&;C:5B'185B7,;,'()'G(:;%67'
$!# $$#
$"#
(%#
(!# ((# ((#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
("# )'#
)!# ,-./-0)#
)!# )(# ))# )$# )(# ))#
*# &# *#
)"#
!#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$# )%#
-%%.'
Spring semester students demonstrate a strong pattern of engagement in critical
cultural analysis, with peaks occurring during week 3 as they examine metaphors and
worldviews for conceptualizing the natural world, during week 5 as they explore materials
arguing for the power of language in influencing attitudes, during week 8 when they examine
the socio-historical influences that resulted in suburban sprawl and other modern modes of
development, and during week 11 when they investigate arguments for the ethical treatment
of nonhumans and for legal rights for the nonhuman world.
Examining the graphs of each theme, I find it gratifying to note that course materials
designed to focus on a particular topic or element of critical ecoliteracy do indeed evoke
responses directly related to the mode of thinking or ‘essential quality’ they are intended to
cultivate. One of many examples from the spring semester appears in graph 13.
180
Graph 13: Occurrences of Theme I During Spring 2011 Semester
/0%#%'@2'@#5<;8%+'1B6%&85CI%,')(&'60%'K"6"&%'
$!# $(#
$"#
(!#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
)&# )*#
("#
,-./-0)#
)!# )(# )$# ))# )(# )$#
)"# &# '#
!# +# +#
%#
!#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$# )%#
-%%.'
During the last two weeks of the semester, course materials focus on imaginative
narratives of possible futures and on potential innovations in thought, design, engineering,
and social organization that could lead to more sustainable outcomes. In student writing,
these two weeks show the highest occurrence of comments in which students imagine or
reflect on possible alternative visions of the future – precisely the response I hoped the
materials would produce. Other topic-specific spikes in particular themes are examples of
this same phenomenon.
A few other interesting patterns are revealed by the graphs of spring semester student
reactions. One appears in graph 14.
181
Graph 14: Occurrences of Theme J (Combined Codes) During Spring 2011 Semester
/0%#%'P2'1<%8:7'Q/(65B'*(BB%:6%+'*(+%,R'
!"# %!#
%"#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
$"# (+# ('#

)*# )*# ("# ,-./-0)#
("# )+# )!# )$# )+# )+#
))# )"#
)"# +#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$# )%#
-%%.'
Graph 14 shows incidents of each coding category that directly or indirectly
demonstrates increased agency. One noteworthy element of this graph is the high spike in
this theme during week 9, when students begin examining modern production and
consumption. During this week students are exposed to the processes that go into making
everyday consumer products and foods, and they examine the socio-environmental effects
caused by these methods of production. It is valuable to note that this subject-matter evokes
a strong increase in statements of agency; I suspect that this is because students can easily
link the subject-matter to their own daily consumer practices, and they can identify concrete
changes they could make in their own purchasing and eating habits that could contribute to
reductions in environmental degradation and nonhuman and human mistreatment.
Another pattern worth examining is that of Theme K, seen in graph 15.
182
Graph 15: Occurrences of Theme K During Spring 2011 Semester
/0%#%'F2'1860&(4(:%86&;,#'58+'G.%4C:;,#'5$("6'
)(# ))# *058<%'
)"#
&#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
+# ,-./-0)#
%#
%# $# $#
(#
(# )# )# )# )#
"# "# "# "# "#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$# )%#
-%%.'
This graph shows a strong decrease in occurrences of anthropocentric and skeptical
attitudes from the beginning of the semester. During the spring some students started the
semester with suspicion as to the value of the approaches presented in the course materials.
A few students made statements arguing for the superiority or dominance of humans over
nonhumans or for the appropriateness of ‘using’ nonhumans. These statements occurred 11
times during week 1 (making up the entire incidence of Theme K for that week), two times
during week 2, and four times during week 3. After week 3, students made occasional
statements voicing their support for eating meat or arguing that humans should have more
rights than nonhumans. But occurrences in student writing did not rise above one instance
per week, and there were no occurrences of this sort of statement in the final two weeks of
the semester. The two occurrences of Theme K in week 14 were both cases of students
expressing worry as to the possibility of implementing widespread positive change. This
pattern mirrors the fall and supports my conclusion that anthropocentric and commodity-
based views of the natural world seem to be reduced by participation in course materials.
(See my upcoming discussion of NEP survey results for further analysis of this conclusion.)
183
Another pattern worth noting appears in graph 16.
Graph 16: Occurrences of Theme M During Spring 2011 Semester
/0%#%'O2'3E4&%,,;(8,'()'*058<%+'S4;8;(8'58+'G%B)'
A%D%:C(8'
("#
)'#
)!#
)!# )$# )$#
!"#$%&'()'*(+%,'
))# ))# ))#

)"#
)"# &# ,-./-0)#
'# '#
!#
!# $#
(#
"#
)# (# $# %# !# +# '# &# *# )"# ))# )(# )$# )%#
-%%.'
As in the fall semester, occurrences of self-reflection and articulation of changed
attitudes occur frequently over the course of spring semester writings. Like the fall, the
highest numbers in the spring occur during weeks 2 and 9. These two weeks, when students
read literary explorations of bonds with the nonhuman world and then when students read
descriptions of modern modes of production and consumption, seem to expose students to
new information and new ways of thinking about the value of interactions with the natural
world. They also encourage students to question their own assumptions and behaviors.
Spring semester students also find encouragement to think in these ways during a number of
other weeks, with high tallies appearing during weeks 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, and 14 as well.
The patterns that appear in these tallies and graphs offer a heartening picture of
student responses to my critical ecoliteracy curriculum. As I designed the curriculum, I
included particular materials in the hope that they would help students to develop specific
types of awareness and understanding, and that they would encourage certain of the ‘essential
184
qualities’ I have identified as necessary resources for critically ecoliterate modes of thought.
Coding results suggest that this is the case, as each quality and type of thinking appears to
increase within student writing in response to specific course materials.
Although many of the themes do not show a constant linear increase throughout the
semester, course materials do seem to evoke a general increase in critical analysis of society,
language, and cultural worldviews; in expressions of desire for connection to the natural
world; in knowledge of socio-environmental challenges and conditions; in self-analysis; and
in consideration of how students themselves can engage in more ethical and sustainable
behavior.
Tracing these themes provides a partial picture of student reactions in response to the
course materials. However, to better explore the complexity and nuance of student thinking,
it is necessary to go beyond numerical quantification of codes and survey results and to
engage in more in-depth qualitative analysis of student writing. To do this, after I completed
my initial tallies and graphical analysis of coding categories, I collected excerpts of student
writing that I had coded from each week of the fall and spring semester. I organized these
excerpts chronologically, re-read them, and conducted further analysis of the ideas, patterns,
and themes that emerged from these writings.
In the following sections I present my discussion of this qualitative investigation of
student writing.
C. Qualitative Analysis of Student Writing
In this section I outline the results of my final stage of in-depth content analysis of my
students’ writing. For this stage, I excerpted passages of coded student writing, organized
185
them chronologically by semester, and reviewed them to identify patterns and noteworthy
features. When I conducted my analysis of my students’ writing, I identified distinct themes
and patterns within the subjects they discuss, the sorts of reactions they convey, and the
strategies of thought they demonstrate. I also found that many of the patterns and themes are
clearly grouped within two-week timeframes. These two-week periods correlate with the
topics the class was organized around, as the course focused on each topic for two weeks. It
is not surprising, then, that student thinking reflects differences in focus every two weeks,
given that students were addressing different subject-matter during each of these two-week
blocks.
For this reason, I organize this discussion of my students’ responses by outlining the
seven topics covered in my course materials, briefly describing each topic, then presenting
and analyzing excerpts of my students’ writing in response to the readings and assignments
given as part of each topic. For each of these two-week periods, I focus on describing and
offering examples of the major patterns that I identified within my students’ writing.
As described in Part I of Section 2, in order to teach my model curriculum as a
college first-year seminar, I organized the course into 7 topics, focusing on each topic for two
weeks. To review, theses topics are:
natural world
Weeks 3-4: Masters, Stewards, Family: Views of humankind’s relationship to the natural
world
discourse
186
carbon footprints
Below I summarize each topic and describe patterns of student response. For each topic I
first discuss the writing of my fall semester students, followed by the responses of my spring
semester students.
The majority of writing quoted here was excerpted from students’ weekly discussion
boards (a few excerpts came from other writing assignments and are identified as such).
Within my classes I organize these discussion boards as a relatively informal and flexible
forum in which I encourage students to voice honest opinions and reactions. The writing in
their weekly posts is, therefore, conversational in tone, and it is apparent that it was often
posted without proof-reading. In all excerpts included below, student writing is reproduced
exactly as it was submitted. I have removed student names, but I have left any typos,
spelling errors, and other features intact in order to accurately convey my students’ thinking
in their own words without alteration.
Weeks 1-2: Nature and the Self
During these weeks, students examine literary, poetic, and artistic meditations on
personal connections to the natural world. They consider the value and cultural significance
of these literary and artistic works, how and why individuals have written about bonds to the
natural world, whether they could relate these works to anything in their own experience, and
the implications of their own bonds or lack thereof in relation to nonhuman beings and the
land.
187
In class time during the first two weeks I encourage students to reflect on personal
experiences bonding with the natural world, I show artwork and videos that I then ask
students to discuss, and I guide them to conduct their own analyses of a set of poems they are
assigned to read, having them share interpretations and reactions. Once students begin
posting their responses to the weeks’ readings, I highlight points made in their postings
during our in-class discussions and offer space for them to elaborate and respond further to
each other. I also summarize, restate, and present back to the class some of the questions
they themselves begin to raise in their writings, such as: “What rights do we have to interact
with and use nonhuman nature?” “What do nonhuman creatures mean to us, and what do we
mean to them?” “What possibilities exist for understanding, communicating, and
empathizing with nonhuman creatures?” “Is it important to attempt to communicate with or
understand nonhumans? Why?” “In what ways can and should we identify with and think
about the nonhuman world in our daily lives?” “In what ways can interacting with
nonhumans teach us about ourselves or help us deal with our feelings?” “What insights do
these poems/artworks have to offer readers/viewers? What do they have to offer society?”
Through these and other strategies, I seek to scaffold and challenge students to engage in
critical thinking, dig deeper with their analyses, and begin reflecting on established cultural
viewpoints.408
Student Responses During Weeks 1 and 2
In my qualitative analysis of student writing, I found that in the first two weeks of
both the fall and spring semesters students’ primary points of discussion center around
408
For further description of my own educational strategies used in the teaching of these materials, see Section
1, Part III.C.6
188
themes of nonhuman-human relationships. By identifying patterns in their writing, it
becomes evident that in weeks 1 and 2 students begin to imagine the point of view of other
beings, to recognize nonhumans as feeling subjects, to question the commonalities and
connections between humans and nonhumans, and to ponder sources of disconnection
between humans and the natural world. Below I offer examples of these themes first from
the fall and then the spring semester.
One example of a piece students read during weeks 1 and 2 is Sharks by Leroy
Quintana,409 a poem narrated from the point of view of a shark (the full text of this and other
selected poems from the course is included in Appendix B). The piece critiques
humankind’s perception of sharks, and compares the misconceptions and exploitation of
sharks to that of illegal immigrants. One of my fall semester students sums up this poem by
stating:
In the last stanza, Quintana makes a comparison between sharks and illegal
immigrants. He suggests that our view of sharks and immigrants as fighters and
troublemakers (32) is inaccurate and that they are much more dynamic than
popular opinion would suggest. I think the point of this poem is to point out the
false sense of importance we place on material goods, while pointing out the
hypocrisy in American politics and culture. We, as humans, fear sharks. As a
result, their skin and image are viewed as symbols of power. People generally
view themselves as the superior species on the planet, and sharks, with their
“fearsome switchblades” (33), are exploited in order to demonstrate this
perceived superiority. I enjoyed this poem as it gave me a chance to consider
the world from the perspective of a shark. It is often helpful to take a step back
and consider an opinion other than your own.
This analysis contains the beginnings of several facets of critical ecoliteracy. In it,
the student is starting to critique qualities he identifies as common elements of US-American
409
Leroy V. Quintana, “Sharks,” in Poetry Like Bread, ed. Martín Espada (Willimantic: Curbstone Press, 2001),
202-203.
189
culture, and he is highlighting connections suggested in the poem between the mistreatment
of two othered groups, nonhuman animals and illegal immigrants. He describes the
dominant view of both sharks and illegal immigrants as “inaccurate,” and states that humans
“view themselves as… superior” and that they attempt to “demonstrate this perceived
superiority.” By framing this belief of superiority as a “view,” rather than a fact, he leaves
open the possibility that it, too, is inaccurate, or at least that it is less than ‘natural’ reality. In
this way he questions human superiority, and questions the right of humankind to claim the
primary authoritative viewpoint on who and what is important. In closing he comments that
he enjoyed the “chance to consider the world from the perspective of a shark,” and to
“consider an opinion” other than his own. Here is evidence of awareness that there are, in
fact, other viewpoints to consider, that nonhumans are active subjects who have their own
perspective, and that the opportunity to imagine or attempt to identify with this perspective is
a valuable and positive experience. Engaging with these types of insights and questions
represents a practice of empathetic thinking and of critical cultural analysis, essential
components of critical ecoliteracy.
The responses of my other fall semester students also show evidence that they are
beginning to genuinely imagine the point of view of other beings, such as sharks. One
student writes:
[Quintana] starts the entire poem by saying, “When men purchase suits made
from our skin they become dukes, barons of giant corporations...” (1-2). I can’t
imagine that a shark would actually be ok with men using their skins for suits
just because it is a symbol of power and success. The author then ends that
same sentence with “...all vital for the survival of their countries.” (5-6). Now
unless it’s just me I cant believe that mirrors, locks and perfumes are all
products vital to the survival of their countries. Clearly none of those products
are actually vital to the survival of any country while I must imagine that the
skin on a shark is pretty darn vital to their survival. Another line that isn’t so
190
much sarcastic but shows the authors view that sharks aren’t as bad as they are
always made at to be is, “We swim towards blood the way some people cross
an imaginary line into the United States to pick lettuce...” (22-24). Sharks swim
to blood because that means food and livelihood, just like immigrants go to the
USA for better opportunities and a better life. Sharks are no awful and
dangerous creatures, they are just animals like any other animal that needs food
to survive. I think the author wants his readers to understand that the sharks are
not the bad guys, if anyone is the bad guy it’s the people who kill them for
completely ridiculous reasons.
Here again is an identification with the shark as subject, not object. This student
thoughtfully considers the needs and interests of the shark, and places these needs in
opposition to the interests of humans who would use parts of the body of the shark to fulfill
their own desires. In so doing, he highlights that the shark’s needs, for food and for the very
skin on her/his body, are essential, whereas the human desire for symbols of power extracted
from the shark is frivolous. Through this analysis the student acknowledges that nonhuman
beings have needs of their own, and beyond this, he begins to weigh those needs against the
interests of humans, indicating that both have value and are deserving of consideration. In
this way he starts to decenter human experience, a key practice in the process of forging an
empathetic and inclusive awareness of the world.
Indeed, comments suggesting that nonhuman beings deserve consideration reappear
frequently in the responses of my fall students during weeks 1 and 2. In my coding of
student writing I identified 79 instances of students expressing this and related ideas in the
fall semester response papers from these two weeks, within 65 total posts. The idea that
other beings are capable of actively experiencing the world, that they have feelings and
needs, that it is possible to consider their point of view, is a concept that begins to appear in
my students’ thinking during these first two weeks, and this seems in large part to be in direct
response to the course materials I am asking them to engage with.
191
In another example of students contemplating these ideas in response to course
readings, a student who is discussing another poem assigned during weeks 1 and 2 states, “I
can’t even imagine what it would be like to be born into a situation were I am being bread to
be eaten later in my life…. What if that was you or me?” Here again this student is
beginning to identify with a nonhuman being, to imagine what it would be like to be in that
creature’s position. By doing so, the student acknowledges that nonhumans have positions
and experiences, and by reflecting that she could have been in this other being’s place, the
student starts to raise the idea that there may be equivalency or relatability between humans
and nonhumans. This lays important groundwork for questioning dominant views of
nonhumans and for reformulating more sustainable and inclusive frameworks for
conceptualizing the natural world.
Other students, too, begin to make note of the possibility of imagining a nonhuman
point of view. One student writes, “What struck me the most about this reading was the
author’s ability to see the wildlife’s perspective, from a different standpoint per say.”
Another student makes a similar comment while writing about Aldo Leopold410:
Another thing I like is the author thinks about the feelings of the animals and
their reaction to him. He says “a meadow mouse, startled by my approach”
(p.4). Most people would not think of a mouse as being startled, but it shows
the author is highly aware of the animals and nature around him, and how he is
affecting them.
This student suggests that it is unusual for people to consider that nonhuman animals have
reactions and perspectives of their own, pointing out that “most people would not think of a
mouse as being startled.” In this way he is beginning to critique dominant structures of
410
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River, 1st ed. (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1970).
192
thought in regard to nonhumans, and to question the effects of these thought patterns on the
perception and treatment of other beings. In response to a classmate’s reply, this student
further comments:
I agree completely about Leopold’s ability to give the perspective of nature, and
how it would feel about things. It is such a unique perspective and something
that you do not often see. It gives another side to all the stories we hear,
because we never get the opinion of anyone but other people.
This student expands on the idea that humans rarely think of nonhuman perspectives, and
suggests that our cultural discourse is highly anthropocentric. Another student reflects on the
possibilities for relating to nonhumans:
Although we cannot necessarily see through their eyes, we can still learn from
animals and other beings around us and try to better ourselves. However, by
doing this, we unknowingly become closer to them because we understand
them more and that is one fact I find absolutely fascinating about this theory.
Perception is key in understanding people as well as other beings.
As he formulates these ideas for himself, this student comments that he finds the notion
“fascinating,” indicating that thinking this way is not only new, but exciting and engaging for
him as well.
Meanwhile, another student demonstrates the act of relating to nonhumans, by
imagining a conflict between wolves and farmers from the perspective of the wolf. She
states, “Wolves eat farmers’ cattle and livestock and therefore the farmers kill them. But the
farmers, and people in general, do not see that the wolves are doing this because people are
intruding on their land, destroying their habitat, and making their prey disappear.” In this
statement Melissa is actively imagining the interests and experiences of wolves in a
circumstance that, as she points out, might more commonly be considered only from the
193
perspective of human needs and interests. Considering this additional perspective gives her a
broader, more empathetic, and more ethically substantive understanding from which to
formulate opinions or decide on courses of action.
As students begin to engage in this process of identifying with nonhumans and
imagining other perspectives, a related theme emerges, in which students begin to compare
humans and nonhumans. In a number of statements, students demonstrate that they are
starting to question ways in which humans and nonhumans may be similar, or may be more
able to understand one another than previously supposed. Students make comments like,
“This passage really touched me because the author is distinctly describing the similarities
between a human and a plant as if the plant was an actual human being” and “After reading
some of these readings this week, I have come to realize that animals are very similar to
humans, as are plants, and that they are sometimes treated unfairly too.”
Students also express surprise at depictions of strong human-nonhuman bonds in
some of the readings. One student states:
I especially enjoyed reading Edward Abbey’s The Serpents of Paradise because

of the beautiful relationship developed by the author and the gopher snake. In
my opinion, the fact that a human can develop such a strong and almost
emotional connection to a snake is incredible.
The student describes the human-snake relationship related in the story as “almost
emotional,” implying skepticism that humans and snakes can form genuine emotional
attachments. However, he also describes the relationship as “beautiful” and “strong” and
indicates that he enjoyed reading about it. In many instances such as this, students appear to
enjoy being exposed to the possibility of forging such bonds with nonhumans. Another
student replies to this post, “I also found it incredible that humans are able to have such a
194
strong and emotional relationship with different species in nature.”
Students also start to wonder, if such bonds are possible and such similarities exist
between humans and nonhumans, why nonhumans are so rarely treated with more
equivalency to humans. One student reflects:
Killing animals and plants is like murdering another human being. The
passages and poems tell us to treat all things equal. These readings give me a
new perspective on the environment and how I go about treating it. Hurting the
earth is just like, if not worse than, hurting someone else.
By commenting that killing nonhumans is like “murdering another human being,” she
suggests that there is perhaps equal value to human and nonhuman life. This comparison is
mirrored by another student in his discussion of Quintana’s poem. He states, “I also sensed
in ‘Shark’ that the speaker felt that humans were somewhat hypocritical. We do not view the
slaughtering that we do to animals the same way that we do if an animal attacks or hurts a
human.”
Other students explore similar questions about human-nonhuman equivalency, as here
while discussing a poem by Wis!awa Szymborska411:
By this, she illustrates the fact that humans and plants (nature) have a lot of
similarities. So the question is, why don’t we treat nature as if it was human?
We should care for it and keep it nourished, so that it can sustain a longer life.
After reading this passage, I was able to relate to the entire poem and agree with
the author. I believe that earth is in essence a human being. We should take
only what we need at a minimum so that we can maintain a better environment
for future generations.
In another post, a student links these questions to an experience of his own:
411
Wis!awa Szymborska, “The Silence of Plants,” in Poems: New and Collected 1957-1997 (San Diego:
Harcourt, 1998), 269-270.
195
Reading this week made some things connect in my mind as to how everything
works off of each other. Snakes feed off of other animals to live and, in some
parts of the world, humans feed off of various animals to live. Sometimes it
takes a couple of real life instances to open one’s eyes. My eyes were opened
when I encountered an interaction with a rabbit this weekend. I was driving
down one of the back-roads in my neighborhood and I saw a rabbit on the side
of the road. It was crossing the street when a car nearly missed it. I felt really
bad for the poor little rabbit because I knew that if it were a kid or an old lady,
someone would immediately help it cross the street. By showing this real live
experience, I want to convey the fact that people should be more sensitive to
animals as well as plants. We live amongst animals, we feed off of them, and
we even live with them in most cases. Why don’t we treat them as fellow
beings?
In these posts, students make strong contrasts between attitudes toward harming nonhumans
and attitudes toward harming humans, concluding that harm inflicted on nonhumans is often
not considered with enough gravity in mainstream society. These patterns of thought provide
the groundwork for more complex understandings students will formulate in later weeks
about the cultural construction of perceptions of nonhumans.
As students begin to ponder the perspectives of nonhumans and the extent to which
humans and nonhumans may be able to relate to one another and form bonds, another related
theme emerges. Students also start asking questions about if and how humans and
nonhumans can communicate with one another. This subject is raised in a poem by
Szymborska titled The Silence of Plants.412 In her reaction to that poem, one student states:
I feel that the lines relate the ambiguity and uncertainty with which humans
perceive the world. The result is that, as a whole, humans tend to ignore their
surroundings by the lack of response. It’s not as simple as a conversation on a
train with someone going in the same direction when other organisms are
involved.
412
Ibid.
196
This statement taps into several key issues. The student highlights the difficulty in
understanding others who do not communicate the way humans do, and she suggests that
because we cannot get the types of responses we recognize as “conversation,” “humans tend
to ignore their surroundings.” She also points out that humans may have an incomplete
perception of the world, one filled with “ambiguity and uncertainty” because we are unable
to communicate with others or because we do not interpret our surroundings as responsive to
us. These insights show strong development of understandings about the role of symbolic
action and communication in shaping perceptions, and they resonate with arguments made by
authors like David Abram about contemporary human disconnection from the
communicative capacities of nonhuman nature.413
This student further comments, “In the end, the poems have a main connection to the
lack of communication with nature being a key separation between humans and
understanding or respecting the environment.” Other students reflect on this difficulty as
well. Another states, “What I retained from this poem is that we will never be able to
communicate with plants, but the he decisions that we make have the potential to alter their
lives. Therefore, their well-being should be considered.”
As students begin to move in the direction of questioning human perception of the
world and of other creatures, they also start to express that they believe more people should
consider other perspectives. One student says:
These readings touch upon the subject that we should look at nature from many
standpoints, not just as humans who control everything. We should take the
time to become personal with the smallest things in nature, such as a plant or
organism. Then maybe we will know its true potential on this intricate earth.
413
197
Another student reflects on other possibilities for viewing the natural world, suggesting,
“When it is viewed as an art form instead of simply an environmental element, to protect it is
to appreciate the innovative and creative influence of the Earth.”
Another student declares:
People have a problem viewing the world only from one angle when they
should be looking at several perspectives. See nature through the eyes of the
hawk or through the eyes of the tuna or the tree or the grass. Stop using only a
human perspective that is so narrow.
To say that a human perspective is “narrow” is to say that it is an incomplete way to see the
world. It is to say that other perspectives exist, and that perhaps we cannot have a full
understanding of the world we are a part of unless we make the attempt to understand these
other perspectives, to add them to our own.
At the end of week 2, students are asked to write a poem or short story from the
perspective of a nonhuman being. They are told to describe an aspect of that being’s
experience, and to think about how she/he/they experience daily life, who they interact with,
what resources or conditions are important to them, who and what they love, what they fear,
how they use their senses, how they communicate, and how environmental degradation has
affected them or may affect them in the future. Some students struggle to step outside human
perceptions and fully imagine the experience of another, but their poems nonetheless
demonstrate sympathy toward nonhumans and the beginnings of significant efforts to
imagine nonhumans’ experiences. One student narrates her poem as a heron:
I lean my head down to scratch the itchy spot

below my left wing,
and that’s when I see them.
Nosy brats.
198
Three girls on the way to Starbucks,
all carrying Vera Bradley wallets (stuffed with Daddy’s money),
I sigh, hoping they will leave soon, but they don’t.
They watch me, entranced, their twelve-year old eyes bugging out of their
heads.
(Of course, bugs would be much more appealing).
I casually lean down to pluck a tasty fish from the river,

but jerk back in surprise as I hear one of the girls squeal.
“It moved, guys!” she shrieks.
IT?!
Oh, please, just go get your strawberry mocha frappucino, will you?
This piece could be seen as a partial failure of imagination; the student seems unable
to conceptualize what the thoughts of a heron may be like, and instead narrates a heron with
human-like thoughts and knowledge, including vocabulary like “Starbucks,” “Vera Bradley
wallets,” and “strawberry mocha frappucino.” She recasts the heron as a version of herself,
and in so doing denies the bird any genuine personal subjectivity that is distinct from human
experience. However, this poem may also be seen as a key step toward interspecies
identification. This student positions her avian narrator in a very sympathetic stance, as
someone who is harried and devalued by spoiled human girls who do not recognize her
interest in privacy. But even more than this, by merging her own perspective with that of the
heron the student ‘puts herself in the bird’s shoes’ (or lack thereof), in a very real way. She
imagines how she would feel if she were in the heron’s position, and also perhaps how
another being might view a teenage girl such as herself. This in itself is an important act of
empathy.
Some students take their empathetic narrations a step further. In one poem, a student
writes from the viewpoint of a rabbit:
199
I jump through the dense brush with ease…
My white tail glistens in the sunlight.
I feel safe.
I feel secure.
But I was running towards the end of me.
…I know to avoid the big field full of soybean plants.

Last time we stepped paw on that field,
a human came out with a brown stick
and raised it
and it went boom!
And boom!
And boom!
And there was my mother

and there was my father
and there was my brother.
Dead.
I run today to feel free

I run because it feels right.
I run because it feels safe.
I reach an abrupt clearing.

I no longer have the cushy grass under my paw.
In its place is a hard layer of stone-like material.
As I lower my head to smell it,
I hear a screeching noise.
And that was the end of me.
In this piece the student demonstrates clear efforts to imagine how the rabbit
experiences life. The rabbit in his story runs through the woods in order “to feel free.” He
does not know what a gun is, he only sees it as a “brown stick” that goes “boom,” and he
only knows that it is somehow linked to the death of his family when they “set paw” in a
certain field. He does not know what a road is, only that it is “a hard layer of stone-like
material.” His reaction is to lower his head to smell it, not knowing that he is in the path of
an oncoming car.
Another student explores the perspective of a wolf in a zoo:
200
Tap, snapshot, leave. Repeat, refresh.
Living, walking, breathing seems to mesh
into daily routine through the glass
as our paws tread over semi-synthetic grass.
Life like the tomb, never slipping through
the pack mentality I swear we once knew.
Sniff the air before the putrid waft of sweat
and urine and food puts us again in debt
to the crypt keeper we never needed;
our howls up to the moon, views impeded
by a certain black darker than the stars,
ears twitching from the flood of cars.
Circle, nudge, attack. Repeat, retreat.

This is our newer life, living, waking, defeat.
Wait for the endless, moonless night,
and struggle with every fickle fight
to dominate the labyrinth of glass walls,
how we long for the distant echoing calls
that beckon; fading into the deafening cry
of the crypt keeper that trained us to lie
in the desolate crypt. Howl, yip, yelp,
is the only way to seek unoffered help.
The clock rings again, time to rise,
I, the wolf, and put on the daily zoo disguise.
This beautifully-written poem demonstrates clear consideration of what it would feel
like to be a caged wolf, and how the experience of being a wolf would be shaped by a
“synthetic” zoo life.
Empathizing with other beings, imagining the experiences and needs of nonhumans,
reflecting on humankind’ place in relation to these others, questioning the chances for and
significance of interaction between humans and the larger world: comments and reactions
that seem to reflect these patterns of thought appear consistently in the writings of my fall
semester students during weeks 1 and 2. I believe that the readings, assignments, and
discussions students experience during these weeks serve as a catalyst that encourages them
201
to start reflecting on these sorts of questions. Many of them comment that such ideas are
new to them, that they had not considered these perspectives or possibilities before. But
when presented with the opportunity, they all appear open, and often eager, to explore these
ideas.
Another set of themes that appear in fall semester response papers from weeks 1 and
2 center around questions of connection to, or disconnection from, the natural world.
Students express the opinion that too many people do not often enough appreciate the
“beauty” of the natural world or recognize the benefits of interaction with nonhumans, as in
statements like, “nature is an important aspect of life. If one does not appreciate all parts of
nature then they don’t find experiences that can change their outlook,” or “In today’s society
people are taking the earth for granted, there so much beauty to be seen and all you really
have to do is open your eyes and look.” Typically stating their views on this matter very
directly, students make numerous statements such as, “I feel like we aren’t connecting
enough with the environment around us.”
This subject comes up frequently; in the 65 discussion board posts from students
during weeks 1 and 2, I counted 100 instances of comments referring to disconnection from
the natural world, the value of appreciating or connecting with the natural world, or benefits
that could be gained from personal interactions with nonhumans or with the land. These
statements generally do not demonstrate a great deal of nuanced critical analysis. However,
they too can be seen as an important step toward later critical evaluations of human attitudes
about the nonhuman world. In future weeks, students discuss the conceptual, discursive, and
cultural frameworks that influence such disinterest in or disconnection from nonhuman
202
nature; in weeks 1 and 2 they establish an important starting place by identifying what they
feel are problems in our culture’s current outlooks on the nonhuman world.
Additionally, Anna Peterson suggests that “Acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of
nonhuman nature, apart from usefulness to humans, poses a challenge to the systemic values
and first language of utilitarian individualism. We need these challenges and the expanded
vision that an appreciation of nature in and for itself can bring.”414 In this way the statements
my students begin to make in weeks 1 and 2 in which they express appreciation, compassion,
and love for nonhuman beings and for the natural world may in themselves be an important
challenge to conventional disregard and exploitation of nonhuman nature.
In the spring semester of my class, although I worked with a very different group of
students, I was surprised to find that extremely similar patterns of thinking become evident in
the students’ writing. My spring students approach some of these questions differently, and
some reach different conclusions, but the themes they address in their writing appear to
coalesce into trends very close to the themes raised by my fall students.
As in the fall, students respond to the poem Sharks with strong critiques of human
culture and behavior, such as this one:
After reading the poem “Sharks” by Leroy V. Quintana I noticed that the shark
has been reduced and devalued in our modern world. Here is this majestic
creature: a massive, carnivorous king of the sea. Society has taken this powerful
animal and separated it into meaningless parts. We “purchase suits made from
its skin” in an attempt to echo the greatness of the shark, as if, somehow, we
will possess their power. (202) We make “soup from their fins,” as if we will
absorb some of their ferocity by putting their meat in our bodies. We take their
teeth and put them in glass cases surrounded by old artifacts, as if merely
looking at their fangs will provide us with some of their strength and allow us
to instill fear in others.
414
203
Spring semester students also reflect on similarities between humans and nonhumans,
ways that humans may be able to relate to nonhumans, and the value of nonhuman life. In
discussing a passage by Aldo Leopold, one student writes:
It describes how the wind has its own part in the environment…. With each part
of the environment that it comes in contact with, it has an action. Whether it is
“making music,” making the stalks “hum,” “drawing circles” in the sand, etc.
the wind is given a characteristic. The characteristics that are given sound so
human-like that it makes you think of the wind in a different way. It is almost
like a person or being, which gives it more importance than we as humans
usually give it credit for.
Here the student seems to have been presented with a new idea, to approach a natural
element like the wind as though it is active and communicative, as though it too is a
meaningful part of the world, like humans. She comments that this approach makes her
“think of the wind in a different way,” and give it “more importance.” Supplying students
with new ideas that allow them to think about the world “in a different way” is a key goal of
critical ecoliteracy.
In her post from the previous week this student also expresses the idea that
nonhumans have “as much right to live” as humans. She says:
What struck me the most about these readings is that it sort of puts into
perspective how animals are being treated when they are also a part of this
world and have as much right to live as we do. These poems gave me insight
into how nature is being abused and makes me realize even more that it
shouldn’t have to be like that.
Others echo this sentiment, questioning human authority to impede the survival of
nonhumans:
204
What gives us the right to end that current circle of life on which many of the
animal there live and strive in. Another symptom of the god complex I suppose.
I think it would lead us well to ask “Why do we think we are so great?” I think
this is an important question that all of humankind will have to answer
someday.
And some students declare their opinions about the morality of animal cruelty:
To cage something to the point where it has an acceptance of death is cruel….

While I find it fine to kill an animal for food I think there should be a certain
level of respect to the creature. It should be killed cleanly and used in its
entirety before killing another to meet the same needs. Life should be given the
respect it deserves and an animal should not be roughly handled or even put
into a situation such as this duck in the poem. A duck being eaten is a part of
the circle of life but the mistreatment is not.
As they begin to wrestle with questions about the rights and significance of the
nonhuman world, my spring semester students also explore the issue of communication with
nonhumans. In response to a poem by Gérard de Nerval,415 one student argues that the
ability to communicate in human language should not serve as a justification to hierarchically
rank humans as separate from, or possessing more inherent rights than, other beings. She
states:
The poem goes on to describe that humans feel the liberty to do as they please
without regard to those who are not heard. The 3rd stanza continues with the
same idea and states that spoken word does not separate those in creation and
does not give humans the right to force labor on those who cannot communicate
as we do.
This student further comments:
415
Gérard de Nerval, “Golden Lines,” in News of the Universe: poems of twofold consciousness, ed. Robert Bly,
trans. Robert Bly (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1980), 38.
205
It’s alarming to realize how much mankind has mistaken nature for resources,
without thought to the thousands of living beings who cannot speak for
themselves. It makes me think twice when looking around the concrete land we
live in and makes me wonder what it will take for Mother Nature’s ‘voice’ to be
heard.
In addition to acknowledging the perspectives of nonhumans and pondering the
consequences of privileging the use of human language as a marker of superiority or a source
of power, this student’s statement also presages insights developed in later weeks, as the
student raises one of the dominant metaphors US culture frequently employs to conceptualize
the nonhuman world, that of “resources,” and reflects on the communicative capacities of
nonhumans and of the land by referring to the natural world as having a “voice.”
From another student comes a similar lament that the inability of nonhumans to
communicate in ways that humans can easily recognize may lead humankind to disregard
their interests:
We treat plants and animals as though they are inanimate objects that exist
solely for our use and disposal. If a daffodil were to release a terrible scream as
a child pulled it from the earth, would that child think twice before touching
another one in the future? If a tree that was being ripped out of the ground on
construction sight were to sob uncontrollably, would some of the workers be
more hesitant to knock it to the ground? As ridiculous as it may sound, a little
more of this kind of thought could go a long way in preserving our natural
environment.
The image created here of a tree sobbing uncontrollably as it is ripped from the ground
epitomizes both an act of empathy on the part of this student, and also a sharp critique of the
lack of empathy frequently present in contemporary society, in which the idea of a tree
experiencing pain, grief, fear, or sorrow as its life is forcefully taken from it may seem not
only completely foreign but even “ridiculous.”
206
The notion of nonhumans crying out in pain is raised by another student, as well, in
his analysis of a piece by Gary Snyder.416 He states:
Imagine, if you can, what other beings such as trees or insects, would say if
they could express their emotions about how they fell when they are uprooted
or have pesticides upon them. Wouldn’t it be possible that their cries and
anguish be similar to victims of war torn countries? That is the focus of Gary
Snyder’s The Call of the Wild.
As in the fall, spring semester students also make frequent comments expressing
newfound opinions on the existence and importance of nonhuman perspectives, and on the
necessity of considering the world from viewpoints beyond the human. One student points
out, “our society is very human-centered, and it’s rare that we take the time or trouble to
consider things from the perspective of non-humans.” Another states:
I really like how the author chose to write this poem from a plants perspective,
rather than from a human perspective. Sometimes, I tend to look at plants as
mere edible organisms, without fully realizing that plants are also living
organisms; they eat, they breathe, and they grow, just like all other living
organisms do.
This student goes on to reflect:
…it is important for we as humans to remember and understand that we are not
just surrounded by ‘things’ on earth, but we are surrounded by “living things.”
Living things that not only depend on the same resources we depend on, but
living things that also depend on us, and vice versa.
Here a key distinction is made; we are not surrounded by “things” but by “living things.”
This student, like the others quoted above, is acknowledging that humans are not the only
416
Gary Snyder, “The Call of the Wild,” in Reading the Environment, ed. Melissa Walker, 1st ed. (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 71-74.
207
creatures who have lives and needs; life, with all its implications, is not the sole purview of
humankind, but belongs to other creatures, as well.
These related themes appear consistently during the spring semester, offering
evidence that the course materials are encouraging students to explore and identify with
nonhuman perspectives, recognize nonhuman subjectivity, question human-nonhuman
interaction, and interrogate normative attitudes as to the relative value of nonhuman lives.
Out of 85 posts, I counted 67 instances of statements to this effect during weeks 1 and 2 of
the spring semester, a number only slightly lower than the 79 instances I counted in the fall.
In the poems they write from the perspective of a nonhuman being, my spring
semester students demonstrate a similar range of empathetic capacities to those of the fall.
Some ascribe human-like thinking to nonhuman beings, as in this poem about a tree on the
university campus:
You pass me like I’m nothing, but I remember you

Your books piled high, tall boots, hair askew
It was in the fall when I met you and first saw your beautiful smile
I wish you would have studied beneath me and stayed for a while
…I’ve been through just about every freshman class

But as soon as you move off campus you just want to get home fast
Relax, stay awhile, the library is not the only place to be
Why not unwind and be studious under a tree like me?....
Other students step a bit farther outside human ways of thinking in their portrayals of
nonhuman experiences. In this short story, a student describes a day in the life of a bird:
Each day I venture off to find food; sometimes I’m lucky, other times
not. There are no places I can’t reach, although clear glass windows can put a
damper on things at times. Today, I wake to see my beautiful chicks sleeping in
their nest. Aware of their owl like appetites, I was off to find food. I went to my
208
usual places: a large field where humans play and dogs walk with their
humans, the creek by my tree which houses only the finest worms, and the vast
pile of human garbage sprawled out in a desert area, however I know to be
careful with what I pick from there. My brother died from choking on a
human’s shoe lace our parents brought to our nest; now we know those aren’t
worms…. . This is when I start worrying, its midday and I have yet to feed my
young…. , I finally come across something edible; stale bread. It’s no 4 inch
earth worm, but it’ll do. I grab the bread with my beak and start heading back
to my nest.
After flying for some time, I feel a bit confused that I haven’t reached
my tree. I see so many trees, but none that hold my nest. Now I’m even more
confused, I see my neighbor tree with humans around it making a great deal of
noise right by the creek. I circle the area once more, only to find that the
neighbor tree is gone now too, only the trunk remains.
I still have yet to feed my young.
In the heart-wrenching final lines of this story, the audience discovers what the bird
does not understand, that her tree has been cut down and her chicks have been killed. As the
story ends, the bird remains focused on her most important thought, that she has not yet fed
her young. In this way, the story serves as a tragic meditation on the loss and confusion that
humans inflict on nonhumans, like the story’s narrator who struggles to survive in a world
full of human actions she cannot fully understand but that destroy her and her family
nonetheless.
In the response papers of my spring students during weeks 1 and 2, the theme of
disconnection from the natural world emerges as well. From the 85 posts during weeks 1 and
2 of the spring I counted 55 instances of statements relating to appreciation of, connection to,
or disconnection from the natural world. One student links this disconnection with urban
life:
In his essay, Walking, Henry David Thoreau discusses the importance of the
influence of nature on our lives. The modern human is constantly surrounded
by concrete, glass and plastic and lives in isolation from the earth. For most city
dwellers, yards are the sole connection to the natural world.
209
Other students express similar opinions that, in the contemporary US and other highly
developed nations, many people experience a world of nearly exclusively human
construct, and have little if any link to the nonhuman world. In her discussion of a
piece by N. Scott Momaday, one student contends that humans have already become
entirely isolated from the natural world. She relates this idea to a recent experience of
her own:
Over winter break, I stayed in New York City for three weeks. There were
several heavy snowstorms throughout my visit, and many New Yorkers were
shocked and horrified when the city didn’t have the resources to quickly clean
up the large amounts of snow. It was as if they couldn’t believe that weather
still has an impact of human life, as if the world had failed them because we
aren’t so technologically advanced that we completely control nature.
A classmate replies to her post by saying:
One major point that you bring up is that unlike the author you believe that as
humans we are already completely disconnected with the natural world. I think
that we are unfortunately working towards a place in which we are almost
completely disconnected from nature, but I do not believe you we will ever
reach it. You gave the example, of you being in New York over the winter
break and you saw and heard many people complaining about the snow. I
believe in this very same example that you have proven the point that we can
not be totally disconnected from nature. No matter how much we try to distance
ourselves from nature, it way to powerful and fast to be escaped by us. I do
understand what you mean though when you say that we are already
disconnected from the wild. I just believe that we can never completely severe
that tie because we are still part of nature, and that will be always be true no
matter what we do to avoid it. I think that we (as people) are totally separated
from nature in our own minds. I think that people have a certain arrogance
about them that disregards nature and other living things. Like we embrace
ignorance in order to justify acts that would otherwise be considered immoral.
210
Here this student argues that the very fact that, on occasions such as the one described above,
people are ‘inconvenienced’ by big snow storms demonstrates that humans cannot sever their
ties to the larger world. But he adds that he believes we, as a society, are “separated from
nature in our own minds.” He also suggests that people disregard nature and “embrace
ignorance” in order to justify immoral actions. This is a strong step toward the idea that
attitudes toward the nonhuman world are culturally constructed and culturally motivated, and
that they are linked to unsustainable behavior.
These excerpts of student writing serve as strong examples of the trends that are
evident in both semesters during the first two weeks. The details of the insights raised during
each semester, and by each student, certainly vary. But upon analyzing the writings of both
semesters for weeks 1 and 2, I am profoundly struck by the parallels that surface. In both
semesters, the course materials for these two weeks seem to encourage students to think
deeply about the value of nonhuman beings and the more-than-human world, to recognize
and imagine the experiences of nonhuman others, and to take their first steps in the process
of critiquing dominant cultural assumptions about the world. A vast majority of students also
comment that they enjoy the readings from these two weeks. Many express that these
readings and assignments have raised new ideas for them. And nearly all seem glad for the
chance to explore these ideas, to question social norms with regard to the treatment of
nonhumans, and to voice an eagerness for change, an eagerness for increased compassion
and respect for others, and an eagerness for a world in which humans have the awareness and
the opportunity to interact meaningfully with other life. During weeks 1 and 2, one spring
semester student describes his hope for such change:
211
I believe that our current environmental design is at so much odds with nature,
and we must totally redesign our environment in order for everyone to be able
to experience nature from anywhere and everywhere possible. I also believe
that connecting with the environment is not necessarily something that we owe
to the earth, but it is something that we owe to ourselves….
And in another post, a classmate suggests that the value of life lies in connection with others.
He states, “In our society we have the need to create lifeless things with order and structure
but that is the opposite of life. Life is living with other life, not living despite other life.”
This statement encapsulates the sort of critical reflection on contemporary social
structures and values that students begin to undertake in the first weeks of the course and
engage in more deeply in later weeks. It also demonstrates a recognition of other beings as
essential and worthwhile participants in the global community, and a thoughtful proposal of
reprioritization toward interconnection and intersubjectivity as necessary and desirable
qualities for living fully and positively in the world. In this way the student is already
engaging in some of the central goals of critical ecoliteracy, by imaginatively reformulating
his understanding of the attitudes and features of human society that he believes will result in
more sustainable and worthwhile modes of living in the future.
Weeks 3-4: Views of humankind’s relationship to the natural world
For this topic, students are introduced to theories about conceptual metaphor and the
role that metaphors and narratives play in shaping cultural attitudes. They discuss belief
systems and worldviews, including religions, and explore a variety of creation myths from
cultures around the world. Through these materials, I encourage students to consider the
cultural motivations that lead people to adopt and maintain their values and behaviors.
During this topic I introduce students to some of the common metaphors at work in US-
212
American culture for considering the natural world. We discuss the prevalence and
implications of such metaphors as “the natural world is a stockpile of raw materials and
resources,” “the natural world is a life-support machine,” “the natural world is a garden,” and
“the natural world is a family.” Students also read a variety of writings, both historical and
modern, that provide examples of these metaphors in use, and I ask them to identify which
metaphors about the natural world are at work in the various texts and how these metaphors
influence reasoning about the nonhuman world and how humans should interact with it.
As with each two-week period in the semester, my own in-class activities include
introducing students to some of the key questions within the given topic; facilitating in-class
discussion and creating an encouraging space for students to share and collectively develop
opinions; supporting students as they produce their own analyses and guiding them to
identify the central messages, ideas, and arguments in the course readings and viewings;
challenging them to question and analyze ever more deeply; and exposing them to new or
alternative viewpoints, concepts, and interpretations.
During weeks 3 and 4 students show evidence that they are beginning to actively
understand the notion that worldviews are not universal or inherently true, but are a product
of cultural influences and a source of cultural attitudes and behaviors. At this point students
start analyzing the impact of belief systems on attitudes and behavior, and they begin
critiquing not only these attitudes and behaviors, but the worldviews and beliefs that support
them. In these weeks students also formulate and articulate newly-developing
understandings of conceptual metaphor. They discuss different metaphors as potential
213
options for framing our perceptions of the natural world, and they interrogate the
implications of each metaphor, voicing opinions about which are preferable. They also use
these new insights to shed light on continued explorations of nonhuman-human relationships,
bonds, and points of view, beginning to question whether distinctions between human and
nonhuman are a function of culturally-constructed belief systems.
In week 3 of the course, students read a selection of creation myths from cultures
around the world. I ask them to write about a few of these myths, and to analyze how the
myths might influence cultural attitudes toward the natural world and beliefs about
humankind’s role within it. In the fall semester, a student says of the Judeo-Christian
Genesis story:
A culture that believes in the Genesis 1 creation story is likely to view the
human race as superior to all other living things, as humans were created in
“God's own image” ….The story specifies that God gave humans “everything
that has the breath of life” ….to use for their survival. God is presented as a
provider, suggesting that everything necessary for survival has been provided
by a higher being. This belief discourages the conservation of resources as it
suggests that everything was created for human consumption and will
eventually be replenished by God….
And in an analysis of a Hopi story titled “The Emergence,” a student states:
The Emergence creation story…. stresses cooperation between the earth and all
of the living things upon it and describes the realization of sins necessary to
reach the top tier of enlightenment. Individuals with this world view are likely
to have a deep appreciation for the natural world. The story stresses equality
and cooperation between plants, animals, and people.
These are examples of students beginning to ponder the influence of various belief systems
on human attitudes toward our role in the larger world. In the process of learning about
214
different beliefs, students come to acknowledge that there is not merely one ‘reality,’ but an
array of worldviews whose origins are based in cultural understandings, and which have far-
reaching effects on the perceptions and assumptions of individuals in the world both past and
present. Students also explore this idea in their weekly response papers. One student
reflects:
The pieces we read this week that focused on religion and belief in God also
caught my attention. I have never looked at preserving the environment from
this perspective before…. If one believes that a greater power created this
Earth, one is more likely to help protect and preserve the environment that He
has created. Although religion can be used to help protect the Earth, I believe
that some people may take it in the wrong sense. If you believe that God has
planned every aspect of your life for you, than what does it matter what you do
as long as your future is is God’s hands?
Related to this process of thought is one of the prominent themes that emerges in the
writings of my fall semester students during weeks 3 and 4: critique of dominant US-
American attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Students begin to ask why our culture sees the
world the way it does, and to express dissatisfaction at many of the dominant attitudes they
identify as representative of US culture. One student states:
I have always found it interesting that we sell pieces of land and water and
other natural items as if they are a man made commodity. How is it that we feel
we have the right to sell something that we neither created nor truly owned in
the first place. Do the animals that live on a person’s property say “Oh, I live
on this guys land”? Of course not. The concept of humans selling land is just
one more example of how man believes that they can divide up and manipulate
every part or parcel of our world.
Another student, in response to an excerpt attributed to Chief Seattle,417 comments:
417
Chief Seattle, “How Can One Sell the Air?: A Manifesto for the Earth,” in Environmental Discourse and
Practice: A Reader, ed. Lisa M. Benton and John Rennie Short (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000), 12-13.
215
I agree with Chief Seattle’s standpoint in his writing, that how can people
purchase the only thing that keeps them alive, and seek to own something that
they have no right to own. I feel as though greed has slowly begun to destroy
the values that people hold for the environment, and that the world we live on is
not seen as a place of life but a place to make a profit and to own; I find this
notion disturbing.
One student sums up her new exploration of the root causes of cultural attitudes by stating,
“It really makes you think about how we think about progress.”
‘Thinking about how we think’ is one of the essential pursuits of the materials in
weeks 3 and 4. Another component of encouraging students to think about how and why we
think the way we do is the study of conceptual metaphor. Students read excerpts from
Lakoff and Johnson,418 among others, and discuss a range of metaphors about the natural
world. Responding to these readings and discussions, one of the most prevalent themes that
arises in student posts in weeks 3 and 4 is discussion of different ways of viewing and
thinking about the nonhuman world.
One student comments on Lakoff and Johnson by saying:
The other thing I got out of this selection is that culture and the way we are
shaped in society determines our outlooks. In a society where “time is money”,
a person won’t be as concerned with protecting the environment because that
takes too much time and effort and consideration and to that person that time is
too precious to waste.
Another student notes, “I think we’ve grown accustomed to using metaphors in our everyday
conversations and we don’t realize the impact that certain words or phrases have.” Another
makes a similar observation, linking it to our views of the natural world:
418
Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By.
216
To me, this piece basically described the relationship of the words we use in
everyday language and how those words originally carry another meaning. Like
a metaphor, we argue in the sense of war, “He attacked every weak point... I
demolished his argument... I've never won an argument.” We don't even realize
that we are talking in this way. So the natural phenomenon is that we speak and
therefore act unknowingly on our surroundings.
In another post about this piece, a student comments that, at first, she didn’t understand how
it related to the subject-matter of the class. She then states:
However, I now realize that it is all about perception. The way people use
metaphors and their way of thinking has everything to do with the environment
and the environment’s wellbeing. Like we discussed in class, if people view the
environment as a “stockpile of raw materials” then the natural world will be
treated negatively as opposed to thinking of the natural world as “a family”.
Understanding the metaphors humans use and incorporate in their lives is
important simply because we cannot respect the environment or love it if we
aren’t connected with it on a deeper level.
Here is strong evidence of a growing awareness that different conceptions of the nonhuman
world will result in different modes of behavior, an essential insight for critical ecoliteracy.
In their writings about other texts, students also begin to demonstrate their
understanding that conceptual metaphors about the natural world can shape an individual’s
assumptions and actions. Commenting on an excerpt by Ronald Wright,419 a student
explores the potential consequences of a different metaphor:
The line “in the arc of human history, the notion that nature is a machine for us
to re-engineer at will is a relatively recent conceit” seemed to get at a point that
we have discussed in class (p.2). The question in class was whether or not
humans have the right to change and alter nature for our own purposes. I
thought the author’s comparison of nature to a machine was interesting because
under this analogy nature can be controlled as we please.
419
Wright, A Short History of Progress.
217
Here the student points out the implications of viewing the natural world as a machine; a
machine can be controlled and altered, and by viewing the natural world as one, a person is
likely to assume that it can be controlled and altered as well.
In an article by Naomi Klein,420 students find more instances of metaphor to analyze:
Look how much we have impacted the water, air, land, etc. We are changing
the world completely and not just physically but mentally as well. As Naomi
addressed, the world use to be viewed as a “mother”, but now she is just a
“machine” that is constantly being manipulated, changed, and transformed. In
my opinion, the earth is still our mother who continues to care for us despite all
that terrible things we’ve done.
Also commenting on Klein, a classmate states:
I love how she compared the earth to a living being, something that feels pain.
This metaphor really should be used more in the real world because majority of
human beings won’t hurt a puppy or a nonhuman or another human being so if
they relate the earth to a living creature then they will be less likely to hurt it, so
to speak.
This student is not only reflecting on the potential negative consequences of certain common
metaphors for the natural world, but also formulating opinions about which metaphors could
have a positive influence on society’s attitudes. Another student comments on positive ways
to view the natural world as well, stating, “People should stop looking at nature as just a pile
of raw materials, they should start taking a closer look. They should start seeing nature as a
part of themselves, then maybe nature will finally get the respect it deserves.” This active
envisioning of potential cultural frameworks and metaphors that could encourage more
sustainable approaches to the world is precisely the sort of thinking that critical ecoliteracy
curricula should seek to achieve.
420
Naomi Klein, “A Hole in the World,” The Nation, June 24, 2010,
http://www.thenation.com/article/36608/hole-world?page=0,0.
218
During weeks 3 and 4 students also continue to demonstrate thinking about the
possibility of relating to nonhumans, and of forming bonds between humans and nonhumans.
One of the texts students analyze during these weeks is a YouTube video titled “Wolf Dog
Sings to a Baby to Stop His Cry,”421 in which a dog howls melodically next to a crying baby,
soothing the baby, who stops crying. This piece is one of the most commented on by my fall
semester students that week. One student expresses a reaction reflected in many other posts
as well when he states:
The wolf displays mother-like qualities in making the baby quiet and stop
crying. This shocked me at first but when i realized it might be the maternal
instincts in the wolf dog to feel the need to calm the baby down. Honestly, it
was really motherly how the baby even calmed down and how much the wolf
dog cared for the baby. It goes to show that humans are not the only beings on
this earth that can feel feelings.
Several students make similar comments, such as this one:
In the video, when the baby was crying, the wolf-dog recognized the baby's
distress and instinctively sang to calm him down. Even though some may view
dogs as merely a household pet, it is evident that humans and animals do share
the same emotions. If this is true, than shouldn't animals be treated the same as
humans? Just because they cannot communicate with humans does not mean
that they should be treated any differently.
Here we see students extending some of the themes they began to explore in weeks 1 and 2.
They are highlighting similarities between humans and nonhumans, pointing out that the dog
in this video has a similar emotional response to that of a human, and suggesting that both
humans and dogs are capable of feeling and caring for others. And in the second half of the
latter quote, there is also continued discussion of the idea that human modes of
421
“Wolf dog sings to a baby to stop his cry,” YouTube, May 1, 2009,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhA_TTKetyM&feature=related.
219
communication should not necessarily be the basis for determining a being’s rights or value,
and that humans and nonhumans may deserve equivalent treatment and consideration.
While students continue to demonstrate careful thought about the capacities and
perspectives of nonhumans, and about the nature and importance of human connection with
nonhumans, during weeks 3 and 4 they also begin to focus heavily on ways that humans
perceive themselves as separate from the nonhuman world. One student comments, “Most
humans don’t like to try placing themselves in the place of another because it’s inconvenient
for them.” And in response to readings by Donella Meadows and Bill McKibben,422 students
begin to delve into conversations about culturally-constructed categories and divisions
between humans and other parts of the world. As one student puts it:
Society has put up a barrier between itself and nature, though nature doesn’t
seem to agree with or even acknowledge these boundaries. McKibben states
“We need to know that though we are surrounded by buildings there are vast
places where the world goes on as it always has,” (p55). This, in some way,
displays that we have set up sections and districts in which we trap some nature.
At the same time, we’ve trapped ourselves between our buildings, so the places
may truly only be figments of our minds.
Later in her post, she goes on:
Meadows more directly makes statements about the dividing lines between man
and the natural world, beginning with “The human mind arose in the universe
needing lines, boundaries, distinctions,” (p53). Of course, this is a
straightforward statement, except for the process by which man might go about
making the boundaries. Referring back to McKibben, it could be defined by
ruins, through negotiation, lines on a map, or even just by word choice, such as
the Metaphors We Live By reading from last week. The most interesting point
made is “The lines are themselves only ideas,” (p54). It’s hard for me to
imagine that there is only a false barrier that separates the two sides: Man from
nature. It serves to remind me of the wall of light that lies between a city and
422
Bill McKibben, The End of Nature, 1st ed. (New York: Anchor Books, 1990); Donella Meadows, “Lines in
the Mind,” in Our Land, Ourselves: Readings on People and Place, ed. Peter Forbes, Ann Armbrecht, and
Helen Whybrow, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Trust for Public Land, 1999), 53-55.
220
the sky. When I’m at my house in a somewhat suburban neighborhood, there’s
no way to see the stars at night, and even the moon is a glancing chance
between the buildings; but when we travel to my grandparents’ house, there is
not the same effect. I can sit up on the rooftop in the cool night air and actually
see the stars. In the farm area, you can hear the animals and seldom any cars. It
goes to show that barriers really are only something humans put up….
A “wall of light,” created by humans, and a ‘wall of ideas,’ just as illusory, just as human-
made, and just as powerful in blocking our view of the world around us. The connections
drawn by this student are a striking example of the sort of thinking evoked during weeks 3
and 4; as seen above, the materials from these weeks appear to help students begin to
understand humankind’s view of the world as a construct, as something influenced by what
we believe, and as something which then shapes the choices we make, what we perceive,
what we inscribe as our own, and what we separate ourselves from.
When analyzing the writings from my spring semester, I again find remarkable
similarities to the fall in the observations and insights expressed. In one response paper
posting, a student comments, “The reading about the primal creation myth also made me
think about how we feel justified in the way the world has become what it is now.” This
statement strongly demonstrates increased understanding of the idea that current patterns of
behavior have been authorized, reproduced, and naturalized through cultural narratives such
as sacred and religious stories. Spring semester students demonstrate further awareness of
the implications of this idea in their analyses of specific myths. One student discusses the
Genesis story:
This story from the bible puts mankind in charge of nature and establishes an
unequal balance of power between humans and nonhumans, favoring the
authority of humans. People whose belief systems arise from the bible think
that the natural world is here for us to make use of because it was given to us by
221
god and god ultimately has the last say in everything. Therefore, whatever
influence we have over the earth, good or bad, does not really matter in the end
because if God was powerful enough to create the universe, then he alone has
the power to destroy it. We can cut down all of the trees, melt all of the ice,
pollute all of the air, cause the animals to go extinct, etc. and the world will still
go according to God’s plan because it is His plan. Whereas we may have been
given the power to rule over some things, humans ultimately do not control the
final outcome of the universe. Followers of this belief would say that those who
believe we do are thinking too highly of themselves and their capabilities.
And in the following excerpt a student discusses a creation story titled “When God Came to
Earth,” from the Nandi people of Africa:
This story suggests that those forces such as the weather and supernatural
phenomena are something that man fears because they are out of his control.
Once these forces have been taken care of, there is nothing left for man to fear
because aspects of nature, such as animals are able to be controlled by man’s
own means. After the man shot the elephant, he became all-powerful, and a
culture whose belief systems are based on this story must think that the natural
world is under our command and we can do what we like with it. There is no
nurturing relationship with nonhumans and the natural world is meant to be in
fear of us.
In another analysis of “When God Came to Earth,” a classmates offers her own critique of
the apparent assumptions made in the myth:
For the people who take this story for their beliefs, it is a warning. Humans
have the power to take advantage of nature. In fact, it is too easy. The Dorobo
man suffered no consequences from killing the helpless elephant. The elephant
stood no chance, regardless of how small the man was in comparison. God did
not punish him. In fact, man went on to become the great ruler of all countries.
But despite all of this, is that really how we want to live? For our own ethics, is
this lifestyle, this one-way street, the best way to live? What if the Dorobo man
had formed a bond with the elephant? The man could provide the elephant with
protection from the elements and teach him the knowledge of the universe, and
the elephant could provide man with sheer power of his size in order to help
build shelters. They could become deep friends, grow old together, and pass
down this symbiotic relationship to their offspring. If this happened, the thunder
might have come back down from the heavens and we could share our
222
knowledge with it and in turn learn the secrets of the storms and the universe.
By taking all we can, we lose so much.
Here the student not only unravels some of the conclusions about humankind and its
interactions with the nonhuman world that seem to be presented in this story, but she offers
her own retelling, an alternative future to the one in the text, with more positive possibilities
for both humans and nonhumans.
Students in the spring semester also respond strongly to the idea that metaphors shape
cultural attitudes. One student captures this concept by saying:
I have never focused very much on the importance of metaphors and how our
concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how
we relate to other people. When trying to see its connection to this week’s
topic, I began to think that if metaphors about nature were to change, maybe
our views and actions toward nature would change as well. I completely agree
with the statement that “we act according to the way we conceive of things”
(Lakoff and Johnson, 5). The point is brought up that by harboring certain
metaphorical concepts, we lose focus of other aspects of different concepts. So
in the case of nature, it is possible that if someone views 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 the metaphorical nature of our
activities can be studied and a better understanding for the reasons why humans
think the way they do can be discovered.
This post succinctly outlines the key concepts presented by Lakoff and Johnson, and applies
them to mapping possible strategies for positive change. The student states, “if metaphors
about nature were to change, maybe our views and actions toward nature would change as
well,” and goes on to suggest that by studying the “metaphorical nature of our activities” we
may be better able to understand and alter our thinking and behavior.
223
Another student considers one of the conceptual metaphors Lakoff and Johnson
discuss as an example in their text: “argument is war.” The student comments on how he
believes this metaphor is reflective of US-American culture:
…I have to agree… on how ingrained metaphors are in our society. The fact
that we cannot even discuss things like arguments without bringing up terms
such as ‘I destroyed his argument’ or ‘I won the argument’ has a lot to say
about our culture, it could be interpreted as Americans are a very aggressive
culture.
A classmate discusses another metaphor raised by Lakoff and Johnson:
The “Time as money” metaphor is so inbred in us; it is a difficult task to try

think of it in any other way, but imagine if time were not a line but a circle or
some other shape that didn’t move in one singular direction. The point that
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson are trying to make in their essay is that the
only way to cease thinking of “time as money” is to abandon the very essence
of our society and live a lifestyle that we can only imagine.
In this post is another articulation, not only of the idea that metaphor can shape perception
and influence cultural understandings of the world, but of the possibility of alternative ways
of conceiving, and the possibility of organizing society around different foundational
assumptions. Another student raises this possibility as well, and asks the vital question of
how such change could be enacted:
I agree and think it is so interesting that “we act accordingly to the way we
conceive things,” and if we could only see nature differently, our views would
change and thus our actions would as well. The only question is WHAT could
make us stop and see things differently? Do we have to be personally effected
by the destruction and misuse of nature in order to change our belief systems?
A similar question is raised in another post:
224
What came to mind when reading your response was a question: considering
that we are now aware of how big a role metaphors play in our understanding,
mental reasoning, and etc...What does this mean, in regards to our ‘purpose’
here on Earth? If we stepped back and tried to think outside the socially
adopted views that “time is money,” and “arguments are war,” (which is
difficult, giving how intrinsic it is to our very society,) would this change
anything about how we think about ourselves, or how we live our lives? Or
would the idea of living, or thinking any differently than we do now be too
alien, too strange for us to wrap our heads around? Now that we know that
these metaphors play a role in our self-concept and our understanding of reality,
how would we as people change if we were able to change how we interpreted
things like time, nature, and religion?
In their writing the following week, students return to the idea that metaphors shape
our view of the natural world. One student reflects on his own past views and the cultural
and discursive milieu that influenced them:
...since I was very young words like “landlord” “land-owner” and “property”
were always used in some way to relate to the earth/land. So it seemed normal
for a while for me to view land as simply something to be owned and not a gift.
Your idea seems to go back to our conversations about metaphors that organize
the way different cultures think. I really like this idea :)
A classmate comments on a similar theme, also discussing the idea of ‘land as property’ and
connecting it to the exploitation and enslavement of human groups:
Everything is connected on this earth. When we start to mistreat it, we mistreat

ourselves. When people were bought and sold into slavery, they lost their
humanity and their value was decreased to that of an inanimate object. In the
same way, at the point in time when humans began claiming the land and
selling it, we lost all care for its well being and began to treat the earth as if it
were our slave.
Here the student reflects on instances in which groups of humans have been conceptually
reframed as property or “inanimate object.” She then develops a strong parallel to the
consequences of viewing the natural world as something that can be “claimed” and “sold,”
225
suggesting that humankind has turned the nonhuman world into a slave. In later weeks
students will expand such comparisons and further link the oppression and exploitation of
human and nonhuman groups.
As in the fall, in many of their writings spring semester students apply the insights
they derived from these weeks’ readings and assignments to a critique of dominant US-
American attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. One student links such a critique to self-
reflection:
It made me realize how small my “ Western girl” world is and that I have little
understanding, and probably always will, of how deeply my views, interests,
goals, and innermost thoughts are based solely on the culture in which I have
been raised. I usually feel as though I am an individual that is not very
influenced by much of society, but I am truly the product of America. I am so
used to the way that things are around me – Argument is war. Time is money.
Bigger is better –that it was strange to think that other cultures may have no
interest or use for what everyone I have ever known desires. The essay made
me realize how small my world is, and was a good gateway for me to start
learning about non-western ideals and cultures.
Another student bases her critique in an article by Lynn White423:
I also really enjoyed the article “The Historical Roots of out Ecological Crisis.”
It made me realize how total Christian influence is over the West. Christianity
has changed the mindset of the modern American and has brought about the
“marriage” of science and technology. It triumphed over paganism just as man
triumphed over nature…. I never would have connected religious beliefs to the
way I interact with my environment, but this article made me realize how
closely the two are entwined.
And elsewhere, in another analysis of the cultural influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs, a
student makes an interesting argument:
423
White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.”
226
This quote in particular reminds me last week’s discussion about creation myths
and how they shape a society’s relationship to nature and dominance over it.
This superiority complex is exemplified with the Christian tradition and belief
that as human’s we are made in God’s image and we are to govern the other
living aspects of our world. The fatal flaw in Western civilization seems that
since the introduction of Christian values and beliefs of nature there have been
no other basic values introduced to Western society.
The suggestion that what is missing from western culture is an alternative set of values to
accompany or replace Christian-influenced attitudes toward the natural world is a fascinating
contention. It also demonstrates another instance of spring-semester students formulating the
possibility of reframing current dominant worldviews to create different conceptions of the
world.
Spring semester students also continue to comment on the status of humans and
nonhumans in relation to each other and on the value of nonhuman life. One student
responds to an excerpt from Fritjof Capra424 by stating:
I agree that “life and cognition are inseparably connected,” and from this
statement I would go even further to say that animals are thinking, intelligent
creatures that should be respected because of the fact that they interact with
their environment and undergo continual structural changes as part of their
learning system.
A classmate reflects on a similar subject, questioning human authority to weigh and define
‘intelligence’ and considering the varying perspectives and needs of different species:
My question though, who are we to say animals are ‘almost’ as smart as us?
How are we are a species able to truly gage the complexity of intelligence of
one species against another? Yes, there can be tests on memory etc, but how
can numerical recall, for example, be a true test of a species intelligence? I’m
pretty sure that neither chimps, nor any other animal in the world has any use
for data regurgitation other than our species for taking academic exams.
Although this article offers some interesting facts on different animal’s smarts,
424
Capra, The Hidden Connections.
227
I am hung up on the fact that what may be considered smart and useful to one
species, may be irrelevant and useless to another. Just something to think about.
This student offers an insightful point, arguing that those abilities which humans have
defined as markers of intelligence may be of no use to other species, who require and value
different abilities in order to survive.
Questioning another aspect of self-granted human authority, a student raises yet
another parallel theme to the fall, that of culturally-constructed boundaries between humans
and the nonhuman world. In a reply to a classmate, he states:
There is a certain authority we give ourselves to think that we can just assign
boundaries and divisions between money, products, and people, like you say,
and that authority is not justified or all that significant. I like how you
mentioned that people draw these lines and “expect everything else to respect
them.” It is funny how right this reading was in making us see how foolish of
an idea that is.
Another student ponders this notion of illusory boundaries as well; writing in response to
Donella Meadows,425 she reflects:
The lines in our minds are “fiction” and the lineless planet is “truth,” and I see
what she means when she says that if we only hold on to the former and ignore
the latter, then we are not paying attention to the world as a whole. The
distances between people, objects, and surroundings are from our own making,
but it is good to know that since we are the ones that form the lines, we are also
the ones that can change them.
By beginning to see the attitudes and practices all around them as products of
culturally-specific narratives, metaphors, and worldviews, students are not only able to start
actively critiquing them, but to start imagining that they could be changed, as well. Such
understandings and imaginings are clearly present in the writings of both fall and spring
425
Meadows, “Lines in the Mind.”
228
semester students during weeks 3 and 4, and signal important developments in thinking that
are expanded in future weeks.
Weeks 5-6: Language, Media, and the Environment
In weeks 5 and 6, students are presented with theories about social discourse and the
construction of knowledge, and are introduced to strategies in rhetoric, persuasion, and media
communication. They analyze examples of media portrayals of nonhumans and of
environmental issues, including clips of television news networks such as Fox News and
promotional videos by a range of organizations from BP to the ASPCA to the Nature
Conservancy to a group that proclaims itself as ‘fighting the global environmentalist
conspiracy.’ After viewing each example, I ask students to discuss such features as word
choice, imagery, framing, identification and division strategies, and other discursive features,
and to examine the motivation behind each piece and the interested parties supporting each
portrayal. Additionally, students explore ecofeminist arguments about links between gender
oppression and the oppression of the nonhuman world, and they are exposed to analyses of
how language can naturalize oppression, in cases of nonhuman as well as human groups.
Students also examine nonhuman capacities for communication and arguments about
whether language is a defining characteristic solely of humankind.
The topics of weeks 5 and 6 appear to produce marked reaction in student thinking,
and the themes that emerge in their writing closely follow from this subject-matter. Students
explore the notion that language plays a strong role in shaping perception, and that it can
construct or reproduce bias and oppression, against both human groups and nonhumans.
229
They continue to forge deeper understandings of the cultural and discursive formation of
attitudes and beliefs, and they critique the role played by media and advertising in this
formation. They advance their exploration of dominant metaphors and worldviews that
shape cultural conceptions of the natural world. They also delve further into issues of
nonhuman-human relations, applying new insights and modes of thinking to their questions
on this subject.
In their response papers, my fall semester students quickly begin pinpointing key
arguments made by the authors assigned during weeks 5 and 6, such as Joan Dunayer.426
One student comments on Dunayer:
Dunayer’s Animal Equality: Language and Liberation delves into the way that
we address animals. Dunayer relates that “...conventional pronoun...terms
nonhuman animals ‘it,’ erasing their gender and grouping them with inanimate
things,” (p1). By using a neutral term such as this, we create a separation
between ourselves and animals, also allowing us to provide reason for
ownership and to claim animals as our property. Thus, it can be concluded by
Dunayer that “By downplaying nonhuman sensitivity, speciesists downplay the
need for nonhuman liberation,” (p3). Again, it shows that we detach animals
from ourselves and try to state that they are neither living nor feeling in the
same way that humans do. In a way, it leads to the next statement that “Species
don’t evolve toward greater humanness but toward greater adaptiveness in their
ecological niche,” (p12). This line was most striking to me, because it shows
that humans are not the best species that inhabits the earth, but places emphasis
on the fact that each is on a nearly equal level. It also depicts “species” as the
subject of the sentence with humans as only a minor focus. By changing small
details such as this in everyday wordings, we are able to center on one aspect of
the sentence, normally being humans.
This response highlights several significant insights. First, the student reflects on Dunayer’s
point that language choice can construct conceptual separation between humans and
nonhumans; she also zeroes in on the notion that this can serve as a justification for
426
Dunayer, Animal Equality.
230
exploitative behavior toward other beings. She further touches 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 seen as equivalently important to each species. Finally, she
applies this knowledge of how language can structure perceptions of nonhumans by
analyzing Dunayer’s own 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 not
lost on this student, who reflects that making choices such as this can change the focus of the
sentence, which in dominant discourse is most often humans, and instead allow the attention
to shift so that humans are “only a minor focus.”
A classmate also points out the notion that language use can justify oppression,
stating, “Dunayer is trying to say that non-humans are not inferior to humans and that their
implied inferiority is merely an excuse to treat them less than that of a human.”
And another student comments on word choice as discussed by Dunayer, and on the
ways that language choice can make humans perceive themselves as apart from the rest of
the world:
Animal Liberation: Language and Liberation, by Joan Dunayer, makes an

interesting point regarding the diction that people use when describing their
actions. “We eat, but other animals feed. A woman is pregnant or nurses her
babies; a nonhuman mammal gestates or lactates. A dead human is a corpse, a
dead nonhuman a carcass or meat.” Dunayer is contrasting how the words that
people choose to use in their everyday speech “denies human-nonhuman
kinship”, and to me it seems as though when people talk like that it alienates
them from the world around them. It makes the world seem as resource, and
nothing more.
In his last sentence, he also relates this idea to the dominant metaphors for the natural world
discussed during weeks 3 and 4; he refers back to the metaphor that ‘the natural world is a
231
resource,’ and he suggests that this metaphor is reinforced through cultural discourse about
nonhumans.
In his response paper this student continues on to discuss Karen Warren,427 and to
link her work to Dunayer’s:
Ecofeminist Philosophy, by Karen Warren, talks about how “the language one
uses mirrors and reflects one’s concept of oneself and one’s world.” Essentially,
how people view the world is expressed in the diction that they choose to use in
everyday conversation. This reading exemplifies the idea stated in Animal
Liberation: Language and Liberation by furthering the claim that the words
people use separate themselves from the world around them. The language used
can be viewed as viewing animals as inferior beings. These readings show that
the line between viewing animals as important and as viewing them as nothing
but a resource is crossed daily in subtle ways, such as speech.
He makes a strong step here, discussing language as both expressive and constitutive of
cultural reality.
Indeed, comments on how language can influence perception, and therefore can shape
views of the natural world, appear as one of the strongest themes in the writings of my fall
semester students during weeks 5 and 6. One student states in a discussion of James Paul
Gee,428 “As shown in Gee’s Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses,
humans can both create meaning through words and those same words have an effect on the
world.” This sentiment is expanded on by a classmate:
…I never realized that many of the same things humans and animals do are
called different things, in a way that clearly shows animals as inferior to
humans. I have seen throughout all of these reading this week that our
language really shows how we feel towards the rest of our natural world,
women and everything else. It isn’t that our words are just mean but when you
really look into deeper meanings and look and how the make you feel, you can
kind of see that their is a very small difference that puts humans at the top and
427
Warren, Ecofeminist Philosophy.
428
Gee, Social Linguistics and Literacies.
232
men higher then women. It is not always very obvious and is almost always
overlooked but I think words and their “hidden meaning” really affect the way
humans perceive many different things.
Like her fellow student in his discussion of Warren, this student also touches on both the
expressive and constitutive powers of language, saying that it “shows how we feel towards
the rest of our natural world” and that it can “really affect the way humans perceive…
things.” Applying this notion, another student expounds:
This explains why some respect nature and others do not. Some look at a tree
with admiration and beauty while others see a tree as a way of making more
money and do not even consider the tree to have any other value whatsoever.
[Gee] proves that meaning is everything to this world.
Elsewhere a student makes a related point about the socially-constructed nature of the
definitions created by language, saying, “So, the labels we have given to women and the
natural world do not define who or what they are. They are there because we put them there.”
By stating that labels “are there because we put them there,” this student recognizes that
assumptions about the status and value of both human and nonhuman groups are not
inherently true, but have been created and established through human discourse.
Similar points are mirrored again in a classmate’s post:
It makes me question the way that we obtain knowledge, and furthermore

opinions on sensitive topics such as Global Awareness and Sustainability due to
a variety of phrasing techniques and/or language conveyed by those in power.
The major theme I wrote of last week regarding, “theories,” was that of how a
non-human’s body was viewed as a, “carcass,” where a dead human body was
a, “corpse.” Both were at one time living creatures, but the definitions which
are attached to them has shaped our perception of the entities as being superior
or inferior to one another.
233
In this we see another example of students thinking critically about the ways that knowledge
is formed in culture, about how discourse and definitions shape attitudes, about how this
influences cultural understandings of the value of nonhuman life, and about how it can also
generate dominant opinions about environmental and social issues, referred to by this student
as “Global Awareness and Sustainability.” This student also draws out another important
insight, emphasizing the role of “those in power” in establishing patterns of cultural
discourse. This adds another layer of critical analysis as to the power dynamics of discourse,
language, and media, and the impact of dominant groups and forces in orienting and
reproducing shared social knowledge.
Elsewhere, a student makes a related point, wondering about the entrenched nature of
these culturally-constructed views:
Women and men are called animalistic names when they are it is seen as
degrading and negative. I think that although we know that humans and animals
should be seen as equal, our culture has been created with certain views on the
natural world and it’s hard to change something that we’ve grown accustomed
to.
This student points out the difficulty in shifting the cultural momentum behind established
dominant views of the natural world.
As they continue through weeks 5 and 6, fall semester students further link these
insights to critiques of media, advertising, and popular culture. As one student summarizes,
“This week’s readings had a lot to do with pop culture, the media, and the environment and
how the media portrays the environment to the people. Our culture plays a big part on our
world views and our conceptions of the environment.” Critiquing culture and media then
emerges as another prominent theme in student writing during these weeks.
234
One student comments on the skewed view of the natural world often presented in
advertising:
Advertising is what allows a business to make itself known, however when

nature is depicted unrealistically, people forget that our environment is not as
perfect as our TV displays. It is important for people to make this distinction
from what is on the screen to real life.
As pointed out by this student, advertising that utilizes “unrealistic” and “perfect” images of
the natural world can provide the public with a false sense of the health of the environment,
or with a lack of understanding of its complexities.
Another student makes a similar point in his discussion of a piece by Julia Corbett429:
Another example that was used by Corbett is that of how many companies will
decide to use the Nature seems in commercials in order to appeal to consumers.
An interesting take on how we find ourselves intertwined with the Natural
World, regardless of how our priorities as society might see it.
This student draws a unique insight from Corbett’s argument, linking advertisers’ use of the
natural world to the notion that humans and the larger world are still “intertwined.” He
reflects that, despite our society’s tendency to disregard ecological wellbeing as a “priority,”
we still incorporate our surrounding ecosystem into the images and pursuits of our daily
lives, as advertisers do in their efforts “to appeal to consumers.”
Also reflecting on Julia Corbett, a classmate writes:
Advertising, asserts Corbett, “commodities the natural world and assigns value
to non-material goods” (146). This idea of “nature of a commodity” (146)
reduces the natural world to a slew of business opportunities. Unfortunately,
this is a popular view. Images of the natural world in popular culture often give
429
Julia Corbett, “A Faint Green Sell: Advertising and the Natural World,” in Enviropop: Studies in
Environmental Rhetoric and Popular Culture, ed. Mark Meister and Phyllis M Japp (Westport, CT: Praeger,
2002), 141-160.
235
individuals the false impression that they have close relationships with nature.
For many, this limited exposure is enough to satisfy their desires to experience
the natural world firsthand. Our society encourages “remote” or “virtual”
experiences and downplays the importance of “real” experiences. This week's
readings have given me a renewed excitement to get outside in my free time
next weekend. I want to experience something “real.”
In this post another interesting point is highlighted. This student suggests that images of the
natural world in advertising mislead people into feeling as though they have actually
experienced the natural world “firsthand.” Critiquing this cultural phenomenon, in which he
suggests that “remote” or “virtual” images of “nature” have replaced genuine interaction, the
student concludes by expressing his own increased desire to encounter the natural world in
person and “experience something ‘real.’”
Another fall semester student takes a different angle on analyzing media portrayals of
the natural world. In response to a viewing of a public service announcement by BP and two
online articles about BP’s attempts to control media coverage of the gulf oil spill, many fall
semester students sharply critique the actions and motivations of BP. This student does so
with a unique twist:
As we saw in class in the BP film, they do not let people see what is truly
happening because it likely conflicts with that which they have fed to the
public. In this, it matches a quote from Nightwish’s song, Bye Bye Beautiful,
“It’s not the tree that forsakes the flower, but the flower that forsakes the tree,”
(as found on http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Bye-Bye-Beautiful-
lyrics- Nightwish/95578411B5FB74444825733E00176143). In a way, BP is a
flower of man’s creation, and it is misleading us. It draws its power from the
public through various campaigns that depict a positive outlook. The tree,
which would be society, has no bearing on how the flower develops except that
it ensures the steady supply of nutrients. In this way, the American public sees
only the façade of the flower, and not the true intention behind the company.
236
This post contains an insightful critique of public complicity in supporting corporate
deception, which the student links to another text within popular culture, a song. The
wording of the lyrics she selects to draw her analogy – trees and flowers – also happen to be
images of the natural world, linking this analogy back to prior conversations on conceptual
metaphors.
In fact, the continuing exploration of metaphors and ways of viewing the natural
world arises as another theme during fall weeks 5 and 6. One student formulates a powerful
metaphor to discuss the gulf oil spill, commenting, “Some say that a little bit of oil will do
nothing to the ocean but the way I see it is that getting shot is a rather small wound in a large
body, but still has a drastic effect on your body.”
Taking up another facet, a fellow student reiterates a contention made by students in
prior weeks that our dominant worldview privileges human perspectives and denies the
experience and value of other beings. She states, “The world as we know it today functions
on a human-centric viewpoint, placing humans at the forefront of everything and
downplaying animals to appear as lesser beings.”
Another student discusses alternative options for viewing the world, arguing that they
would lead to more sustainable outcomes:
If we can all just view each other as a part of one another than it would be a lot
easier to treat each other with respect. If the factory workers can view the fish
and the sea creatures as living beings with hearts and brains and a purpose then
maybe they would think twice before dumping their waste into the sea.
Relating this notion of altering dominant views of the natural world back to the work of Gee,
a classmate comments “[Gee] didn’t address nature specifically, but… what he did address
could change how everyone views nature. That is where the environmentalists need to start,
237
at people’s perspectives and viewpoints.” Contained in this comment is an imagining of the
transformative potential of discourse, a belief in the possibility of reframing worldviews, and
an active contention that such reframing could not only contribute to changing behavior
toward the nonhuman world, but that it is a necessary starting place for enacting such change.
Other patterns seen in prior weeks that re-emerge during weeks 5 and 6 are those in
which students reflect on relationships between humans and nonhumans, compare the value
of human and nonhuman capabilities, and question possibilities for communication. In
statements like this, students re-vocalized their thoughts on these subjects:
This particular statement reiterates the fact that man is not the only species on
this earth that is capable of these powerful characteristics. Animals such as
dolphins are able to comprehend speech, emotions, and thought processes just
like man. Personally, I think that animals are just as unique and specials as
humans claim to be. They deserve respect and honor because we are not the
only inhibitors of this planet.
However, in weeks 5 and 6 students extend these observations and patterns of thought
further, linking them to their recent insights about discourse and language. Informed by
insights gained from the other readings and assignments, one student analyzes Aldo
Leopold’s prose:
The way he describes the forest sounds like he is describing a human

community. He addresses the trees as “neighbors” and say that the trees partake
in “gossip” …Leopold is obviously trying to tell people that nature isn’t as
strange and appalling as they wish to believe. Nature is like looking in the
mirror almost! The trees are just people interacting with the squirrels and the
deer who are just other types of people. The trees even convey emotions, just
like other nonhumans…. Leopold has taught his readers to love nature just like
you would love another human being because there really is no difference.
238
Tying together several key concepts, this student thoughtfully examines Leopold’s word
choice and points out the way that his descriptions of beings like trees, squirrels, and deer
reframes them not as objects but as communicative subjects, as feeling creatures just like
humans – even as “other types of people.” She highlights the similarities between human
societies and the natural world, suggesting that both are communities of interacting beings
and that “nature is like looking in a mirror.” In so doing she also presents a positive
alternative for viewing the natural world, as “another human being.” She suggests that by
seeing nonhumans simply as “other people” society could find love and connection for the
more-than-human world.
Fellow classmates make similar observations about Leopold’s writing, such as this
one:
…Leopold does such an amazing job of writing a “ human like” story for
something so simple as a pin tree. I really enjoyed and was astonished at how
he could talk about the tree growing in a way that made me feel so close to the
tree…. He is able to relate a tree growing to things such as “hard times” and “
open bank book”, which can represent success to tree with a “…three-foot
thrust skyward next spring” (pg. 88), just like it can represent success to
humans for a good next year. Leopold represents this pine tree as if it has its
own identity, own life, own problems, like it’s a human. I love the way he
refers to trees as having grandchildren; it’s just something I would never ever
think of when I thought of trees. It really makes you think about the every
single life all organisms in the natural world live. And maybe if we started to
think of trees and all other organisms the way Leopold does, we might find
ourselves starting to treat our natural environment in a much more sustainable
and acceptable way.
This student expresses surprise and pleasure at Leopold’s presentation of nonhumans as
beings with their “own identity, own life, own problems.” He comments that he would never
have thought of trees as having grandchildren or experiencing success, but that these
descriptions make him think about the lives lived by every other creature in the world. He
239
goes on to propose that this increased awareness of the struggles, experiences, and lives of
other beings has transformative potential, and that by shifting people’s thinking about beings
such as trees, behavior may change as well.
While these and other students argue for recognizing nonhumans as aware and
communicative beings, many of their classmates ponder another facet of this theme, the
privileging of human language and modes of understanding. One student declares, “When
words are part of the world, it may be wrongly assumed that all of the world understands the
meaning of these words. The world only understands our meanings when taught by us, as
words are a human creation….” In an exchange with a classmate, another student voices a
similar point:
When you asked why humans raise themselves over animals by our speech, I
can see your point about religion because of our past readings. Have you
thought maybe it is because humans have created language that animals cannot
partake in? Animals have therefore been oppressed easily since they cannot
speak to us the way we speak to each other in our human languages.
This student suggests that language has served to oppress nonhumans not only by
discursively constructing negative attitudes toward them, but by excluding them from the
sphere of consideration and participation as a consequence of their inability to engage in
human speech.
Relating this idea to Leopold’s writing, a fellow student ponders what is lost as a
result of humankind’s inability to recognize the meaningful communication of other species.
He states, “It is crazy to think about how trees can hold so much information, yet most
humans cannot extract this kind of information from trees.”
A classmate expresses a similar idea:
240
In Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac, Leopold states “The chitchat of the
woods is sometimes hard to translate,” (p90). This could be interpreted as
humans having a distance from nature that has created a near chasm. People
often don’t put in the effort to “ translate” what the woods and nature is saying
because it isn’t convenient for them to do so.
Crafting an insight strikingly similar to those put forth by authors like David Abram (whom
students are not assigned to read during this course), this student casts nonhuman modes of
communication as other languages that humans do not “put in the effort to ‘translate.’”
This insight offers an effective summation of the patterns of thinking evoked in my
fall students during weeks 5 and 6, as it demonstrates creative and critical awareness of the
cultural force, nuanced influence, and myriad forms of language, discourse, and
communication. As seen in the previous examples, students make impressive use of this new
awareness, applying it to many of the questions they had already begun to wrestle with in
previous weeks and generating deeper and more theoretically-informed insights.
In the writings of my spring semester students during these weeks I again found
remarkable parallels to the themes that arose in the fall. Like the fall, a number of students
delve deeply into the arguments made by Joan Dunayer. One writes:
“Animal Equality” also made some interesting points about how nonhumans
are presented and discussed in public discourse. I had never heard of the term
“speciesism” before…. Dunayer gives this term the same seriousness and
gravity as sexism and racism…. speciesism is so subconscious, so inbred in our
minds and in our language; we do not even recognize it.
Another student also expresses that he had not previously recognized instances of linguistic
species bias at work:
241
In Animal Equality, the first major idea is “Lesser Beings” the general idea is
that animals are not lesser beings, it is simply our ways of talking about animals
and referring to them. For example we use terms like, “jackass” “ birdbrain”
and “goose” to describe people, but what we may not think about is how we are
negatively stereotyping animals. I personally never gave it a second thought. I
was aware that words carry various meanings and feelings yet I never thought
of the negative references that I have been using. This also relates to the
metaphors of the mind that we talked about a few weeks back (I like how
everything we talk about in class relates) we use relationships that our minds
have already created to learn and understand new ones. Another example from
this section is the use of quotations when describing a non-human’s emotions, I
remember doing this countless times in high school, but never really gave any
thought to how it subtly degrades the feelings of animals. These examples were
two very good examples of how our culture views animals and non-humans as
lesser life forms. Another idea that I liked from this reading was the reading of
self justification, again, I was newly aware of the human ability to justify
his/her actions to avoid guilt, shame, or remorse but again it did not cross my
mind that we do the same thing I order to justify our treatment of animals. In a
way the way humans treat non-humans it almost becomes necessary to create a
culture in which we either accept of ignore this pandemic. If we were to still
treat animals the way we do (or selected people in that job field) while being
aware of the cruelty that the animals go through either the persons committing
such acts would be punished or we would simply go mad because there is no
real reasoning behind our actions. I really enjoyed how these readings take
ideas that I have applied to my own personal life and expand on them and allow
me to view them on a larger scale.
This post weaves together several important concepts. In it, the student discusses linguistic
practices that reproduce disregard for nonhumans, exclaiming that he had never before given
them “a second thought.” He also links these practices to his recently-forged understanding
of conceptual metaphor, stating that “we use relationships that our minds have already
created to learn and understand new ones,” and that, as such, by linguistically associating
negative terms with nonhumans we are mapping out a set of assumptions about nonhumans
as less worthy of consideration, as “lesser life forms.” He then goes on to highlight the point
that framing nonhumans as “lesser beings” provides a justification for exploitation. He
critiques this behavior, suggesting that it serves to obscure moral inconsistencies in human
242
society that would otherwise lead us to prosecute those who harm nonhumans or to “simply
go mad” in the face of our own unwarranted injustices. In closing he makes another
interesting personal observation, mentioning that he had considered similar phenomena in his
own life in relation to human groups, but that he had not previously applied his reflections to
an examination of the treatment of nonhumans. In this we see another expansion of
awareness about how oppression is carried out against both humans and nonhumans.
Other spring semester students make connections between the oppression of humans
and nonhumans as well, especially as they consider the writings of Karen Warren on
ecofeminism. One student comments:
The other reading I personally found interesting was “Ecofeminist Philosophy”

by Karen J. Waren. I had no idea what the title was about before I read the
article and I did not see why a female’s perspective on the environment would
be so different than a male’s. After reading about all of the examples there are
of women being seen as inferior in our patriarchal culture, I realized that there
is this subordinate status in society and I myself am a part of it. Waren argues
that “only by listening to the perspectives of ‘those at the bottom of social
heirarchies’ can one begin to see alternative ways of viewing an environmental
problem” (Waren 34). It is great that ecofeminists think about nature as an
“active subject” and not only as an object or resource, and I think that everyone
should engage in the same sort of “conversation” with nature.
In her post this student not only remarks on her increased knowledge of the relationship
between gender bias and species bias, she also refers back to metaphors about the natural
world discussed in prior weeks, and reiterates the possibility of replacing metaphors that
frame the natural world as an “object or resource” with ones that frame it, in Warren’s term,
as an “active subject.” Expanding on this notion of the active subject, this student proposes
viewing the nonhuman world as communicative, not as an isolated subject but as one we
should engage in “conversation.”
243
In a reply to this post, a classmate responds:
The second reading was a favorite as well. I wrote about this article too. I also
never realized how nature is looked at as inferior just as women are sometimes.
This is all because we live in what is called a patriarchal culture, and many of
the words used to describe nature and women at that, are sometimes
demoralizing. This opened my eyes and made me realize that we need to
change our relationship with nature, or at least how we look at it.
Suggesting that the piece “opened her eyes,” this student also emphasizes the importance of
changing dominant views of the natural world. Another student ponders the connection
between biased views and large-scale behavior:
I love how Ecofeminist demonstrates the patriarichy involved in our everyday

vocabulary and how we relate to the natural world. I wonder if this is why
mankind thinks they can do whatever they please to ‘mother nature,’ because
she’s a feminine figure.
In another post, a classmate links Warren’s argument to the creation myths read during
weeks 3 and 4:
Warren does an excellent job of demonstrating the patriarchal nature of our

culture in relation to women and nature by examining Christian traditions,
Greek mythology, and other literary works. In retrospect, many of the creation
myths we read a few weeks ago can also be related to this long-standing
patriarchal nature of human society. Many of the creation stories included some
kind of hierarchy where man was less than God, woman less than man, animals
less than woman, and finally nature at the bottom of the totem pole. We only
proliferate this twisted ideal every time we use words like chicks, b#tches,
social butterflies, and other slang to describe a female. The fact is that so much
of this vocabulary is so deeply embedded into our culture and literature that it
has become second nature to use and very few are aware of discriminatory
meanings behind it.
Like other posts, this one also points out the “deeply embedded” state of dominant attitudes
toward othered groups, as the student suggests that bias has become naturalized within
244
discourse and cultural narratives and that very few people are cognizant of the oppressive
implications of the language they employ.
As in the fall, spring semester students also begin making strong critiques of the
media and advertising. As one student declares, “Much of today’s pop culture and media
influences our outlook on the natural world and our role in it.” This essential concept,
expressed so concisely here, appears in the writing of many other spring students, too. One
states, “It is apparent by these two articles that much of what we believe about the
environment is socially constructed through media outlets that use many avenues to distort
the lens in which we view nature and our world through.”
Spring semester students demonstrate in myriad examples the extent to which they
are beginning to internalize this concept and apply it to critical analysis of society. One
writes, in reply to a classmate’s post about news stories describing efforts to control media
coverage of the gulf oil spill:
I personally think that the media is a double edged sword. We (in some ways)
need the media to educate us and update us on the truth so we can make
informed decisions. However at the same time we are trusting someone usually
a stranger to interpret the information before it is given to us. And most of the
time their opinion influences ours. In the case of these two articles I feel like its
ridiculous that the government and a private company are given the right to take
away our rights. Like you said it’s the Ocean, no one owns it, especially not we
humans. So to have one group of people deny another group any type of access
to the beach/gulf/ocean is crazy. I really hope that sometime soon the majority
of people learn the truth and act to fix the many problems in our society. In fact,
why not start with us….
Ending on a powerful note of agency, the student proposes that she, her classmates, perhaps
even her generation, begin a process of transformation that would start with fuller
understanding of the workings and influence of media.
245
Another student writes passionately about the influence of media, advertising, and the
public discourse of large corporations:
We, as Americans, have become comfortable with trusting massive

corporations to provide us with all the products necessary to life a “comfortable
life” and don’t feel the need to research background information on what we
buy, let alone read labels. Trusting these companies is like trusting a friend who
seems perfectly nice on the surface but who keeps trying to get you to do things
you don’t really want to do (and he's got a convincing smile). If you really
thought out it, he keeps messing with other kids and lying to your face about it,
and hmm maybe his smile is actually a little fake and he has bad teeth and
maybe he’s not a friend at all and you better stay away from him.
Who knows though? Perhaps advertisers have our best interests and save us the
trouble of having to decide what we want for ourselves. After all, life is easier
this way.
Wielding an effectively thick layer of sarcasm at the end, she censures uncritical compliance
with media messages, arguing that corporations and advertisers do not make choices for the
public good and that individuals should actively resist their influence.
In another post a student states again the need to critically examine advertising:
Giant corporations also hide behind the image of the “family farm.” One would
be hard-pressed to find a package of meat in a grocery store that didn’t have a
picture of a scenic farm on the front. It is our job, if for no other reason than the
fact that we consume this meat, to peel back these layers and find out what we
are truly eating and where it is truly coming from.
And a fellow student applies this critical analysis of advertising to a discussion of an article
by Cathy Glenn430:
Glenn makes some truly fascinating commentary on advertisements in which

animals speak to consumers. These advertisements are actually quite sick. They
depict animals happily grazing and telling consumers to “eat their cheese” and
“buy their meat.” Animals are happily selling their own flesh and blood to
430
Glenn, “Constructing Consumables and Consent.”
246
Americans. It is the epitome of a capitalistic society to ignore any strange and
alarming connotations these commercials imply for the mere desire to sell
product. These animals have suffered terrible lives and deaths to sit on our
dinner plates but all we see are cartoon versions telling us that they’re happy to
do us this service. This got me thinking about a Chick-fil-A commercial in
which cows tell consumers to “eat mor chikin.” It disturbed me that companies
are portraying cows as they plot ways to get people buy more chicken
sandwiches. Are cows really interested in convincing us to devour another
species?
This post not only demonstrates a thoughtful analysis of advertising strategies, it also
integrates a strong awareness of the perspectives and lives of nonhumans, who, as the student
points out, are most likely not interested in convincing humans to buy their “flesh and blood”
or to consume the flesh of any other species.
Taking up a related angle, another student writes a powerful analysis of the possible
ulterior motives of corporate CEO’s in their portrayals of environmental issues and
environmental advocates:
Just as in sexism, racism, and speciesism, who’s most likely to come up with a
derogatory or dismissive attitude toward a being or idea? Odds are, those who
stand to benefit most from the oppression, silencing, or subjugation of that
being or idea. And in this case, nobody stands to gain more from discouraging
environmental awareness than the big names like Exxon, Shell, Ford, and
Chevron. People whose livelihoods depend on carelessness toward the
environment, naturally, are going to be the loudest ridiculers of
environmentalists, and the strongest foes in the struggle for environmental
legislation…. It is for this exact reason that big corporations, who seek to
privately own and exploit “the commons” would seek to dismiss this idea. The
whole point in belittling environmentalism is to minimize public interest in the
fate of the environment. The less people care what happens to the environment,
the less they feel personally involved with the natural world, the easier it
becomes to “drill, baby, drill!” …Just like racism is a good business policy for
slave owners, derision for environmentalists is good business policy for Exxon
CEO’s.
247
As in the previous post, this stringent critique demonstrates a combination of new
understandings linked with insights gained in prior weeks. Here the student mixes
revelations about the role of public discourse in shaping cultural attitudes with concepts
raised during weeks 3 and 4 about parallels between human and nonhuman oppression.
In another post a student re-raises the notion of links between human and nonhuman
oppression as well:
I like this because i feel that the author is trying to explain his point of view to
us readers that there is still this issue of humans thinking less of nonhumans or
even of themselves. We have been over this before and people really need to
think of animals like they think of themselves or at least not think of them
badly, but rather equally.
In this again is reaffirmation of the importance of relating to nonhumans, and an expression
of the possibility, also raised in the fall, that humans should think of nonhumans “like they
think of themselves.”
Another student raises a similar point to the above posts, questioning who benefits
from hierarchical categorizations of beings:
…the categories of race as we know them today were created to assuage the
guilt of the oppressor. How does someone justify their vile, savage, and utterly
heartless treatment of another living being that can feel pain and emotions?
Usually by claiming Divine imperative, or by creating categories: “this category
is inferior, and does not deserve the same as my category.”
Like the discussion of the motives of CEO’s, this student applies previously discussed
parallels between human and nonhuman oppression, making a strong contention that
assigned definitions of inferiority actually serve to justify and maintain established power
structures in society, authorizing the actions of “the oppressor.”
248
In their week 5 and 6 posts spring semester students also continue to examine
different frameworks for viewing the natural world and the implications of these frameworks.
One comments:
The author also talks about the language that is used to describe nature to the
public. For example, when the public thinks of nature, they think of wilderness,
or the wild, things that aren’t seen to be associated with us when it is actually
more apart of us than we thought.
In this examination of the cultural construct of “wilderness” the student has picked up on a
sophisticated point, that by linguistically and conceptually isolating the nonhuman world into
the category of “the wild,” we effectively frame it as isolated from, and unrelated to, human
life.
A classmate makes another nuanced linguistic and cultural observation inspired by
another assigned author:
In the Mühlhäusler reading it speaks of the etymological meaning of money and

how if trace back far enough it goes to the meaning flock or cattle. This shows
how much we perceive animals as property. And it still hasn’t changed today.
We still buy cows, pigs and more. Look at the most common bought animals
the cat and the dog. We say we adopt them to make their lives better, more
comfortable, but in the end that really isn’t usually the case. We get these
animals to satisfy our own interests and curiosity. We get them for our own
personal enjoyment or ease.
Demonstrating again an understanding of linguistic influence on cultural attitudes, this
student also contests the notion of ownership of other species and goes even further by
problematizing dominant contemporary attitudes toward companion animals such as cats and
dogs.
249
Another theme that emerges in the writing of spring students during these weeks, as it
did in the fall, is a continued examination of similarities and relationships between humans
and nonhumans. One student makes a comment reflecting again on the value of nonhuman
life and relating the insight to an in-class discussion about the conceptual implications of
using the personal pronouns ‘she’ or ‘he,’ as opposed to ‘it,’ when discussing nonhumans.
She writes, “maybe there is more to trees than we think about and it is possible that they
deserve more credit and respect for being complex living organisms? Like how we talked
about the cats and other animals in class using “he/she”?”
Recapturing another related thread, spring semester students also continue to ponder
possible communication between humans and nonhumans. Linking this line of inquiry to the
subject of media, one student formulates a striking observation:
The author was able to tell a complete story about the humble trees because he
had patience and made an attempt to understand the trees for what they were.
He sought out the natural media. Which is being forgotten about because of
electronic media. Little things like moss growing on trees and birds flying
south, and the air getting moist before a storm its all natures way of talking to
us, we just have to listen. We need to learn to interpret things for ourselves and
limit our ignorance.
Although the course materials do not include any readings by David Abram and I do not at
any point in the semester summarize Abram’s arguments, in both the fall and spring
semesters I find students developing personal insights that are notably similar to suppositions
made by Abram and other environmental philosophers. Here a student describes the sorts of
meaning available in the nonhuman world as a type of “media,” one that has been supplanted
by “electronic media.” He argues that the nonhuman world “talks to us” through “little
250
things like moss growing on tress and birds flying south,” and that it is possible to learn to
understand the communicative expressions of nonhumans, “we just have to listen.”
Examining student writing from weeks 5 and 6, I am gratified and impressed by the
complex insights advanced by both fall and spring semester students. Both groups
demonstrate a remarkable grasp of the conceptual ramifications of discourse and media on
attitudes toward the nonhuman world, as well as a strong capacity for critical examination of
cultural norms, a desire to question and contest bias against nonhumans, and a continued
eagerness for greater understanding and communication between humans and the more-than-
human world.
Weeks 7-8: Place and Space, or Where We Live
In weeks 7 and 8, students engage in readings and viewings that reflect on the value
of sense of place, as well as histories and critiques of the development of suburban sprawl,
and comparisons between urban and suburban modes of design. Students also read about the
complexities of forest ecology and about instances of nonhuman population decline as a
result of habitat loss. In addition, during these weeks student begin presenting their own
digital stories about a place in the natural world that is of significance of them. For this
assignment, I ask students to consider the history of the place; its meaning and value for
those who use it, both human and nonhuman; any personal memories and experiences that
occurred there; and any threats the place may be facing as a result of ecological degradation
or other human actions. Students present their digital stories in class with photographs or
video footage as well as narration, and they reflect on the bonds they have forged with these
places and why.
251
Perhaps not surprisingly, in weeks 7 and 8 two of the major themes that emerge in
student writing are reflections on bonds with place and on urban and suburban development.
Students also continue to develop their thinking about metaphors, worldviews, and
frameworks for viewing the natural world, and about the dynamics, issues, and possibilities
for relating to nonhumans.
In their weekly response papers during weeks 7 and 8, fall semester students
frequently demonstrate thinking about the experience and value of forming bonds with a
particular place or with the land in general. Discussing a poem by George Ella Lyon, one
student writes:
The most interesting aspect of this poem to me was the author’s close
relationship with the natural world. In this first stanza, Lyon exclaims “I am
from the forsythia bush, the Dutch elm whose long gone limbs I remember as if
they were my own.” I feel that this is something that we can all relate to.
Everyone has that one tree that they cherish from their childhood; the tree that
they spent hours climbing and lounging beneath. Often, with age, we forget
these cherished objects from the natural world. Even the most vocal
conservatives surely enjoyed some aspect of nature as a child. To Lyon, that
tree is as much engrained in his existence as the “fudge and eyeglasses” that he
enjoyed as a child. This is a refreshing view in our economic based society.
What would the world be like if we viewed the world's problems from the
perspective of a child? Just because we have “grown up” does not mean that we
are wise.
This student suggests that connection to the natural world is potentially a universal
experience, which in some cases is simply forgotten with age. Other fall semester students
offer examples of such connections, recollecting their own childhood encounters with the
nonhuman world. One student relates:
252
Going through this weeks readings made me reminisce the times I had as kid,
playing with my Tonka trucks and Hot-Wheels cars. I remember the times
where each root that protruded from the ground served as an obstacle for my
toys and how each patch of grass was like a forest to explore with my GI Joe
truck. I never really realized how well I knew the texture and composition of
the ground. Nowadays, grass is merely a soft surface to play football on and
mud is something to avoid when you have new shoes on.
He notes that the course materials have led him to realize how well he “knew the texture and
composition of the ground,” and how different his relationship to it was then than it is now.
Later in his post, referencing a piece in which Alice Walker describes her attachment to a
particular tree and her feelings about its loss,431 this student recalls other memories:
This reading reminded me of the two large apple trees that lined our front yard
in the house I grew up in. The tree grew small delicious yellow apples and I
remember the good times I had playing in the branches. The trees were an
epicenter for lots of animal life and I loved watching the squirrels take their
share of the fruit. However, I recently drove past my old house a few weeks ago
and noticed the front yard plain, empty, and lifeless. The reserved spot for the
trees had been replaced with bright green, freshly fertilized grass. I felt
something heavy in my stomach and a void had been clearly punched in my
heart. Although I do not feel this sort of connection with any particular tree
very often, I was heartbroken to see the tree that I grew up around replaced so
easily. I must say that I really do understand the way Alice Walker felt about
her tree.
Many classmates comment that they have similar memories of childhood backyards and
special trees.
Others say they never experienced as strong a bond with a tree, but they remain struck
by the possibility of such attachment. In reference to Alice Walker, another student states:
The line in the poem that stuck out the most to me was, “when I lost you, a part
of me died.” (line 5). Her overall attitude and feelings towards the tree are
431
Alice Walker, “The Place Where I Was Born,” in Reading the Environment, ed. Melissa Walker, 1st ed.
(New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 94-98.
253
surprising because most people don’t have that kind of attachment to nature,
and it’s interesting to see it from her point of view.
In a post discussing Terry Tempest Williams432 we find a sentiment related to the
contention voiced above that everyone has experienced some attachment to the natural world.
However, this student takes a different angle, arguing that not all people have felt this
attachment but that all have the capacity to feel it:
I really liked the line, “We call out—and the land calls back.” (pg. 82). This is
such a powerful line, which really speaks to your inner being. It makes you feel
as if nature is someone you need or wan…. After reading these lines you just
feeling the need to embrace nature in a way that makes you feel like you are
one with your surroundings. It is absolutely natural to love nature and
something I feel like all humans should have in common. Unfortunately we do
not and in this reading I feel like William’s is saying that we all should and
maybe do have a hidden love for nature.
Perhaps, according to this student, what is universal is the need and desire to love the natural
world, the longing to “feel like you are one with your surroundings.”
A classmate takes yet another angle on considering connection. She reflects in
reference to George Ella Lyon433:
…she relates “I am from the dirt under the back porch,” and also “...leaf-fall
from the family tree.” To describe livelihood and connection between things,
we often use nature language, referencing trees and things connected to them,
such as the dirt. It’s a reference also to the creation theory stated in Genesis in
which God created humans out of the earth and breathed the breath of life into
them.
This post demonstrates critical awareness of language cultivated during previous weeks, and
also links these ideas to the prior discussion of religion and worldviews.
432
Terry Tempest Williams, An Unspoken Hunger: Stories from the Field (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994).
433
George Ella Lyon, “Where I’m From,” in United States of Poetry, ed. Joshua Blum, Bob Holman, and Mark
Pellington (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 22-23.
254
Reflecting another theme that emerges during weeks 7 and 8, a number of students
comment on information they have gained from the readings about sprawl, urban and
suburban development, and habitat destruction. One student ponders:
It is amazing how much a landscape can change in just a few years. What once
was a pretty rural neighborhood with farms all around us has now been
transformed into a upper middle class suburban neighborhood. I believe that if
the automobile was not invented, people would live closer to their workplace in
the city and leave the rural areas to rest. Suburban neighborhoods may not have
even existed.
In this post we see the student imagining a vastly different world in which cars and suburban
neighborhoods do not exist. Such creative thinking about alternative ways to structure
human life allow students to more effectively critique the way it is currently structured, as
well as to believe there are other possibilities for the future.
Upon completing the readings for weeks 7 and 8, many students comment that they
had been unaware of the negative environmental impact of suburban sprawl. In an example
of this sort of statement, one student writes:
The one myth I had about suburban sprawl was debunked in this reading as
well, I thought it would have been more cost effective and more
environmentally conscious then a huge city with massive amounts of pollution
but in reality it is even worse for the environment that everyone is having to
drive everywhere from the grocery store to the gym.
Students also begin linking suburban sprawl and human construction and
development to the loss of habitat for other species. Making this realization, one student
declares, “It is sad that so many amazing animals are being killed because humans need
bigger homes and more space. Humans are greedy and are taking all the space on the planet
and they refuse to share.”
255
Voicing a similar opinion, a classmate states, “We think that we are the superior
species and that we can live anywhere we choose to without concerning nonhuman existence
and their niche in the ‘wilderness.’” Embedded in this brief comment is not only a critique of
human attitudes and behavior, but a revisiting of the notion of “wilderness” as a cultural
construct. During these weeks a number of other students pick up on this concept of
wilderness as well. Quoting William Cronon434 and referencing an article about decreasing
tiger populations, one student expounds:
“Wilderness had once been the antithesis of all that was orderly and good- it
had been the darkness, one might say, on the far side of the garden wall...” (Pg
5) It does not seem like the wilderness is that dark, elusive place anymore. As
people move in, the animals move out (like the tigers, but instead of “moving
out”, they can’t survive). So, it is like humans are the darkness, taking over
everything and not thinking about the consequences and the wilderness is just
another place.
In this post she combines an analysis of human development and resulting habitat loss with a
creative twist on the framework of wilderness as “the darkness.” She flips the roles and
describes humans as the darkness, further suggesting that wilderness, in contemporary
society, may no longer be considered frightening or dangerous, but instead it is most
commonly not considered at all, disregarded as unimportant, “just another place.”
Fellow students further reflect on the construct of ‘wilderness’ as something isolated
from, perhaps even hostile to, human life. In the process they show continued thinking about
how society views the natural world and about the implications of these perceptual
frameworks. Another student commenting on Cronon writes:
…religious beliefs… did not show nature as something marvelous, but as

something evil and to be feared. In the religious story of Exodus, it was said
434
Cronon, Uncommon Ground.
256
that in wilderness “Christ as struggled with the devil and endured his
temptation,” saying that dark temptations linger in wilderness, and that Satan
also used wilderness as his playground. Wilderness became a place that “one
came only against one’s will, and always in fear and trembling” as shown by
the story of how Adam and Eve came into the “wilderness” that people feared.
People saw wilderness as something to be “reclaimed,” and treated nature as
that: something to own. It seems that the hatred of nature was instilled in people
very early in many people’s lives as Christianity is one of the three most
followed religions with about 2.1 billion followers; therefore, if 2.1 billion
people believe wilderness is to be owned, then it doesn’t seem like there will be
a significant number of people to make a difference in environmental
awareness.”
A classmate replies to this post by saying:
I also wrote about about “The trouble with Wilderness” and like [Joe] used the
quote from page 70 the refers to how the wilderness, in past years was thought
of as evil and unwanted. We both seem to agree that that part of the reading
really stuck out to us and really got us thinking about how people felt towards
the wilderness then and now. I also liked what he said about Christianity and
the following they have and how that may cause a significant amount of people
to treat nature as nothing more the property.
These posts draw further connections between the potential conceptual influence of religion
as well as the consequences of the negative view generated by this culturally constructed idea
of ‘wilderness.’ The latter post also ties these insights into prior conversations about
metaphors for the natural world, suggesting that particular religious viewpoints may
encourage or reinforce use of a metaphor that frames the natural world as property.
Other students also analyze the idea of ‘wilderness.’ One reflects:
With this image of wilderness, we are able to distance ourselves from it and to
think of it in a way that almost doesn’t affect us. It’s easier to cut down trees,
throw waste away, and continue our lifestyle when we don’t think it’s affecting
us in any direct way.
257
Later a classmate makes a similar observation about the consequences of this view of
‘wilderness,’ writing, “If the wilderness is something you fear and something you want
nothing to do with, why have it around? Why not get rid of the wilderness and make
everything ‘civil’ and ‘structured’?”
Taking up a different angle on views of the natural world while discussing Terry
Tempest Williams, one student proposes an alternative view that, he suggests, would result in
feelings of solidarity and communion with the larger world. He states, “I also enjoyed the
idea that an echo is ‘living being that responds to you as you shout out to the world whatever
it is you are feeling.’ If we view nature in this way, we rarely feel alone, even in isolation
from society.”
Other students share more observations about current cultural perceptions of the
natural world. In response to a passage tracing the life of a tree, a student reflects:
It, again, is how we look at the tree. We see the tree as its appearance, and do
not see the things that live inside of it or the processes that happen…. Although
we’ve examined trees in a scientific aspect, it doesn’t show anything real to us.
We don’t comprehend it as what happens within the tree, but what happens to
the tree.
The student points out that viewing the tree through one framework leads to it being
perceived as object, whereas viewing the tree differently could allow people to see it as an
experiencing and complex subject.
In another post, a fellow student refers back to a metaphor discussed previously:
…the bigger picture here is that people need to stop looking at nature as a
stockpile of resources because nature not only is beautiful but nature has a soul
and Leopold is trying to describe nature’s soul to his readers by describing his
own encounters and experiences with the natural world.
258
This student contests the common metaphor ‘the natural world is a stockpile of resources,’
arguing that this view of the world is faulty. As an alternative, she suggests viewing nature
as having a “soul.” Such a view not only implies fundamental similarities between humans
and the nonhuman world, it also suggests that the natural world has innate value and perhaps
divinity. Additionally, in her statements about Leopold’s writing this student implies that it
is possible to ‘get to know’ the soul of the natural world by engaging in direct encounters,
much as one would get to know another person by interacting with them.
One of the intertwined themes raised in the above post is a revisiting of the question
of similarities between humans and nonhumans. In a number of comments during weeks 7
and 8, other fall students continue to reexamine this subject as well. Many of these
comments arise during discussions of a selection from Aldo Leopold.435 One student
confesses:
I would have never thought like this with regards to a tree but after reading this
story and specifically these lines it definitely opened my eyes and would have
to completely agree with what Leopold wrote. “…our saw was biting its way,
stroke by stroke, decade by decade, into the chronology of a lifetime, written in
concentric annual rings of good oak.” (pg. 10) This quote really makes you
think about and shows you that there is so much more t there hen just a tree.
There is, like humans, a history with anguish and joy, success and failure. It
really shows that there is a lot similarities and connections between humans and
non-humans. There was such a long and rich history that the oak tree being
talked about shared and it was really cool to think about it in that way.
These patterns of thought are evoked not only by the assigned readings, but by classmates’
observations as well. One student replies to the above post by stating:
I liked how you said, “It really shows that there is a lot similarities and
connections between humans and non-humans.” When I was reading this
piece and writing about it, this never crossed my mind, but it couldn’t be truer.
435
Leopold, A Sand County Almanac.
259
The tree is just like a human; it breathes, lives, sees things around it change,
goes through change itself, and dies. People should really think about this when
viewing the natural world….
In other posts students comment on Leopold as well, often making similar observations that
humans are not the only beings who perceive and experience the processes and events of life
and death. Student comments suggest that acknowledging the perspective of beings like trees
allows one to view these creatures as living beings in their own right. One student
demonstrates this change in viewpoint:
This whole passage has a perspective that few people would have every thought
of. It brings the tree to life and allows us to see all that it has witnessed over its
lifetime. The life of the tree also seems much longer when we see all the things
that it has witnessed.
For this student, imagining the experiences of the tree in Leopold’s writing “brings the tree to
life.” In his post he refers to the tree as ‘witnessing’ events throughout its life, indicating that
he is thinking of the tree as a sensing being. By stating that “the life of the tree also seems
longer when we see all the things that it has witnessed,” he suggests a newfound respect for
the significance and scope of a tree’s life.
A fellow student also explores the notion of imagining what a tree has gone through
in its life:
I understand what Leopold is saying. A person who cuts their own wood and
builds their own fire with that wood is kind of closer to what that tree- now-
wood went through and can understand what it was like for the tree unlike
someone who gets their heat from a furnace.
Another student voices an interesting insight about the accumulated knowledge concentrated
into a single tree, writing, “The tree is full of the history that happened to it and the land/ area
260
around it. So, it could be said that people who make their own fires are kind of historians in a
way.”
In response to another reading a classmate states:
The description of the seeds growing, reminds me that even though they may be
different, plants have growth processes just like humans. I liked how the writer
talked about how a tree is a part of a community, and that a tree is a community
within itself because of the roots, stem, branches, needles, cones, and bark.
Every part of the tree has it’s own job to help maintain the health of the tree.
Even though a tree may seem like simple wood and leaves to us, there are many
components to it just like in a human body.
Here the tree is compared to both body and community, two human systems to which people
can easily relate. In this way the student suggests again that humans and nonhumans have
more in common than dominant attitudes acknowledge.
Approaching the topic of human-nonhuman similarities is a different way, one
student makes a comment about tigers in reply to a classmate’s post discussing an article on
declining tiger populations. He reacts to his classmate by stating:
Also on the topic of tigers [John] says “Tigers are ferocious and dangerous
creatures, this cannot be denied” I can’t really agree with that, maybe if we
looked at it from, ANY nonhuman point of view, we might say that humans are
ferocious and dangerous creatures, this cannot be denied. I truly believe that
this statement might have more truth to it then if we replaced humans with
tigers.
Here is both an insightful consideration of nonhuman perspectives, a contestation of norms of
opinion about nonhumans, such as “tigers are ferocious creatures,” and an incisive critique of
human behavior.
In another post a student considers the perspectives of nonhumans while also re-
raising the question of culturally constructed boundaries between humans and nonhumans:
261
Where is the line that it’s appropriate to divide what is ‘ours’ and what is
‘theirs,’ when they have no true way of their own to claim it? That’s just
something to think about when we think about lives and how they connect to, or
don’t connect to, nature and other organisms/things.
This student contends that divisions between “ours” and “theirs” are not only arbitrary, but
perhaps unjust as well.
Also commenting on these divisions, a classmate states, “The main thing that humans
need to understand is that nonhumans, especially the rooted population, have no sense of
boundaries and do not follow those that humans have set.” In addition to highlighting the
viewpoints of nonhumans, who do not know or recognize human-created boundaries, rules,
or definitions, this student also makes another striking move here, by using the term “rooted
population.” This inventive phrase takes up the notion of relanguaging discussed during
weeks 5 and 6 and puts it into effective practice, conveying an image of plants as an interest
group, a collective “population” of fellow beings who simply live differently, experiencing
life as “rooted” beings.
Spring semester students again discuss similar themes to those of the fall in their
writing during weeks 7 and 8. One of the strongest patterns revealed in spring response
papers is that of students reflecting on bonds with a particular place in the natural world, or
with the land in general. A number of students comment on the importance of such bonds,
often suggesting that modern society no longer offers ready opportunities to forge them. One
student writes:
When emotional ties are established to any place the intrinsic value of nature to
mankind instantly increases. I believe that these emotional ties are crucial to
establish in order to gain true appreciation of nature. As the increase of
262
technology changes our way of life and landscape, we must remember how
important it is to make these ‘bonds’ with the natural world.
I was shocked to hear that the kids my sister babysit rarely play outside and get
easily ‘bored’ playing outside. Some of the best memories of growing up were
outside, playing with other kids, using our imagination to turn trees into
fortresses and stones into jewels. With less and less American’s exploring the
great outdoors, it makes me worry about future generations to come. Will this
lack of bonding with nature in turn fuel the abuse and overuse of the
environment?
In reply to this post, a classmate responds:
I have the same exact reaction to the fact that kids these days do not spend
enough quality time outside. I watch my younger sisters sit inside and text and
get on facebook rather than go outside and explore and I wonder how this kind
of childhood is going to shape their generation. Those younger ages are where
imagination begins and if kids do not make those memorable experiences early
on then how are they supposed to find the value in nature and learn to love their
surroundings and grow as people? I feel like the natural world can be seen as a
real living being and if you never get to know that being, then you will have no
connection to it and therefore have no desire to protect it from harm, and that is
a scary thought.
Raising metaphors of the natural world as a “living being” and arguing for the importance of
forming personal attachments and “getting to know that being,” these students lament
cultural shifts toward a focus on technology and human-made creations and away from direct
experience with the nonhuman world. Another student ponders what may have led to this
shift away from direction interaction:
Not all of us grow up on a farm, for starters. The idea of the natural world as
being important, or capable of sheltering us, maybe even taking care of us,
comes from living a lifestyle that sees the direct results of our relationship with
the Earth. This is an era that is long past for much of the contemporary world.
For people whose lives and livelihoods depended directly, visibly on being in
touch with the patterns of nature, nature was of course treated more reverently.
263
A classmate ponders the loss of this connection in reference to a piece by Gary Snyder,436
linking it to her own personal memories:
…most people in modern day America lack this true “home” that most of
human time experienced…. For me, that passage brings vivid images of the
backyard of 719 Washington Ave into my mind. I can see the trails of dirt
under the wooden swing-set my dad made, the cracks in the patio, the thick
roots sticking out above the ground next to the front steps. It’s all there, sharply
visible when I close my eyes, just as comforting as Snyder promises.
For another student, personal reflections on connection – or lack of connection – to place are
evoked by Terry Tempest Williams437:
…the author… embraced the fact that environmentalists are “involved in an

erotics of place” (84). I personally do not think this is a bad accusation; I would
not mind being blamed for wanting to love and engage with the land. It is so
ironic that “to protect what we love outside, we are inside,” as the author points
out. I fall within this group of people that forgets about the intimacy of time
spent outside because of spending too much time in a dorm, classroom, library,
etc (86). Every day I think our society becomes more and more separated from
our surroundings, and I can foresee the negative consequences that Williams
proposes will happen if we continue to cut off our connection with nature.
In her post this student critiques not only society, but her own behavior as well. Presented
with the notion of “wanting to love and engage with the land,” she expresses support for the
possibility, and seems to want to cultivate or rediscover such feelings in herself. She
describes “time spent outside” as a kind of “intimacy,” and decries her tendency to
undervalue this intimacy, to “forget about” it instead of seeking it out.
In other posts, spring semester students begin to link aspects of modern society to the
inception of suburban development, as they also start to critically examine the outcomes
436
Gary Snyder, “The World Is Places,” in Reading the Environment, ed. Melissa Walker, 1st ed. (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 88-91.
437
Williams, An Unspoken Hunger.
264
produced by this method of structuring human living space. One student, responding to an
excerpt from Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck,438 states simply:
I agree with the authors on this subject, because think that the suburban sprawl
model does not serve society very well and it doesn’t preserve the environment
either. I don’t think it is a good idea for people to have to go out of their way to
shop, or go to work, just because some “genius” thought it was a good idea to
put all shopping locations in one area and all business facilities in another
separate area of its own.
Another student traces more implications of suburban development while reflecting on a
piece by James Kunstler439:
When Kunstler moves on to the discussion of cars it is hard to blame the people
of the past because they could not foresee the future dangers and problems that
automobiles would cause. No one stopped to ask if the inventions and
implementations were actually good, they simply justified their existence
because companies were bringing in profits. It is sad to think that this is what
led to the end of family farms in this country and their replacement with
business. The author states in regards to farming, “A way of life became simply
a means of production,” and now it becomes so clear why people today do not
know what is being put into their food and why there are so many health
problems….
A classmate continues this critical examination while discussing Duany, Plater-
Zyberk, and Speck:
I can see examples of sprawl’s “seductive simplicity” in my own life just by

thinking of the name of the street I live on, Spring Creek Court, and how it
tends toward the romantic to pay tribute to the natural resources that have been
displaced, just as the author says…. I never really thought about it, but most of
the words that refer to our residential lives are misleading, and that is why
sprawl continues to develop.
438
Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck, Suburban Nation.
439
James Howard Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made
Landscape, 1st ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).
265
This student not only effectively applies key arguments raised by the authors to her own life,
she also demonstrates continued critical thinking about language and its influence on
perception and action, making a case against the “misleading” and “romantic” terminology
employed in US suburban neighborhoods which references “displaced” elements of the
nonhuman world.
In another post, a student aims her critique at government and corporations for their
combined support of automobile-centered, suburban neighborhood-based planning. She
comments:
Before reading the article, I never thought about the system in-depth enough to
realize how absurd it is…. It’s pretty interesting that the government can work
with major corporations to invent an entirely new system of living and create
such a massive shift in the lifestyle of a nation. No matter how ridiculous,
unsustainable and self-destructive the system is, we are somehow still
enthralled.
Also raising the idea of cultural attitudes toward suburban life, a classmate explores his own
past views about “the suburbs”:
I believe that’s what this article does, it analysis and criticizes the creation of
suburbs. It makes us think about what is truly going on and question the
“norms.” From my point of view, living in the city for all of my life, moving to
the suburbs was a sigh that a person/family was doing well for itself and
moving up in society. But after reading this article it seems like I thought this
way because I am “suppose” to think this way. If I grow up with this mentality
then I will seek to move into the suburbs when I am able to and by doing so I
will incur many expenses (moving expenses, paying more for a house, paying
more to furnish the house, paying for upkeep of the land, and of course paying
for all expenses related to getting and maintaining a car).
Which demonstrated how everything in our society is based on money.
Pondering the hegemonic forces that encourage a dominant view of suburban life as high-
status and enviable, this student contends that profit is the underlying motivation leading
266
those in positions of cultural power to act to maintain established “norms” about desirable
modes of living.
In another instance of personal reflection, a fellow student links such automobile-
centered lifestyles to what she identifies as her own increasing disconnection from the natural
world. She writes, “I am one of those people that would prefer to walk or bike somewhere,
and I feel like I personally am losing my sense of place by having to spend so much time in a
car.”
Like the fall, during weeks 7 and 8 spring semester students also tackle other complex
ideas about cultural processes at work. The notion of ‘wilderness’ is discussed by spring
students as well; one student effectively sums up the matter, stating, “Wilderness seems to be
just another socially constructed idea used to distinguish mankind and nature as completely
separate beings rather than one large ecosystem.” This comment demonstrates a significant
grasp of the concept that knowledge and beliefs are culturally created. The student shows
understanding that an idea like ‘wilderness’ can not only exist as a social construct, but that
this construct can be used to achieve particular conceptual outcomes. In this case, the student
argues that the idea of ‘wilderness’ has served to support a view of the natural world as
isolated from human life. She also proposes an alternative view, of humankind as simply a
part of a larger whole, a component of “one large ecosystem.”
In another theme also seen in the fall, spring students continue to compare humans
and nonhumans and to consider nonhuman perspectives. One student makes a comment
about tigers very similar to statements made by fall students. He writes, “Tigers might be
predators but we are as well to other living creatures….” Here again is an acknowledgment
that other beings experience the world differently than humans, in this case that they see
267
humans as predators who are a danger to them, in the same way that some humans might
frame tigers as dangerous predators. The post also reinforces an attitude of human-
nonhuman equivalency, suggesting that humans and tigers are similar, or that it would be
hypocritical to criticize tigers for behavior that humans also engage in.
In another post reminiscent of statements made by fall semester students, a spring
semester student comments on Terry Tempest Williams440:
I also like how the author used the phrase “Echo system” to show how nature
has a response to every little thing that we do. We as humans however, don’t
take the time to realize that for every action we have, there is a consequence
when it comes to nature. Sometimes the consequence is small, and sometimes it
has a huge impact. Maybe if we took more time to actually “listen” to what
nature has to say, we’d have a much better relationship with it or a better
attitude about it.
This statement expresses awareness of the interconnectedness of ecological systems and
offers proposals of positive alternatives for how society might view the natural world. In
addition, it is another example of framing the natural world as communicative, as an entity
who expresses meaning and whom humans should “listen” to. This is a strong move, serving
as a form of rhetorical activism which helps to disseminate efforts at reframing, while at the
same time it provides evidence of the internalization of such reframing; only one who herself
thinks of the natural world as a communicative being is likely to say that humans should
“‘listen’ to what nature has to say.”
The fall and spring semester writings from weeks 7 and 8 reflect gratifying evidence
that students are thinking closely about place; they demonstrate analysis of the social and
environmental consequences or urban and suburban design, decry links between human
440
Williams, An Unspoken Hunger.
268
development and habitat destruction for other beings, and offer personal and emotional
reflections on their own experiences bonding with a particular place or element of the land.
Writings from these weeks also show that students have integrated concepts from prior
weeks into their own thinking, as they effectively apply understandings of discourse,
metaphor, and cultural narrative to formulate their own incisive analyses of ideology,
perception, and culture.
Weeks 9-10: Production, Consumption, and Waste
During weeks 9 and 10 students are presented with readings and viewings that
examine modern processes of production. They examine the materials and steps that are
involved in making, shipping, and disposing of everyday products as well as the ecological
after-effects of modern consumer lifestyles. They are exposed to details about modern food
production and its social and environmental ramifications. They are introduced to the
concept of a ‘carbon footprint’ as a tool for analyzing personal effects on the global
ecosystem. They also study critiques of contemporary models of production and
consumption, and proposals for reprioritization or alternative practices.
In these weeks student writing focuses sharply around a few marked themes. One of
the most widely discussed centers on the processes and outcomes of production and
consumption. Students also voice strong social critique during these weeks, analyzing
collective and personal behavior and further examining the cultural influences of that
behavior. They also continue to analyze dominant and alternative frameworks for conceiving
of the natural world.

269
In the writings of my fall semester students during weeks 9 and 10, one of most
prominent themes that emerges is discussion of the consequences of production and
consumption of goods. Many students express shock and dismay at the new information they
gain from the weeks’ assigned readings on this subject. One of the readings fall semester
students react most strongly to is a piece by Ryan and Durning that traces the resources,
people, and processes involved in producing everyday items.441 About this piece one student
writes:
What I read was unbelievable for two different but similar reasons. It was
unbelievable because its amazing how something so, so simple takes so, so
many process and so much effort and so much degradation and so much work
and so much everything! But what I think is even more unbelievable is that I
feel like what a lot of people do not think about is that ALL of those process
and effects that seem SO unbelievable and ridiculous to us after reading this
piece are all caused by us. Everything that goes on is because we make it
happen, humans are the reasons all of those steps are needed in the first place.
But if you were sit down anyone who has any part in that process and have
them read this story they will have serious trouble comprehending what they
just read. It is just amazing to me, not that all of these steps are required and
that so many things are effected. Because yes even though that seems unreal, if
you really think about it, its just not that surprising. What absolutely is, is that
are mind, the way we understand things, can only comprehend a few of the
enormous amount of processes and effects that humans cause every day, even
though we are the ones who cause them.
In this post the student demonstrates passionate reflection on the impact of human behavior,
and on what he sees as a widespread lack of awareness about the underpinnings of
contemporary consumer lifestyles.
Other students express similar amazement at the scope of these processes and their
effects. One states, also in response to Ryan and Durning:
441
John C Ryan and Alan Thein Durning, Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things (Seattle, WA: Northwest
Environment Watch, 1997).
270
I was quite shocked about most of the things as well. It’s amazing how terrible
the environment has been treated just from coffee, and newspapers, and t-shirts.
It makes you think about all the other billions of things being manufactured and
it’s like unbelievable that the natural world is still thriving.
Another comments:
I am so glad these authors dive down deep in the processes because if someone
would read this, I think that they would look at everyday things a little more
differently. I know that by reading this myself I have more of an understanding
about how and where things come from and what it really takes to get them to
us. Literally, blood, sweat, and tears on behalf of the people of the world and
the natural world.
Making another similar observation, a classmate reflects:
Even little things that I didn’t think about, like a t-shirt and coca-cola that I
didn’t think about, have a huge environmental impact, which is a good thing for
the way we can make an effort to change the our behaviors—there are many
opportunities—but also a bad thing—there are so many issues in this world.
This student raises an interesting point, suggesting that the fact that so many human activities
cause environmental impacts can actually be viewed as a positive thing, because it means
there are many opportunities to “change our behavior.”
A number of students respond to the readings of weeks 9 and 10 by examining their
own consumption patterns. In one example, a student writes:
When reading the section on coffee, I was forced to reflect on my own

consumption of the brown colored, breath tainting liquid that is just so good! It
is amazing to think that because of my two cups a day, I have 12 coffee trees
growing per year all for me. Which means my mom has 24 coffee trees devoted
to her. It is so strange to put it into perspective because the common thought is
how could any one individual make such an impact? …I have never read
anything so detailed that it opened my mind to the effects of consumerism.
271
Voicing a similar thought, another student reasons:
If I were drink two cans of soda a day, that would mean that I am producing
730 empty cans a year. If I were environmentally conscious enough to recycle
even half of them, there would still be 365 cans sitting in the local dump.
“Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things” by Ryan and Durning really did
give me a wakeup call on my own environmental impact.
In other posts, students link photographs by Chris Jordan442 to further reflections on their
own environmental impact. One student comments:
Some of the photographs were of things that almost every person owns, for
example the cell phones, chargers, and cars. One person can go through many
phones and cell phones within only a couple of years. I have a cell phone and
cell phone charger and I’ve had more in the past. It didn’t really come to my
attention that many other people go through the same thing. To me I’m only
one person with these items so it doesn’t really seem like it would affect our
environment that much. But the pictures made me realize that millions of other
people go through the same things that I do and that those items can collect and
add up when put together.
Voicing a realization that his own consumer actions are duplicated by “millions of other
people,” this student demonstrates a greatly increased consideration for the cumulative effect
of each person’s choices.
Another student writes of other Chris Jordan photographs which picture deceased
birds whose decomposition has revealed the plastic contents of their stomachs. The student
reflects:
The photos of the albatross chicks struck me the most because they were
unsettling to look at…. I couldn’t believe that they are fed a trash filled diet
because our trash is littering the ocean. If someone were to tell me about this I
442
Chris Jordan, “Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption,” Chris Jordan photographic
arts, 2005, http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/intolerable/#cellphones2; Chris Jordan, “Midway: Message
from the Gyre,” Chris Jordan photographic arts, 2011,
http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/midway/#CF000313%2018x24.
272
wouldn’t have believed it, unless I saw it. I’m really glad that I was made aware
of this because now I know how some of my actions could be affecting the
natural world.
While thinking about their own consumption, some students express guilt, making
statements like, “The information presented in the reading made me feel ashamed, guilty, and
wasteful since the majority of the things mentioned were regular habits of my own.” Another
post echoes this reaction:
Most people do not think about how their demands for stuff impact the
environment, let alone other people. I bet people who go to a coffee shop do not
think of who picked those beans and what it took to get those beans to that
coffee shop. It makes me feel ashamed of myself that I do this sometimes
without thinking of the consequences.
Others put the consequences of consumer choices into unique perspective, making
comments like, “One may find a cup of coffee enjoyable but is your coffee worth the lives of
an entire ecosystem?” This is certainly a strong question to pose in order to promote
reconsideration of cultural priorities.
In a post written the week after students read Ryan and Durning, one student refers
back to that piece as part of his discussion of the benefits of growing one’s own garden. He
declares:
Also growing our own food cuts down from all the trucks on the road taking
fruit from California to Maryland. We use some many extra resources, like
gasoline for the trucks and fertilizers that poison wildlife just so we can have
food from other states or countries. Growing your own food really takes out a
lot of unnecessary process that can really have detrimental affects. Think about
the reading from last week, “Stuff” and how many processes the really effected
the environment, there were from making something so simple as a cup of
coffee. Imagine that you eat at least two apples a day. Now imagine the amount
of gasoline that is used to drive all of your apples from California (because of
course those are the best tasting apples) to Maryland. What if you could
273
completely sustain you apple addiction? Don’t you think that would make a
very important and necessary environmental impact? I think it certainly would
be and is absolutely worth the small but rewarding work of taking care of your
own garden.
Here he not only applies direct knowledge gained from the reading, but he adopts a particular
type of thinking that seems to be promoted by the reading: a capacity to consider the
interconnected ramifications of each choice and action.
In a number of other posts, students continue to demonstrate another type of thinking
cultivated throughout the semester, the capacity to critically analyze social behavior. One
writes about tap versus bottled water:
[Tap] water is more then clean enough to drink from and yet because we live in
such a consumer based economy, we have to find ways to take not just water
(which is a scarce resource) but oil too (which is another scarce resource) and
combine the two just so we can have water in a bottle!
Presenting bottled water in this way highlights its absurdity. The student suggests that this
absurd behavior is a symptom of cultural demands to commodify resources for profit. Many
other students critique consumerism as well. One writes:
It is definitely an American way of thinking to tell yourself that you can get
anything you want if you work for it. This simply is not true, and if people
believe it, then materialism will corrupt them. Since these wasteful consumer
habits of Americans have been ingrained in our culture, to make a drastic
change is not just challenging, it is almost offensive to some!
This student raises a fascinating insight, suggesting that people deeply identify with the
attitudes they have absorbed from their cultural milieu, and that to challenge those attitudes
may prove personally offensive to those who hold them. A classmate makes a similar point
about the difficulty of changing dominant attitudes:
274
In a way I think that it is hard to go against the cultural norm and not consume,
consume, consume. It is most important to try to make small steps in this case
too, to slowly change society as a whole, so then the society will follow the
norms in a good way….
This student demonstrates keen thinking about the force of cultural norms in influencing
behavior, but also proposes a strategy for transformation, suggesting that it is possible to
replace destructive norms with sustainable ones, so that social forces will work to encourage
sustainability.
Another theme also becomes apparent in fall semester students’ writings from weeks
9 and 10, as students continue to voice analysis about how humans view the natural world.
Some of these comments arise during discussions of a reading by McDonough and
Braungart.443 One student ponders the authors’ analysis of the Industrial Revolution:
It seems that the mentality of the time of the Industrial Revolution is still
implanted firmly in the minds of human beings today. For example, during the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution, “...the subtle qualities of the
environment were not a widespread concern. Resources seemed immeasurably
vast. Nature itself was perceived as a ‘mother Earth’ who, perpetually
regenerative, would absorb all things and continue to grow” (25). This quote
embodies how we humans think today, or at least, if not how we think, then
how we act.
This student does an insightful job of placing cultural attitudes in historical context,
demonstrating in-depth critical reflection on points made by the authors.
A classmate focuses on another point from McDonough and Braungart, saying:
The sentence “humans perceived natural forces as hostile, so they attacked back
to exert control” is really striking (p. 25). Although we are the ones interfering
with and destroying the environment, somehow humans saw nature as the
threat.
443
McDonough and Braungart, Cradle to Cradle.
275
Elsewhere another student makes a similar statement, also challenging what she believes is
an inaccurate view of the natural world; she states, “I think it is amazing how sometimes
people look at nature as if it is the one interfering with us. Nature does not need us, we are
the ones that need it.”
In another post, a classmate also reflects on human dependence on the nonhuman
world:
We have grown up in a world were nature is absolutely separate from humans.

Nature is always talked about like it is not something that we are part of, that is
something separate. But how could that be the case? Humans and animals alike
all depend on nature to survive. We would be nothing without nature and yet
we treat nature horrible and act as if nature has nothing to do with us and the
way we live.
In light of their newfound knowledge of the ecological ramifications of US-American
consumption, many students during weeks 9 and 10 seem sharply critical as they continue to
reflect on cultural perceptions of the nonhuman world. They express anger and
disappointment at human actions, and at viewpoints that do not acknowledge human
dependence on the larger world. One student writes, “To get even a garden, we use
pesticides and other things because we see nature as harming the plants, which we view as
‘ours’….” As above, this student critiques views that frame the natural world as threat,
inconvenience, or property. She suggests that this view motivates destructive responses such
as the use of pesticides in gardening. Beginning her statement with the phrase, “to get even a
garden,” she seems to imply frustration that even aspects of life which perhaps should be
simple, or nourishing, or should promote connection and symbiosis between humans and the
276
nonhuman world have in modern times been turned into sources of environmental
degradation as a result of harmful approaches to understanding the nonhuman world.
In the spring semester once again, weeks 9 and 10 evoke a parallel set of themes to
those apparent in the fall. Spring semester students also focus much of their attention on the
processes and consequences of production and consumption, and again react strongly to
Ryan and Durning and Chris Jordan. One student responds to Ryan and Durning by
exclaiming:
From pesticides being absorbed by plants and animals, to decaying manure

removing oxygen from the water, to sewage liquids being carried into the
Pacific Ocean, the straight facts got overwhelming just from the first couple
pages. I also realized how much of a part I personally play in the deterioration
of our planet, being a frequent coffee drinker, t-shirt buyer, etc. I completely
agree with the author that the impacts of our consumption as Americans are
downright disturbing, yet somehow they are invisible to us. It did make me feel
better to see lists of suggestions to alter our destructive behaviors, and I am
definitely going to make it a goal to adopt some of the practices mentioned, like
shopping at used clothing stores and going local for food/drink products.
One of several interesting points raised in this post is the observation that “the impacts of our
consumption as Americans are downright disturbing, yet somehow they are invisible to us.”
This demonstrates impressive questioning of the social forces that ‘obscure’ underlying
implications of collective social choices and reaffirm normative behaviors. This student also
directly comments that her newfound knowledge has motivated her to change her own
behaviors.
In another post a fellow student raises similar points about the invisibility of the
environmental impacts of modern consumption, and about the possibility that greater access
to information could alter behavior:
277
It is so shocking to think how toxic our everyday lives are not to mention how
oblivious we are to it. It definitely makes me think twice before going to
Starbucks and thinking what I'm really buying when I get an iced venti mocha
latte. I think if people really knew what was going into, on, and around their
bodies every day a lot of changes would be made. How is it that this has gone
one for so long without more being done about it?
Here the student directs her attention not only toward changes she could make in her own
behavior, but toward the possibility of widespread social change, suggesting that “if people
really knew” about these effects they would make different choices. Elsewhere, in a reply to
a classmate, another student also argues for greater dissemination of information, as the
student he is replying to had as well:
The mere fact that so much of what we use, even drinking soda, can cause such
an adverse and negative impact of the environment is almost impossible to fully
comprehend, who would even think of some of these things on their own? I also
support your idea that consumers need to continue to push to find out what
really is contained in the products we buy, maybe if enough of us try, some
corporations may finally reveal at least a few details.
And in another post, a student both reflects on her own behavior and reiterates a desire for
more widespread information on the subject:
I also have to say Stuff; The Secret Lives of Everyday Things created quite a
few mixed emotions for me. On one hand, I was really excited to learn about
where everyday things come from… but was quickly feeling like a spoiled
rotten first world brat who wears pesticides and ingests a cola that is made from
disgusting chemicals that has to be ‘smelted’ in order to get the right
consistency. I instantly imagined the workers in sweatshops throughout the
world working long hours for a measly wage on my Nike running shoes that I
go on leisurely runs in. It is incredible to learn how much really goes into the
products we purchase at the store (Especially when it comes to food products
and other items we personally ingest). I wish there was more presence of this in
the media because we have the right to know what we are buying.
278
This student applies information she gained from Ryan and Durning to her own life, and
extrapolates to discuss other consumer products she uses that were not described in the
readings. She puts her own cultural experience into perspective in reference to the larger
world, describing herself as a “spoiled rotten first world brat” who is responsible for
“workers in sweatshops throughout the world” struggling to make the products she uses. She
concludes by voicing her desire for more media exposure about the contents and effects of
consumer products.
Throughout their posts for weeks 9 and 10, spring semester students present
amazement and distress, but also strong new insights about production and consumption.
Some of these insights are concisely powerful, as with one student who writes, “Everything
we use comes from somewhere and leaves its mark somehow…”, or another who ponders the
effects of production on nonhumans, ecosystems, and oppressed human groups by declaring,
“we’re not just wasting products and materials but also lives!”
In other posts a number of students use the work of Chris Jordan as their impetus to
wonder at the loss of nonhuman life that is a consequence of consumption and waste. In one
example a student writes:
the photos of seabird carcasses loaded with plastic caused me to feel nothing
short of horror…. Nobody, human or otherwise should have to die because we
can’t manage our waste. This is one of the most shameful crimes of
carelessness I’ve ever been alerted to.
Expressing “horror” and shock, this student sharply critiques human behavior as “shameful”
and “careless.”
Indeed, during weeks 9 and 10 many students direct their attention to critiquing
human behavior, and often more specifically to critiquing aspects of US-American culture.
279
One combines a critique of the “cattle market” and of US modes of consumption with
criticism of features he identifies as typical of US-American culture:
I had no idea cattle had such a huge role in the US economy and the world
economy. I had no idea that beef was once a sign of ‘wealth” or that we as
humans use a lot of our resources for cattle. I guess this is a result of my
American ignorance, not knowing where my food comes from and the effect on
a larger society. I think that the “cattle market” is a very good example of the
problem with over production and over consumption.
Here he suggests that “not knowing where [one’s] food comes from and the effect on a larger
society” is a defining quality of US-American culture, implying that ignorance is an accepted
or supported norm.
In another strong critique of US culture, a student writes:
But I enjoyed how all of the topics this week… related to one central idea. In
my opinion that idea would have to be the American metaphor that “Bigger is
Better.” In the United States it seems like this idea is so imbedded within our
culture that we do not question it at all. For example, the problem with
production, consumption, and waste is the massive quantity in which they are
accumulated. The goal of the Economy is to increase GDP (which means to
produce more each year) but is that for the best? Is bigger better in this case if it
harms our planet? Could we simply find more efficient ways of making
products to create more jobs and not to create more money? Here in the United
States our consumption is also left uncheck… but large amounts of it becomes
waste. Is bigger still better? I think not.
This student contends that the US operates within a narrative of “bigger is better” (a
formulation not directly raised in the week’s readings), and he critiques what he sees as an
uncritical adoption of this narrative by mainstream society. He contests the value of the
“bigger is better” approach, suggesting that it results in waste and ecological destruction, and
he raises the possibility of an alternative organizing principle, one that does not focus on
280
constant increase in GDP or profit, but rather on efficiency, fulfilling employment,
moderation of scale, and environmental protection.
In another post a student not only critiques US culture, but ponders the dangers of
having human-made culture as the primary source of input into human thought. She reflects:
…as years have progressed the human species is influences more by culture,
meaning less and less influence from nature…. I feel like the progressive
exclusion of nature in culture is a popular one and has been present for some
time now. Popular media often depicts the future world as one barren of plant
life and mankind thriving in a metallic environment.
Here we find a perceptive observation about humankind’s shift in focus from interaction with
nonhuman nature to insulation within what David Abram has described as a sort of hall of
mirrors of our own cultural creations that “only reflect[s] us back to ourselves.”444 In the
process of her analysis, this student also incorporates critical awareness of media and
reflection on dominant human views of the natural world, raising and reapplying themes
discussed in prior weeks.
During weeks 9 and 10 spring semester students appear to maintain a passionate and
distinct focus; patterns in their writing coalesce almost entirely around analysis of the
ramifications of modern production and consumption and around critiques of US-American
cultural norms and behaviors. These themes arise as the primary focus of both fall and
spring semester students in weeks 9 and 10, although fall semester students also continue to
comment more extensively about culturally-formulated views of the nonhuman world, a
theme that appears only briefly in spring semester writings from weeks 9 and 10. However,
writings from both fall and spring offer valuable evidence that students are not only gaining
new and surprising information from course materials during these weeks, but that they are
444
Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous, 22.
281
applying this information to unflinching examinations of their own lives and behaviors and to
formulating astute observations about the larger culture they are a part of.
In weeks 11 and 12, students are introduced to arguments regarding the ethical
treatment of nonhuman animals; analyses of the dynamics of environmental racism and the
inequitable global distribution of resource consumption and environmental degradation;
proposals for and examples of granting legal rights to the natural world; and treatises
stressing ecological and cultural diversity as intertwined components of sustainability. I then
ask students to consider what rights they themselves believe should be granted to nonhuman
beings and how such rights could be conferred.
In their writing during weeks 11 and 12, students voice, question, and begin to
formulate personal stances on these complex ethical questions. They articulate renewed
expressions of empathy and continue to wrestle with issues of relating to nonhumans. They
question cultural assumptions of human superiority and significance, voice opinions about
ethical and legal rights for nonhuman beings and the land, and draw further parallels between
structures of human and nonhuman oppression. They also continue to formulate their own
strong cultural critiques, further analyzing dominant behavior, norms, and assumptions and
again questioning established and potential frameworks for viewing the natural world.
My fall semester students’ writing during these weeks returns strongly to expressions
of empathy with nonhumans, especially in response to readings that describe instances of the
282
inhumane treatment and suffering of nonhuman animals. In response to an excerpt from Joan
Dunayer that describes the death of a dog named Floyd in an airplane baggage
compartment,445 one student writes, “…it’s sad to imagine what Floyd must have been going
through. Being in a dark compartment with hot, unbearable temperatures must be
uncomfortable and scary. I would never want to be put in a situation like that.” This is a
strong example of empathy, one of many during weeks 11 and 12. This student imagines
what Floyd experienced, then considers what it would be like to go through the same
experiences himself, relating directly to Floyd.
Commenting on a poem titled Gelatin Factory by Kevin Bowen,446 another student
demonstrates a similar thought process, reflecting, “All this terror is inflicted just for a simple
sugary treat.” This student, too, seems to be identifying with the experiences of the pigs
described in the poem who were killed to produce gelatin, describing what they went through
as “terror.”
In another post discussing this poem, a fellow student writes, “The production of
gelatin is basically corpse desecration, unlike us burying our dead….” This statement is a
powerful example of critical empathetic thinking, as the student draws a perceptive contrast
between attitudes toward the loss of human life and the loss of nonhuman life. She points out
that to treat human bodies the way the bodies of the pigs in the poem are treated – stacked in
trucks and ground to paste for making gelatin – would rightfully be considered corpse
desecration, and she sharply problematizes the conceptual distinction that frames such
treatment of deceased nonhumans as anything less disrespectful.
445
446
Kevin Bowen, “Gelatin Factory,” in Poetry Like Bread, ed. Martín Espada (Willimantic: Curbstone Press,
2001), 68-69.
283
Indeed, in a number of posts during weeks 11 and 12 fall semester students return to
the question of similarities between humans and nonhumans, and of culturally-formulated
distinctions between the two. One student artfully probes this topic by reviving the notion of
‘false boundaries’ discussed by students earlier in the semester:
There are the imaginary lines and boundaries that are recurring in both nature
and society that have been set up by humans as a separation. It’s one way I
believe speciesism 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 animals and “us,” or the regrouping of ourselves into the
categories of animals.
Other students contest species bias as well. One writes, “…why are humans
considered the best species? We hear often about how other animals are “human-like” in
their intelligence, as if human is the best standard there is. No one ever said we truly are the
best species.” In reply to this post, a classmate writes in humorous criticism of humankind:
Your post makes me think about why is it that everything must mimic humans?
Are humans the sole species that all life should mimic and revolve around,
should all species not care for their environment and destroy everything around
them in the effort to find some sort of “personal gain” that humans do?
Highlighting what he seems to feel is a significant flaw in the notion of human superiority,
this student points out that humans destroy their surroundings in pursuit of “personal gain.”
He suggests that this is hardly a standard we should hope other species live up to.
In another post, a fellow student addresses Peter Singer’s case for ethical
consideration for nonhumans, in which Singer discusses extensive evidence that nonhumans
experience pain similarly to humans and proposes that a being’s capacity to suffer should
284
serve as the primary criterion in establishing the right to humane treatment. The student
responds:
I found it very interesting because this was not a viewpoint that I had looked
into very closely. Although I knew that animals can feel pain, I did not know
that they expressed pain in a very similar way to humans. I believe that
although animals may not be able to voice their pain in a way humans can
understand, their body language alone shows us that their sense of pain is just
as sharp as ours. If humans and animals both feel pain in the same way, why is
it that animals are being treated differently? I believe that the abuse of animals
should have the same kind of punishment as the abuse of humans. Intentionally
hurting an animal is just as bad as assaulting another person and this matter
should be taken very seriously.
This student readdresses the question of nonhuman-human communication, suggesting that
although different species do not share human verbal language, there are still ways to
understand and identify with one another. He also takes a stand for equivalency between
species, as he contends that nonhumans should be given the same moral and legal
consideration as humans.
Other students, too, express a mixture of identification with nonhumans,
consideration of nonhuman experiences, and thoughtful reflection on what they believe are
the appropriate ethical and legal standards for interaction with other species. One responds
to a series of principles for “Earth Democracy” set out by Vandana Shiva,447 relating those
principles to human development and nonhumans’ loss of habitat:
Sometimes people complain that there are deer or other wild animals in their
yard, but have they ever thought that maybe their home used to be the forest
that was cleared previously to make room for the new housing development?
The 4th point, “All beings have a natural right to sustenance,” reminded me of
how humans think they are superior to nonhuman animals. Corporations and
large companies think this and take over a rainforest to construct a new building
447
Vandana Shiva, Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace (Cambridge, MA: South End Press,
2005).
285
and they ignore the fact that other species live there and call it their home. It
states that all living creature have the right to food, water, and a safe and clean
habitat. State and corporations don’t govern how we live, therefore they
shouldn’t govern who can have rights.
By reframing human actions from the perspective of nonhumans who are affected, such as
deer whose homes are destroyed to make way for a suburban neighborhood, the student
explores one of the significant ethical issues raised by Shiva: whether any group of people
has the right to impede the ability of other beings to acquire sustenance and shelter.
Indeed, the subject of rights for nonhumans arises as one of the primary themes in
student writing during weeks 11 and 12. Students make frequent statements either pondering
or directly arguing for an increase in rights for nonhuman beings and for the land itself. One
writes, “I feel as if the earth should be treated as if it were a human being with the same
rights as us.” This comment also hearkens back to comments made in prior weeks in which
students suggest replacing dominant views of the natural world with a view that frames the
earth as a living being.
In another post a student declares:
We need to realize that animals need some rights as well. It’s cruel to think they
have no say in anything. How is torturing an animal any different from
torturing a human being? Just because we can’t verbally communicate from
them, doesn’t mean that we should be any more superior.
Here again, while arguing for an increase in rights for nonhumans this student also reflects on
human-nonhuman communication and argues for some degree of equivalency between
species.
Another student reflects on the question of ethical consideration for plants, asking,
“Now, what about plants? Do they have rights as well? Do they suffer? I cannot say for a fact
286
that they do, but they should have rights that involve preventing us from exploiting and
degrading them and their habitats.” This student uses arguments about suffering as a
criterion for consideration like those made by Peter Singer, expands them, and links them to
points made by other authors like Christopher Stone448 in order to raise an astute set of
questions about rights for plants.
A classmate makes another astute observation while responding to an excerpt from
Joan Dunayer449:
After considering the fact that African-Americans and women used to not even
be considered ‘people’ I am hopeful that one day soon animals too will
eventually be granted this status. The article correctly points out that while the
law does not recognize animals as people, neither does standard English right
now. It does not make too much sense to expect for our lawmakers to make
this distinction if most people do not even recognize animals as people.
Demonstrating a clear understanding of some of Dunayer’s arguments and then applying
these arguments to his own further social analysis, this student makes several impressive
connections. He expresses awareness of parallels between human and nonhuman oppression,
and discusses manifestations of this oppression in language. He then ties public opinion to
political willpower, suggesting that both are influenced by society’s perceptions of
nonhumans, and that behavior and law will both change if nonhumans are “granted the
status” of “people.”
In a reply to this post, another student responds to these observations and makes
further connections to ecofeminism:
I had never heard of the eco-feminist movement or even drawn any parallels
between animals and groups of people that are discriminated against before this
448
Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?.
449
287
class. You are also right to observe that politicians cannot be expected to push
“animal rights” when the general population does not believe that animals
deserve them. In order to improve the conditions for animals, the long-standing
social structure would need to be altered. This will take time and a great deal of
persuasion.
As in a number of other posts, this student directly comments that he had not been aware of
such ideas prior to taking this class. In fact, during weeks 11 and 12 of the fall semester, out
of 79 total discussion board posts, there are 53 instances of students stating that the course
materials had introduced them to new information and ideas that they had never encountered
before, had exposed them to new perspectives, and/or had caused them to think differently.
The above post also expresses ongoing social critique, as the student suggests the first
step in changing behavior is to “alter” “the long-standing social structure.” This description
seems inspired by Aldo Leopold’s classic Land Ethic450; earlier in the week the same student
posts a response to Leopold in which he writes, “In this chapter, Leopold affirms the view
that change is dependent on altering long-standing social structures. These belief structures
guide our actions and thought processes.”
As demonstrated in prior weeks as well, by this point in the semester students appear
to have internalized a sophisticated understanding of the concept that belief systems “guide
actions and thought processes.” During weeks 11 and 12 other students continue to relate
this notion back to questions of dominant cultural views of the nonhuman world. One writes,
“It is sad that we don’t think of the world belonging to all of us including the nonhumans and
such. We only think of the world belonging to the humans and the fact that humans deserve
and need everything on earth. It is very sad.” Another discusses ‘how we think of the world’
as well, linking her analysis to Peter Singer:
450
Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 237.
288
Human beings have historically viewed non-human animals as “lesser” beings;
the idea of a human-centric world is heavily supported by many major
religions. Because these views are so ingrained in our culture, it is extremely
difficult to impact change regarding animal equality. Singer observes that
“Animal Liberation” probably sounds more like a parody than a serious
objective. In our society, where comparing someone to an animal is considered
a gross insult, it is difficult to hold onto the hope that the conditions for non-
human animals might improve.
Relating her cultural critique back to earlier discussions of religion and worldviews and
demonstrating language awareness in her comments on the fact that referring to a human as
an “animal” is “considered a gross insult,” this student presents a strong analysis of the
persistence of culturally normative views of nonhumans as “lesser beings.”
Another theme that emerges during weeks 11 and 12 is discussion of environmental
justice and environmental racism. One student states:
I personally didn’t know that race had anything to do with the environment.
After I read this passage I realized that it does. The only way for the
environment to really get better is for it to be that all humans are treated the
same before we try to get all species to be treated equally. Environmentalists
need to realize that the only way they are going to get their way in some issues
is for them to also promote equality for all humans.
Another student reflects on instances of environmental racism by commenting:
This is really sad if you think about it because what it is saying is that we walk
all over people who are not able to stand up for themselves. This is what
happened to the Native Americans when we took over. Politics is a good thing
but the fact that groups get taken advantage of when they do not have people
there to speak for them is unfortunate.
In another post reflecting on global socio-environmental inequities, a student states, “The
graph that was really eye opening was the ‘Unequal global shares in private consumption.’
289
…I was really surprised that even though the wealthy population is the least, they consume
the most compared to the poor population.”
This increased knowledge of the ways that human populations consume resources
unequally and experience unbalanced consequences of environmental degradation
encourages students to engage in further personal reflection about their own lifestyles. One
writes:
It is very true that so much of how we live our lives, as college students near a
busy urban city, relates to how we see the environment and how we deal with
nature. People of our socioeconomic class can afford college and regular meals.
We can talk about eating organic foods and driving hybrid cars and we can live
on our suburban sprawling homes and have little gardens and feel like we’re
doing our part. But some people, like Bullard points out, do not have the money
or the resources to do this. They don’t even have the knowledge to petition the
government to help them get these resources, because many schools in urban
areas are not great, and do not provide strong educations for young people. If
they did, maybe one day these young people could grow into the leaders who
will reinvent the urban environment around us and make it a better, nicer place
to live for everyone.
Envisioning a possible future in which improved education could lead to a “reinvention of
the urban environment,” this student implies that inequitable distributions of privilege among
human groups not only lead to uneven exposure to negative environmental conditions, but
also result in lack of access to opportunities to create positive socio-environmental change.
Her conclusion is both insightful and hopeful, offering the possibility that more equal access
to education and power may result in greater participation in efforts for transformation and
new solutions to environmental problems.
290
Themes during the spring follow similar patterns. One mode of thought expressed in
weeks 11 and 12 of the spring, as in the fall, is empathy for nonhuman animals. In reaction
to Kevin Bowen’s Gelatin Factory,451 a student writes:
Consider what it must feel like to experience this, the pain and suffering
immeasurable, but we the end consumers are unaware of this. I believe that if
more people knew what it takes to produce gelatin, more people would stop
purchasing it. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
This demonstrates clear imagining of what the experience is like for the pigs whose bodies
are used to produce gelatin. The student also proposes a strategy to promote positive change,
contending that increased awareness about the treatment and use of nonhuman animals to
create consumer products would alter mainstream behavior.
In a number of other posts, students link their distress at the treatment of nonhumans to
statements in which they formulate opinions on the injustice or ‘unfairness’ of inhumane
treatment and species bias. One student says, “I took from this reading that there is
oppression taking place right now, not just on people but on the natural world as well, and I
find it unfair that what belongs to all of us can be controlled and manipulated by certain
groups.”
These sorts of comments connect to one of the strongest themes that surfaces during
weeks 11 and 12 of the spring semester: comments about what rights and ethical
consideration nonhumans should receive. In one example of these sorts of comments, a
student writes:
After reading Dunayer’s excerpt, I cannot help to agree…. Animals of all sorts
should possess some sort of rights. There are many things wrong with our
current system of providing meat…. Something needs to be changed, and
451
Bowen, “Gelatin Factory.”
291
providing animals with certain rights could be the basis of this change.
In another post a student pinpoints many of the complex questions on this subject that
are raised by the materials of weeks 11 and 12:
Many of the authors focused on issues that are difficult to communicate to the
general public because they question the very basis of our society. Should
nonhuman beings be given legal rights? Why is it that people who are against
abortion do not usually oppose the killing of nonhuman animals? …Is speciesm
on the same level of evil as racism and sexism? Many people will disagree
with the ideas presented in the reading and probably be offended by them, but I
think they are extremely eye opening and forward-thinking pieces of writing
that are necessary for human advancement and survival. It is important to at
least examine and take into account what these authors are saying, even if we
are not ready to accept their ideas in our everyday lives. If we continue, instead,
to follow the same worn paths and fulfill the same role as “conqueror” of the
environment, we will eventually be find that we have single handedly destroyed
the delicate ecosystems of the world around us.
As this student points out, being willing to ask such questions, to “examine” the arguments
made by the authors assigned during these weeks, may be a vital step toward transforming
our understanding of our role in the world, away from the “worn” role of “conqueror” and
toward a more sustainable conceptualization of our place in the larger ecosystem.
Other students raise questions about our ethical frameworks as well, in some cases
wondering about specific practices. One ponders:
Reading Shiva’s “Earth Democracy” gives me hope that someone out there is
ethical enough to know that animals are all equal. After witnessing some of the
most horrific animal-abuse awareness videos, it is somewhat heartwarming that
I am not alone in thinking that animal cruelty (of any animal: humans, birds,
dogs, cats, etc.) is the worst form of evil on this world. The author mentions
that humans do not have the right to own animals, however I wonder if she
condones having pets or dairy and meat farms.
This student applies the ideal of animal equality to his own experiences of viewing videos
292
about animal abuse, and makes an important linguistic choice, specifying that his use of the
phrase “animal cruelty” applies to “any animal,” including humans. In this way, he rejects
linguistically constructed separations between humans and other animal species, and instead
identifies humans within the larger category of ‘animal.’ At the end of the passage he goes
on to question Shiva’s stance, and by extension to reflect on society’s and his own, on the
ethicality of such practices as adopting nonhumans as “pets” and raising nonhuman animals
for their milk or flesh.
In another post, a classmate raises other questions, as equally complex as those raised
in the above posts. She wonders:
The issue seems to lie in HOW to establish right and wrong when it comes to
nature, and how, if self-interest governs most people’s actions, should these
ethics be enforced (whether it be via taxation, citations, fines, legal action,
ect.)? Just as speed cameras along I-95 have reduced the amount of speeding
occurring on the freeway through threat of automatic speeding ticket, is there a
system as such that could make conservationist acts a new norm?
This student ponders what procedure or steps society could take to reach ethically sound
decisions about human interactions with the nonhuman world, and then to encourage or
enforce behavior that aligns with these ethical standards. As with the questions asked by
other students, these sorts of inquiries are an essential component in a process of envisioning
and enacting positive transformation.
Another student ponders the possibilities of transformation as well:
Today a large portion of the country thinks that animals need no rights because
they are “lesser creatures” but in a generation or two this idea could easily
change. Especially because the words that we live by are constantly evolving
and changing. So, with the idea of equality is currently defined as, “the rights,
treatment, quantity, or value equal to all others in a specific group.” But what
we leave up in the unsaid in many cases is what specific groups are equal. Do
293
me mean all people, all animals, all living creatures, all things? As Americans
we believe “All men are created equal” but the word “men” is used as a generic
word for all people. However, we leave out other animals and other living
beings because we have justified subconsciously that they are lesser creatures
because of their lack of “intelligence.” In “Animal Liberation” the example that
a dog should not have rights because it does not have the capability to vote was
mention as an example as to why many people oppose the idea of animals
rights. However, why do we hold the ability to vote so highly? Its because it’s
a man made creation and we value it highly. However, a dog would not value it
as highly because it has no reason to. We can not create check points for other
animals to reach and criticize and judge them if they do not reach them. As
different beings they have different values and interest and have no reason to
hold our values above there own. In closing, in order to truly see equality in its
most pure for we cannot look at this world as a human would. As people and
Americans we instinctively have values engraved into us that are not values for
all beings. And we can not completely dismiss the ideas of today’s time that
appear “crazy.” Things in this world change over time and between societies.
Here in the states most people eat beef without a second thought, but in other
countries such as India the cow is sacred. There is no way to point at either
civilization and say that one is wrong and the other is right... there is simply
difference in values and the same concept applies between different species.
Covering a lot of ground, this student raises the notion that cultural beliefs do shift over time,
and he implies that, at least partially because language usage is fluid and evolving, it is
possible to initiate such a shift in attitudes toward nonhumans. He also explores the relative
perspectives and values of various species, pointing out that qualities and abilities that are
highly valued in human society may not be of any use to nonhumans, and that other animals
“have no reason to hold our values above there own.” He encourages open-mindedness and
the consideration of other points of view, urging that people should not simply “look at this
world as a human would.”
In other posts as well, spring semester students again readdress questions of how we
‘look at this world.’ After readings passages from the Constitution of Ecuador that address
294
“Rights for Nature,”452 one student comments, “I thought it was a good thing that they
actually acknowledge themselves of actually being part of nature, not wanting to control it or
distance themselves from it. They look at nature as something that is vital for their existence
not just as a resource.” This statement praises the language of the Ecuadorian Constitution
for expressing a view of humankind as part of the natural world. The student returns to one
of the metaphors discussed during weeks 3 and 4, ‘the natural world is a stockpile of
resources,’ contrasting this metaphor with the view exemplified by Ecuador’s Constitution.
Later another student cites this metaphor as well, responding to a poem with the
observation, “The imagery that comes out of these lines is sharp and gets me thinking about
how corporations view the natural world as a free and endless resource.”
A classmate discusses possible alternative views with a proposal:
In my experience… generally mainstream religions and cultures/traditions tend

to focus on family a lot, so if we can connect all ways of life to the benefit of
everyone’s family I believe that world could feasibly be able to act on one
accord on something. This is just one idea however…
Here the metaphor of the world as one large family is linked to an awareness of social and
ecological interdependence; the student seems to suggest that by increasing such awareness
in mainstream culture, more people would conceptually connect the wellbeing of the natural
world and of other people and other species with the well-being of their own family.
The other major theme that appears in the writing of spring semester students during
weeks 11 and 12 is critique of society. This theme is often interwoven with the other themes
outlined above, as students raise questions about treatment of nonhumans, ethical standards,
452
“Ecuador Constitution, 2008,” Political Database of the Americas, 2009,
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador08.html.
295
and views of the natural world and then link those questions to sharp criticism of current
cultural norms. In one direct example, a student states:
Although mankind’s ethics have drastically evolved, we are still missing a

distinct set of beliefs about the land, plants, and animals that we co-exist with,
and still consider them singularly for their economic value and impact on
mankind…. The lack of empathy for nature almost seems a social norm today.
Formulating several insightful points, this student argues that humankind, or perhaps more
specifically US culture, has no clearly defined conceptual framework to guide our
interactions with the nonhuman world – or at least none that acknowledges the inherent value
of nonhuman life beyond how it can be used to benefit humans. Describing the nonhuman
world as “the land, plants, and animals that we co-exist with,” she makes intentional
language choices that position humans and nonhumans on equal footing as interconnected
co-inhabitants of the earth. Finally, she expands her social critique by suggesting that “lack
of empathy” itself is a normative attitude promoted and supported by dominant culture.
In a parallel critique of US culture, a classmate discusses differences between the US
Constitution and the Constitution of Ecuador. She says of the assigned excerpts from the US
Constitution and Declaration of Independence:
After finishing this reading I wondered how this could have anything to do with
the topic assigned this week, and then I realized that it didn’t. Yes, our
Constitution and Declaration of Independence talk about rights, ethics, and
justice, but they have nothing to do with any rights or justices assigned to
anything other than ourselves.
As I started reading the Constitution for Ecuador, I immediately noticed the
differences. Right away the people address their respect and celebration of
nature, “which [they] are part of and which is vital for [their] existence”
(Preamble Line 3). So many terms and phrases popped out to me that were
nowhere to be seen in our constitution, such as “coexistence” and “harmony
with nature.” It is no wonder that Americans do not see the beauty in everything
around us or share a respect for the resources supporting our lives. We have
296
grown up basing our principles on a system that is absent of these values. I
remember having to memorize the beginning section of the Declaration in
highschool and never thinking twice about its content. But now I realize how
empty and unfulfilling the words are in so many aspects and I feel like this
document, as well as the constitution, is not really as alive as everyone says it
is. If you do not know where you come from and do not admire the places you
are connected to, then you will not do everything you can to protect them. I
think the reason why we are producing and consuming and creating so much
waste is because we do not see the value in what we have, because we have not
stated it in the documents that supposedly have made this country so successful.
If these documents are the framework for the organization of our country and
they do not say anything about the environmental justice that the natural world
deserves, then what kind of organization is that? We need to take a lesson from
Ecuador and reconsider what really matters in our escalating pursuit of
selfishness.
Noting both their linguistic and conceptual content, and most strikingly what is missing from
them, this student argues that the founding documents of the US serve as a “framework” to
establish our cultural values and to specify what, and who, “matters” to us. She suggests that
by failing to codify value and respect for the natural world into the documents that serve as a
written representation of our national ideals, the US has laid the groundwork for a culture
that does not “see the value in what we have,” “know where we come from,” or feel
“connected” to the places that she believes we should feel a part of and that “support our
lives.”
A fellow classmate offers strong commentary on these documents, as well:
It was embarrassing to see how self-absorbed our nation’s constitution is in

comparison to Ecuador's constitution. The celebration of nature is one of the
first lines in the Ecuadorian constitution and there is an entire section devoted
to the rights of Nature. The US constitution neglects to include a section
detailing how nature is to be treated, which leaves the treatment of nature and
our environment to be established on a personal level. If you have ever been to
a Wal-Mart or watched an episode of Locked Up, you will understand my lack
of faith in the American people to determine what is right and wrong. Although
I cannot imagine an amendment suggesting the American people celebrate
‘Pacha Mama,’ on the daily, I do think there needs to be an amendment dealing
297
with the appropriation of natural resources. As stated in the Ecuadorian
constitution, appropriation is regulated by the state, which prevents basic
essentials for living, like water for example, to be monopolized and controlled
by a 3rd party. Appropriation is becoming a bigger concern in the U.S. and
honestly, should be considered ethically wrong to control a public resource that
is necessary to life. We should take a cue from other nations; the preservation
of our land should be the foundation in which we live our lives, or we will be
(and may already be) on a one-way path to destruction.
Based on the writings of both fall and spring semester students, the course materials of
weeks 11 and 12 appear to stimulate extensive critical thinking about the treatment of
nonhumans and of oppressed human groups, and about US cultural standards in regards to
such treatment. Students demonstrate their further development of sophisticated
understandings of the formation of cultural values, the role of language and discourse in
establishing belief systems, and the ways that dominant conceptions of humankind’s role in
the larger world provide frameworks that shape standards of behavior. They raise
challenging questions about the US role in global inequities, about ethical ideals, and about
how such ideals can and should be enacted.
The ethical conversations that take place among students during these two weeks may
not directly result in decisive changes in student behavior. However, they form the start of a
much larger process of navigating the complex dynamics of daily ethical thought and action.
I believe that the experience of collectively engaging with ethical questions, informed by
empathy and critical cultural understandings, allows students to begin developing new levels
of moral imagination. Also, by voicing expressions of compassion and by denouncing
instances of cruelty and exploitation, students begin challenging the obscuring or dismissal of
actions that harm othered groups, including nonhuman animals and the natural world. In so
doing perhaps their comments also serve to “push… languages of love and care into the
298
mainstream,”453 an act that it itself has transformative potential.
Weeks 13-14: Envisioning the Future
In the final two weeks of the semester, students are presented with readings and
viewings that propose possible strategies for living more sustainably in the future. They read
pieces arguing for reformulation of modes of design and production, and I show them films
and images that offer examples of builders, architects, and engineers working to create
housing and consumer products that contribute positively to the global ecosystem. They also
read imaginative narratives that paint scenes of possible futures, both positive and negative.
They research local organizations that are working to support sustainability in their
communities and they present their findings to the class. I also ask them, through discussion
and drawing, to engage in their own imagining of how human life might be sustainably
structured in the future.
The challenge to imagine more sustainable future paths is reflected in student writings
during these weeks. Students focus many of their posts on possible practical, social, and
conceptual strategies for sustainability.
In the fall semester, students’ writings during the final weeks coalesce around two
primary themes. In the first, students continue to reflect on cultural attitudes, now
specifically linking their discussion to how attitudes might be shifted to effect positive
change. In response to viewing an art contest for children that focuses on messages of
453
299
environmental protection and prevention of climate change, one student writes, “Concerning
the art contest, I just love the whole idea because hopefully these creative messages can help
change attitudes and when attitudes are changed the world changes for the better!” In this
post the student highlights the importance of changing attitudes in order to enact social
change, and she concludes with hope that art may be an effective vehicle for initiating such
change. Another student reflects on this possibility as well:
This art contest is just one of many ways to change people’s attitude and like
we’ve been talking about this entire class, the only way change is to come about
is if worldviews and attitudes change. More contests and public involvement
activities should be planned and there needs to be more movies about these
issues and more ways the public can not only learn about these issues but there
needs to be more opportunities for people to get involved!
Expressing passion and excitement at the prospect, this student reiterates her agreement that
“the only way change is to come about is if worldviews and attitudes change.”
Another student also emphasizes the importance of shifting popular perception; he
comments:
Eco-efficient building designs are just lofty ideals until they are embraced and
enacted. We cannot hope to develop a more sustainable world without the
support of the masses. One of the primary obstacles of sustainable design is
altering public perception. Economic growth is seen as the primary indicator of
success in the industrialized world; the commons view is that “ commerce is
inherently required to perpetuate itself.” Convincing the general public that
growth is a “cancerous madness” and encouraging alternate measures of
success is integral to the success of sustainability goals.
In the other major theme from the last weeks of the fall semester, students ponder
specific proposed strategies for increasing sustainability. One discusses the positive potential
of “green” design:
300
I have always felt the most calm when immersed in the natural world. The fast-
paced nature of modern cities promotes a general feeling of unrest. In addition
to relieving pressures felt by the environment, I feel that sustainable design has
the potential to lift some of the pressures felt by individuals. Living in a “green”
environment has a positive emotional appeal. A common theme developed in
this weeks readings: good design should be both efficient and emotion-
provoking.
Here he suggests that green design would not only serve to make society as a whole more
sustainable, but that by designing and building living and working spaces in more sustainable
ways we may also be able to create spaces that have a more positive effect on individual
people, providing emotional and psychological, as well as ecological, well-being.
In other posts, students discuss recommendations by McDonough and Braungart,454
who propose changes in the way we conceive, design, and build our products and living
spaces. In one passage, McDonough and Braungart use ants and cherry trees as examples of
beings that coexist with their surroundings while nourishing, rather than depleting, the larger
world. One student responds:
I think the example of the cherry blossom tree and ants show us how to be
productive in a positive way that benefits everyone. It’s amazing to see that
ants, although significantly smaller than people, are able to live in a way that is
not only beneficial to them, but to the world.”
A classmate comments on this passage as well:
I really liked the image of a cherry tree and how although when looking at the
“ground littered with cherry blossoms” it is not “inefficient and wasteful!” (73).
The cherry tree makes ample amounts of cherries, and natural resources that are
not damaging the surrounding environment. Everything the tree drops is
decomposed and returned naturally to the earth. If only our society created
resources that could leave no trace of it’s existence once used and disposed.
454
301
In this way students actively begin to do exactly what these authors suggest, to imagine
alternative ways of living and of creating that would contribute positively to the world.
Spring semester students write predominantly about these themes as well during
weeks 13 and 14. In many of their posts, spring students also continue to critique cultural
attitudes, and like the fall they focus directly on the need to change attitudes as an essential
step in initiating social transformation. One student expresses this point by commenting,
“I’ve pretty much been saying this almost every week in these writings but we have to get
people to change the way that they think about these problems that we face. If people are
more educated, then they will be more motivated to actually do something about it.”
Another student envisions shifts in thinking as well:
I believe if/when the changes we have talked about occur, that it will also lead
to major changes in the way we think about ourselves and the world. In order to
bring about this change some of our cultures most deeply rooted values will
need to change…
Elsewhere in a reply to a classmate, another student discusses the challenges inherent
in seeking to change dominant modes of thought. He states:
One point that you brought out… that I like was the difficulty in actually
changing our way of thinking. I think the difficultly lies the fact that we as
humans can usually find some way of justifying out actions so in a way no
matter what we do we believe to some degree that what we have done, what we
are doing, and what we will do is right. Whether not this is the case (that we are
right) is a different story. So along with changing the way we think we must
also change the way we perceive things, because if we see the things that we
already do as being right then it will be hard to change, but if we see our actions
as being wrong or harmful change will come more easily.
302
In these and other posts, students express belief that implementing change in society’s “way
of thinking” and “the way we perceive things” is key to changing the way we live.
Like the fall, spring students also respond to proposals made by their assigned authors
for alternative modes of building, designing, and living. One student reacts to McDonough
and Braungart by declaring:
I was also interested in McDonough and Braungart’s explanation of “virgin

products.” Westerners like the idea that we are all “unique and powerful” and
that all of our products are made brand-new just for us…. This system is the
opposite of the one that exists in the natural world. Every product that any
organism creates is not only biodegradable, but also helpful for the ecosystem
surrounding it. If humans want to survive for any substantial length of time, we
are going to have to learn to imitate these systems and get over our unfounded
desire to buy everything firsthand.
Merging social critique with an astute understanding of the differences between ecological or
biological creation and modern industrial creation, this student shows reflection on a possible
vision of the future in which human modes of life are designed with the natural world as
inspiration.
Also in response to McDonough and Braungart, a classmate writes:
Another excerpt that I found interesting was “Once upon a Roof.” This excerpt
gives us another perspective to look at when it comes to saving the
environment. Just by changing the way we build a roof, we can do many more
positive things for the environment. By simply putting a layer of soil on
rooftops with plants we could solve many of the issues we currently face. I
learned that with this method, it would maintain the building’s temperature,
create insulation, produce oxygen, protect from the sun’s harmful rays to make
it last longer, etc. The fact that this one simple step can solve so many
problems, it brings up a world of possibilities as to what possible things we can
do to solve other issues this planet faces.
Expressing inspiration and hopefulness, this student points out that green rooftops are an
303
example of countless potential modifications that could help “solve [the] issues this planet
faces.” She reasons that if a change as “simple” as growing plants on roofs can so
dramatically improve the way buildings operate and the impact they have on their
surroundings, it is likely that other such innovations exist that would allow us to remake our
modes of living for the better.
Also expressing hopefulness, another student concludes a post by pondering,
“Wouldn’t it be neat, us being the generation with possibly the worst environmental
conditions ever, and then being the ones to help change everything?”
Over the course of weeks 13 and 14, both fall and spring semester students provide
strong evidence that they are thinking about possible futures that would look and operate
differently than the world we live in today. They eagerly discuss potential alternatives for
living, building, and consuming, and many express strong opinions that to achieve the
possible alternative futures they imagine, a shift in cultural attitudes, beliefs, and values must
be enacted. Many cite education, art, and media as the likely vehicles that could potentially
instigate such change.
Etienne Wenger tells us that “Curriculum is an itinerary of transformative experiences
of participation.”455 I hope that these student reactions show that my model curriculum in
critical ecoliteracy serves to provide this sort of itinerary of transformative experiences – an
itinerary of shared knowledge formation, collective inquiry, critical questioning, and
empathetic and ethical reimagining. In the following section I consider specific cases in
455
304
which students voice and demonstrate personal transformation, articulating changed
opinions, understandings, and modes of thinking.
D. Student Transformations
Student comments in their weekly response papers and other assigned writings
provide evidence of increased engagement in the types of thinking that the curriculum
materials are designed to cultivate, including critical analysis of cultural influences on
environmental attitudes and behaviors, thoughtful consideration of other perspectives,
including those of nonhumans, and active imagining of alternative strategies for conceiving
of and engaging with the larger world.
However, it is also the case that these student writings are composed in reaction to
readings and viewings in which a host of authors, artists, filmmakers, and others make the
case for sustainability and cultural transformation. It is possible that the statements students
make which appear to be evidence of independently critical and empathetic thinking are, in
some cases, students momentarily adopting and reiterating the attitudes expressed in their
readings and viewings, or merely stating what they believe I, as their instructor, want to hear
by mirroring the opinions of the authors they have just read. How much of what students
write is evidence of genuine original thought, personal reflection, and expanded
understanding?
While I cannot provide a definite answer, based on my coding and content analysis I
contend that my students in both the fall and spring semester do convey their genuine
thoughts and reactions in their weekly response papers. Students do not hesitate to disagree
with or critique a reading, or in a few cases to suggest that they found a reading dense or
305
confusing, or that they did not see its relevance to the topic at hand. Students also frequently
make statements indicating that an idea is new to them, that a reading has made them reflect
on their own lives and choices, or that it has surprised or even worried them. Below I share
several instances of these sorts of comments, as evidence of genuine development in student
thinking. I also discuss three unique cases of students who entered the class with a stance
that stood apart from the average opinions of their classmates, and I trace some of the
comments and reactions of these students.
In many of their response paper postings, students highlight ideas from the readings
that they say they were not previously familiar with. In one example of this, a student from
the spring semester discusses an excerpt by E.O. Wilson456:
He then looks in on the approximate bio mass of what he calls one of the best
adapting species, the ant. 10 percent of all the biomass of the forest they’re in is
comprised of ants. When I read the number I was astonished. How can there be
so much of something so small? How can it take up that much of the total
amount of living mass in one area like the forest? There is so much to think
about there. Humans think of themselves as the biggest, the top, the best, but
here in this forest is a colony of animals surviving with nature in such a
simplistic way that it causes no harm. Not only that but they’re so many beings
in that colony, like a city in human terms. However, the humans destroy the
land they live in. They strip the land or cover it in concrete and disturb the
balance of the world around them. If people would look around them to see
how to live with the world instead of changing it on a whim I think it would
lead to a more productive way of life and contribute to restoring things of the
world such as biodiversity.
This student describes being “astonished” to learn that ten percent of the biomass of the
rainforest is made up of ants. But this reading does more than surprise him; it provokes new
thinking. With this information as his starting point, he begins to make a series of thoughtful
456
E.O. Wilson, “Storm over the Amazon,” in Reading the Environment, ed. Melissa Walker, 1st ed. (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 151-160.
306
connections. He questions human notions of superiority, he points out that ants are able to
exist in vast numbers without causing harm to their environment while humans have not
managed to do so, and he begins to consider the idea that humans could rethink how they live
in the world and could learn lessons about sustainable living from other creatures. As he puts
it, there is indeed “so much to think about here.”
Another student from the spring semester comments on his increased knowledge of
biodiversity and ecological interdependence:
The beginning that talked about the importance of biodiversity was very
interesting, it helped to tell the scientific and cultural importance of preserving
nature. Usually in class we talked about how it is the ethical thing to do and
how all living/natural things have the right to live but in this part of the passage
the author defended out reasoning with a totally different approach. It tells how
everything is connected and how all living things “use” one another to benefit
everyone else. This was very enlightening for me!
Even in cases where students are not entirely in agreement with the author – which
they appear to voice freely – they frequently state that a reading has at least partially
persuaded them to agree with the author’s argument, as in the case of a student from the fall
semester, who comments on Joan Dunayer, “While her opinion may be a bit overly emphatic
about the equality of animals so is our current viewpoint of absolute superiority in all cases.
This passage definitely makes me feel agree more with her view than I did before I read
this.” This student expresses that he finds Dunayer’s argument for nonhuman equality more
extreme than his own stance, but he points out that the dominant US-American stance places
humans as superior to nonhumans “in all cases,” a viewpoint he finds equally extreme. He
suggests that Dunayer’s writing has shifted his thinking partially in her direction.
307
Another student from the fall semester suggests a different sort of persuasion she has
experienced as a result of reading Aldo Leopold. She says, “When you read about his
adventures with nature you even may think you want to develop stories of your own and
Leopold kind of convinces you to go out into nature and enjoy it while it is still here.” This
student reflects that she has not had the same intimate experiences with the natural world that
Leopold is able to describe, and reading his work has led her to feel more interested in
‘developing stories’ of her own by spending more time in close interaction with the natural
world.
In another example, a student responds to an excerpt from McDonough and
Braungart457 by saying, “I have never thought about industrialization in this way before. In
history classes we are taught about the industrial revolution, but who could have predicted
humans would take it so far without stopping to consider future consequences?”
These sorts of statements suggest that students are encountering and processing new
information, and that they are using this information to form new insights and opinions about
humankind’s interactions with the world. One student from the fall semester sums up this
sentiment in a reply to a classmate:
I have to agree, that my awareness of the world around me has greatly been
opened up due to every reading and gathering of information I’ve received from
taking this course. I have personally been active in preserving and appreciating
the environment around me.
In other statements, students show evidence that they are applying this new thinking to
reflection about their own lives and experiences. One student demonstrates this in response
to Lakoff and Johnson, saying, “Since I have read ‘Metaphors We Live By,’ I have been
457
308
examining the words I say in depth to see if I have been using metaphorical terms to describe
what message I try to convey. It was incredible to me how many times I stopped to think
about what I’ve said!”
Another student from the fall semester responds to a poem in which the author
purchases a live duck and sets it free458:
This passage gave me an insight on some of the things we see in the Chinatown
because I know that when I go to Chinatown I don't think about what is going
on behind the scenes. When I see the ducks hanging in the window I don't think
about how it got there. But now when I pass by a window and see ducks
hanging I'll think about the duck before it was killed.
In this post we see increased consideration of other beings as feeling creatures, of what is
done to them by humans, and of what they go through as a result.
In another post, a student connects a discussion from our class with a text she
encountered in another class, and uses these to examine her own attitudes:
Your points about the wilderness are interesting as well, because it reminded
me of a piece that I just read in another class about a woman who moves to
Wyoming and lives in what most people would feel is wild, crazy nature. It was
an interesting piece, but it made me think how personally, I could never do that,
because I like my comfortable life here in the suburbs, protected from the wild.
But this makes me just like everyone else who wants to stay away from the wild
and not care about it.
This demonstrates not only self criticism, but cultural criticism, as the student concludes that
her desire to stay in her “comfortable” suburban life is a common feeling in US society, and
that it may lead people to feel separate from “the wild” and disinterested in the wellbeing of
the nonhuman world.
458
Genny Lim, “Animal Liberation,” in From Totems to Hip-Hop: A Multicultural Anthology of Poetry Across
the Americas, 1900-2002, ed. Ishmael Reed (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2003), 34-36.
309
Another student demonstrates a mixture of personal and cultural reflection in
response to a poem about the production of gelatin459:
I also wonder how people come up with things such as that. Who says “Hey lets
go boil baby piglets and make a child’s sugary snack?” When i think of any
confectionary snack I think of Willy Wonka. I know that it’s nothing like that in
the real world but it’s the picture that’s painted to a child at a young age and
most of the time the realities aren’t ever told to them until much later in life.
This student analyzes his own culturally-formulated images of “confectionary snacks,”
suggesting that children are presented with a falsely-positive image of the production of such
items.
In a number of cases, students convey emotional reactions to what they’ve read and
seen. Sometimes, this comes in the form of distress or fear about the future. In one example
from the spring semester, a student confesses:
Sometimes, these readings make me feel hopeless, like each chapter, each essay
we read is about a different area of life, a different country or ecosystem that we
have completely f*cked up beyond repair. But in the end I feel like we've got to
keep slogging through the readings. We have to keep learning about what's
gone on and what's going on so we can make informed decisions about the
future and change the path we’re on.
Although she begins by using the word “hopeless,” she ends on a note of responsibility,
declaring the importance of learning about “what’s going on” in order to “make informed
decisions.” She then takes this agency a step further, suggesting that, by making better
decisions, it will be possible to “change the path we’re on.”
Another common emotion that appears in student writings is anger, generally in
response to learning about cruelty toward nonhuman animals. In one such post from the fall
459
310
semester, a student writes passionately about injustices committed against both humans and
nonhumans:
I also liked reading the poem, “Gelatin Factory” by Kevin Bowen, because
once again it addressed how humans not only hurt the environment and
nonhuman creatures (like the pigs) but they hurt themselves (when he talked
about the dead workers). Look at that process to make gelatin and it’s like
WOW! People can’t see how wrong this is! Abusing people and innocent
creatures is not normal and should not only be frowned upon but should be
changed. Where is the justice in this world? Where? When someone finds it,
they need to let me know.”
A classmate replies to this post by pointing out that, in US society, certain types of abuse
against nonhumans and humans may, in fact, be a central part of ‘normal behavior.’ She
reflects:
There’s one part of your analysis that I find debatable, which is “Abusing
people and innocent creatures is not normal...” simply because abuse can go to
so many extents. This may be a stretch, but it could also include killing animals
for the meat that most people eat daily, but also the activities that occur for
entertainment or other reasons. To say this would mean that one would have to
be against the death penalty and vegetarian, to be fair.
Here students are questioning what is right, and also questioning what sorts of common
behavior would or would not be consistent with the ideal moral stands they would like to
take.
In another post from the fall semester, a student asks in frustration whether such
morality is possible:
Is it really that difficult to consider the well-being of nonhuman animals and the
environment in our decision-making process? Is our dependence on mass-
produced foreign goods really necessary? In the end, it comes down to having
strong morals and planning for the future. Is that really too much to ask for?
311
And while pondering the idea that humans have become disconnected from the natural world,
one student exclaims, “People need to wake up and smell the roses! Literally!”
In other instances, students ponder newly-realized connections between human
behavior and the larger world. One student responds to an article about the BP oil spill by
commenting:
I learned more about the long-term effects of the spill that I somehow missed in
the media coverage of the spill. Like the fact that not only the fish and creatures
will be suffering from the spill but the marsh that protects the land is in grave
danger as well. Its also amazing to see how much we really do coexist with
nature, we are not only effected by changes in the food chain but changes in the
ground around us can kill whole communities. Just something I thought was
amazing about this story.
Students frequently demonstrate that they are applying the knowledge gained from
course materials to their analyses, making connections between readings from different
weeks or between information in the readings and larger socio-environmental phenomena.
One spring semester student responds to a reading by reflecting, “I also liked that the 6th
principle mentioned that goods and services should be mainly be produced locally, because
now that I have more knowledge about how this affects farmers and communities, I can
appreciate this more.” Elsewhere, a classmate proposes food production as an integrating
subject to examine many aspects of society. She states:
Factory farms and feedlots, monocultures of government subsidized corn and

the development of GMO’S are all occurring today. Most of the population has
no idea what’s going on, let alone what exactly they are putting in their mouths
and the mouths of their children. If we pay attention to food production we can
learn a lot about ourselves as a nation and maybe even find a better place in the
future.
312
Another reaction that appears often in student writing involves asking questions about
how to change people’s behavior. One fall semester student suggests:
If the government or certan groups could make a concerted effort to make it

popular and personally rewarding to drink water from the tap, then there would
be a greater prevalence of this occuring. The rewards for drinking water from
the tap and helping nature need to be intrinsic, however, because they need
people to do it for personal reward not governmental reward, otherwise the
effort will last only as long as the government is willing to give out incentives
to get people to drink less bottled water.
A classmate ponders this analysis and replies:
I do agree with the majority of what you posted, but sometimes i have to think
again about the governmental reward system. If a government offers even just a
small reward, as long as it is big enough to satisfy the individual, would this be
able to change the habit into the next generation? After one hundred years,
would it truly matter that the incentive was taken away, or would people go
back to the habit from before the rewards?
Another exchange between two students, this time from the spring semester, also illustrates
this sort of questioning. One writes:
It really is a sad thought that something so easily prevented on our part could
cost the life of another living creature. It seems that we have not one, but two
enemies to defeat in the struggle for the Earth: ignorance, and carelessness. The
people who do the most damage are those who either don’t know, or don’t
care—thankfully there are many more of the former than the latter.
In reply, a classmate exclaims:
That’s exactly what it is! Ignorance and carelessness. Humans are not hateful
beings (at least most of us). It’s just simple things that can change
everything...education is the most important tool we can use to change the
future. We are lucky that it’s not that people don't care, but that they don't
know, because this way we can have some hope.
313
This student expresses strong support for increased education; it seems that she is coming to
believe that expanded cultural awareness is essential for positive transformation.
In other evidence of their frank consideration of course materials, students sometimes
directly critique the stance, argument, or content of a particular reading. During week 5 of
the spring semester one student comments:
However for this weeks reading I felt as though that the message was especially
one sided. I would like to see both sides of the argument but in truth I see the
other side of the argument everyday with how people in our culture treat and
see non-humans. So, it is not a bad thing that the messages are one sided so
long as we are aware of how our culture is as of now.
This student raises an interesting point, observing that the week’s readings may be too
uniform in expressing positions that contest dominant cultural attitudes. However, since
these dominant attitudes have the hegemonic force of mainstream culture behind them, he
concludes that it may be worthwhile to focus the course materials on opposing perspectives.
Another example occurs during week 13, when a student makes this critique of the
readings:
I was also surprised to notice that, although the topic was “Envisioning the
Future” there was no real discussion about how to create major solutions for our
problems. Half of the readings just described the possible horrors in store for us
and the others said we have to make some personal changes in lifestyles. What
about the bigger picture? Is there a way to create change on a massive scale?
How would we go about doing this? I feel like both the authors and the readers
need to be more free thinking, open-minded, and… educated in order to make
these changes and live sustainably.
And in a series of exchanges between students, we see insightful critiques of the possible
314
weaknesses of a particular essay.460 One student writes:
These authors also tried to make the point that environmentalist groups have
already “[achieved] so much...armed with such laws as...the Clean Water Act...
[yet still] cannot leave well enough alone,” but they must not have seen the film
“Gasland” as I did (Ray, Guzzo 533). By making statements like “Never mind
that humans never survived without altering nature,” the authors assume that
humans are the only important thing in this world. If we asked them to
complete the statement “Nature is...”, out of all the responses we examined in
class they would probably offer “an object for our use and consumption,” which
I think is ridiculous. It is articles like this that are giving out false information
and keeping people from moving forward in efforts to reduce our negative
impact on the planet.
This student not only sharply criticizes the authors’ argument, but applies her newly-acquired
knowledge of conceptual metaphor to her analysis, questioning the underlying worldview
held by the authors and suggesting that they do not perceive the nonhuman world in a way
that is likely to result in sustainable outcomes.
A classmate replies to this student’s analysis of the text by stating:
Wow, your response to Ray and Guzzo… literally changed the way I thought
about that reading. I totally didn’t even pick up on the capitalist flavored views
of the environment that Ray and Guzzo permeate through the reading. You
make a great point that progress is not just about technological advances and I
definitely think that way too many people in society see progress as defined
soley by technology. While it definitely does have a huge impact on society and
HOW we progress but is not the only thing mankind and society has achieved.
Going back to last week’s readings, you could say a form of progress would be
the evolution of ethics in society. I would definitely have to say that the ending
of slavery in our country was much more powerful than the invention of the
ipod. (Ok I cant think of a better example but I hope u know what I mean haha).
I love the point you make about the ridiculous claims by the authors that there
has already been ‘enough done.’ If there has already been enough done why the
heck are people able to light their tap water on fire???! Seriously?!!? After
reading your response and re-reading the passage I saw it through a completely
new light and think the authors make pompous claims and like you said, it is
people like them that misinforms the public. Great job girl!!
460
Dixy Lee Ray and Lou Guzzo, “Environmentalism and the Future,” in Reading the Environment, ed. Melissa
Walker, 1st ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 528-533.
315
This student, too, ties her analysis to insights gained in previous weeks. She develops the
powerful idea that advances in ethics may represent a more significant form of “progress”
than technological innovation, suggesting that a cultural shift in focus toward this sort of
advancement may lead to a more positive future. She also references the movie Gasland,461
which she had viewed as part of a small-group film viewing assignment, using it as evidence
to support her criticism of the authors’ claims.
Another student replies to this critique as well:
I had the same reaction to Ray and Guzzo’s narrative. I question their motives
in writing this article because I don’t know who would be pushing for industrial
growth with the obvious signs of an unhealthy planet all around us, unless they
are getting something out of it…. I think these continuous methods of trying to
sway people’s opinions in the wrong direction and not wanting to accept that
we need to change are really holding us back from helping restore nature.
Students also make a number of comments in which they critique themselves, saying
things like, “I know that myself, as well as many others, will really have to change the way
we think for a bright future to be possible.” This student not only demonstrates self-
reflection, but also expresses his belief in the importance of “the way we think” for shaping
cultural practices in the future.
Another student reflects on personal responsibility as well:
It is hard to think that I personally played a part in this disaster, as the students
in New Orleans pointed out, but I think it is something we as the American
public have to accept and then act on. I cannot imagine something like the oil
spill happening again in the future, but all of us, not just BP, have to take
responsibility for our actions.
461
Josh Fox, Gasland (DOCURAMA, 2010).
316
And in a reply to a classmate, another student reflects:
I really like how you pointed out that “The more people are informed, the better
the chance they will get involved and care about doing the right thing for the
earth.” I can definitely relate to this first hand and I know that before this class,
I thought a lot of the problems with the environment were exaggerated but now
that I have become informed about them through our readings, films,
discussions, etc. I am a lot more aware of the effects of my actions. I am sure
everyone else in our class is too….
These comments, and the many others of which this selection serves as an example,
provide powerful evidence that student thinking undergoes genuine change over the course of
the semester. To further investigate the extent of student development and transformation, at
the end of both the fall and spring semester I asked students to complete an anonymous
course evaluation form that I had created, to give them an opportunity to assess their
experience with the course in their own words. This evaluation form included the question,
“Did you gain any new insights, ideas, or points of view from the course? Please discuss any
new thoughts the class has raised for you.” Another question on the form asked, “Was taking
this course a valuable experience for you? What do you take away from it?” (For a full list
of course evaluation questions, see Appendix A.)
In response to the question, “Did you gain any new insights, ideas, or points of view
from the course? Please discuss any new thoughts the class has raised for you,” answers
from my fall semester students included:
“Yes. I’ve learned to treat nature and non-humans with the same respect we
treat each other.”
“Yes, I learned how words/biases affect viewpoints. It opened my eyes and

legitimately made me think more.”
317
“I saw how human-centric society is. We always think we pick the choice that
fits best, but it isn’t the best for everything involved.”
“The most prominent was the intelligence of nonhuman animals.”
And answers from my spring semester students included:
“Absolutely! I have a new respect and insight for nature and am concerned
about our future with the way we are destroying our planet.”
“Yes, too many to explain. I am much ‘greener’ now!”
“Yes. I’m now definitely aware of what I eat. Even though I recycled, I’ve
now made it an effort to my peers to do it often. Caring/taking care of the
world we’re living in.”
“It made me look inward at my own influence on the natural world and creating
waste and pollution and how to minimize this impact. I also realized how
unfairly we treat non-humans and the way that our language influences this.”
When asked, “Was taking this course a valuable experience for you? What do you take away
from it?” nearly 100% of students who completed the course evaluation form stated that it
was valuable.462 In the fall semester 16 students were present to complete course evaluation
forms, and all 16 answered that they believed the course had been a valuable experience for
them. In the spring semester, out of 15 completed forms, 14 students said the course had
been a valuable experience; one answered “I don’t know.”
Elaborating on their answers to the above question, some of my fall semester students
wrote:
“It was valuable; the syntax and word choice is especially important in writings
because it normally displays an attack on one side, or seldom shows an
equilibrium between humans and nature. One side always seems pleasant or
horrible.”
462
During each semester there were 1-2 students absent at the end of the semester on the day when the form was
filled out, who therefore did not complete it.
318
“I liked this course because I gained a lot of new insights on the natural world.
This has encouraged me to be more environment friendly, eat healthier, and to
just live a healthy lifestyle overall.”
“I feel that I am more salient of my impact on the natural world. Class

improved my ability to think critically and support my views.”
“Yes, I learned to apply the Golden Rule to Everything!”
One fall semester student referred directly to a local farm that is engaged in farm-to-school
educational activities, which the class had heard about from a guest speaker during a
previous week. The student stated, “Yes, I am very glad I took it. I would like to be
involved in urban agriculture, and I would like to volunteer at Great Kids Farm soon.”
And in answer to the same question, spring semester responses included:
“Yes, so many things. I really have gained a lot of respect for nature”
“Yes, learned to look into environmental issues further, truth is not always
given @ face value.”
“Yes! I have definitely learned to see the other side of things and look at
environmental issues from a social standpoint.”
These course evaluation responses offer further indications that, as a result of the
course, students have begun to view human-nonhuman interaction and socio-environmental
conditions differently; to more critically consider a wider range of perspectives on these
issues; to explore the social and cultural roots of human behavior toward the natural world;
and to examine and perhaps alter their own behavior.
Still, it may be that many students who enrolled in my course entered already willing
and eager to pursue such changes in their thinking and actions. What about those students
319
who are more resistant to the arguments presented in the course materials? To explore this
question, I follow the written responses of two students, one from the fall semester and one
from the spring. These students entered the class with viewpoints that differed somewhat
from the majority of their classmates, expressing in their in-class comments and their written
assignments greater skepticism about such topics as equitable treatment for nonhumans or the
value of changes in environmental thinking and policy. I’ll call the student from my fall
semester “Lucy,” and the student from my spring semester “Will.”
In her week 1 response paper, Lucy responds to the poem Sharks,463 a piece that
criticizes the exploitation of sharks. She reacts, “I never knew that soup is made from shark
fins, this made me think about all the resources people can get from sharks. It made me
wonder if we can use most parts of shark for food and parts such as the teeth for jewelry then
why aren’t they used more often.” She next discusses the piece Animal Liberation,464 in
which the narrator buys and then releases a live duck, to which she responds, “I personally
believe that ducks were put on earth as a resource for humans and humans were made to run
the earth so as long as people are treating our resources properly then it shouldn't matter how
we use them.” While her classmates were exclaiming at the injustice of killing sharks and
ducks, Lucy was establishing a stance in support of utilizing the nonhuman world for human
consumption. In my own role as instructor, I make a point to avoid disagreeing with student
opinions, seeking instead to create a supportive atmosphere in which all viewpoints can be
considered from a critical perspective. Therefore, I did not directly debate with Lucy or react
negatively to her opinions. However, as she continues to explore the course materials in
future weeks, she appears to be influenced to shift her thinking. In week 2 she writes:
463
Quintana, “Sharks.”
464
Lim, “Animal Liberation.”
320
By reading this i gained a respect for the earth because if you were to look at
something like a tree for example, what do you see? Before reading this i
wouldn't have thought about it in a poetic sense, i would have thought this a
tree, it gives me oxygen so that i can live and i wouldn't have thought any more
into it. Now looking at it i see so much more, i see it as a living creature that
takes and gives. It takes nutrients from the sun and produces oxygen for not
only humans but all live creatures, above and below the sea.
Here already is a strong increase in appreciation for nonhuman beings and a direct
articulation of changing perspectives.
In week 3 Lucy begins to voice awareness that belief systems do not reflect inherent
truth and can be influenced by cultural forces. She comments, “I personally have my own
beliefs just like everyone else but i think we as humans can be persuaded very easily to
believe what the world tells us to believe.”
During week 4 Lucy questions her previous notions of human superiority:
One thing I didn't understand about this passage was the question of who has
the right to rule the earth. I understand that without out the earth we wouldn’t
be able to live and yes it is a living thing but the earth doesn’t have a brain it
can not think and make decisions, does that give humans the right to have more
power?
In week 7 Lucy raises another insight in response to Aldo Leopold:
If people just stopped and thought about where heat comes from and where
their grocery’s come from then i think people would understand how much we
should take care of our earth. In this quote Leopold is mocking mankind and i
think he has every right to because we as people are so ignorant to the beauty of
the earth and we look at it strictly as a resource or in some cases we don’t see it
as anything and forget how the food on our plates got there and we don’t think
twice about our actions and how they could effect our world.
321
In this striking turn, Lucy critiques the dominant view of the natural world as “strictly a
resource.” She also suggests that people too often disregard the consequences of their
actions for the larger world, a theme she takes up again in week 9 when she says, “the
passage Stuff, was very eye opening to me. I didn’t realize how much of an impact i have on
the environment. Every little thing we do changes something in some way, sometimes we
don’t see the impact were making but we are.”
Elsewhere in the week 9 discussion board Lucy reflects again on changes in her own
attitudes toward the natural world, while commenting on an excerpt from Rees and
Wackernagel.465 She writes:
I myself grew up in rural area and i got to experience the beauty of nature, not
until i was older did i realize how much I was and still am connected to this
place of beauty and after that I started to look at things differently. That
connects with what the author of Our Ecological Footprint said when he said,
“Despite this estrangement, we are not just connected to nature- we are nature.”
Before I thought okay I live in this beautiful area that I’ve shared so many
memories in so that makes me connected to nature but really I am nature, we
humans and nonhuman creations depend on nature we need it to survive, it
doesn’t need us we hurt it more than help it.
Here again is a powerful shift from viewing the natural world as a resource to expressing that
“I am nature,” a stance that implies a view of humans and nonhumans as part of one another.
Based on these statements, Lucy appears to have been significantly influenced by the ideas
and sentiments contained in the course materials, and by the end of the semester she appears
to be engaging in types of thinking that she did not demonstrate at the beginning of the
semester.
465
Williams E. Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the
Earth (New Catalyst Bioregional Series) (Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, 1996).
322
In the spring semester of my course, a student I’m calling Will entered the class
voicing strong skepticism about many of the arguments presented in course materials. In the
week 1 discussion board he replies to a classmate’s post about Animal Liberation466 by
saying:
I noticed you said that you felt bad, but in many instances the world runs off of
animals eating other animals…. I was almost outraged that she author gave so
much emotion and care to an animal that has been eaten for as long as I know. I
believe that in the trend of the readings the responses of the students to these
readings has been more tailored to those opinions of the authors that they are
commenting on. In a survey how many people do you think would say yes it is
acceptable to butcher and eat ducks but after reading responses to the readings
many students say they feel bad about eating meat or that animals are not given
enough respect. I stick strong to my values and thoughts and think man is at the
top of the food chain.
In his own response paper for week 1, Will picks up these sentiments again, commenting:
For the author to even to begin to compare the life of a duck in an Asian market
to the life of her lost child was completely absurd to me. Humans exist on this
earth along with many other life forms and I agree that each animal deserves its
respect and habitat, but we exist and thrive because we are at the top on the
food chain we do not exist from respecting every animal as if it were a child of
our own. We eat and survive of others lives sometimes it may be a harsh reality
but I would hope anyone enjoying poultry on a weekly basis would agree with
me.
Here Will voices a strongly negative reaction to the notion of empathizing with nonhumans,
and argues against any behavior that does not support the consumption of nonhumans for
food. He also accuses his classmates of hypocrisy, suggesting that in their stated opinions in
response to the readings they reject the use of nonhumans as resources, but that in their own
lives they most likely eat meat themselves. In this way he rightfully emphasizes a common
466
Lim, “Animal Liberation.”
323
inconsistency between people’s stated ideals and their daily actions, one worthy of
discussion.
During week 2, Will articulates the beginnings of some slight shifts in his opinions.
In response to a piece by Edward Abbey467 he writes:
I was somewhat persuaded into a greater respect for nature through Abbey’s
more natural approach to rid his residence of the dangerous snake with a
harmless snake. I would have thought to kill the faded midget snake as well.
However, I was educated through the reading of one snake’s ability to drive
away another snake’s presence; I was shocked and liked Abbey’s approach very
much. I found Abbey to be somewhat odd though. He allowed a snake to stay
inside his trailer with him. Abbey also towards the end of the writing got down
on his hands and knees and crawled just to observe the gopher snake interacting
with another. Through the reading I was able to gain a different and positive
perspective towards cohabiting with the animals I am surrounded by.
Although Will still does not appear to fully endorse the value of empathy with nonhumans,
he does not seem as horrified by the notion as he had during week 1.
In a discussion board conversation about the Gulf oil spill during week 3 sparked by a
selection of readings on the subject, Will begins to express distress at environmental
destruction, even sharing a personal memory of his own positive feelings for nonhuman
nature:
I do have one soft spot for nature and it is very hard to hit. I feel as though this
article may have touched it a little though. I believe man should respect the
earth but I am not against the slaughtering of most animals and such business to
that extent. When an entire ecosystem is dying slowing due to mans mistake
that is a totally different story. I can see the once beautiful sight of the gulf
slowly decaying. There is nothing worse than watching something die and there
being little that you can do. I like most people I enjoy nature and its sights, and
I really enjoy that people profit off of these gorgeous and lively places. I
remember as a kid when my town would have a blizzard and then the next few
days when it would heat up and become sunny and the snow would quickly
467
Edward Abbey, “The Serpants of Paradise,” in Reading the Environment, ed. Melissa Walker, 1st ed. (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), 51-56.
324
melt, I would begin to sob to my mother and request a Kodak disposable
camera. I would exclaim to mom that it was beautiful and that I did not want it
to go away and that I would not be able to see the gorgeous sight after the sun
melts all the snow. I no longer get upset in that scenario. However when a
money making ecosystem, and a once beautiful place is ruined I get mad, and
distraught.
Here Will is beginning to draw connections to the complex negative effects of environmental
disasters such as oil spills. This topic may be particularly evocative, even for hesitant
students like Will, because the Gulf oil spill is recent, dramatic, and offers a vast supply of
strong visual images illustrating the damage it caused. With this subject-matter to inspire his
reaction, Will also appears to start letting down his defenses and becoming more willing to
express emotional attachments to the nonhuman world.
In week 5 Will continues to object to the arguments of some assigned authors,
specifically to Joan Dunayer’s challenging of linguistically-constructed species bias.468 Will
writes:
I chose to write on Joan Dunayer’s “Animal Equality”. Although I can be quite

a conservative republican at times I still chose to write on this article, I find
over the top pushing for animal right and or equality absolutely absurd and
borderline humorous at times. I strongly believe in the concept of “Social
Darwinism” I do believe Dunayer took an effective approach in her article
though. I knew what Dunayer wanted me to know after reading the first page of
the selected reading which I like very much. Throughout the entire reading
animals are referred to as nonhumans which I find funny, but also very
effective. The author is able to place the animal society on a level that is
portrayed at times as the same level that the human race is on. Then to take that
approach and level that the animals have been placed on and to tell about the
horrors that the nonhumans suffer each year and everyday can send a very
effective message.
Despite his assessment of Dunayer’s points as “absurd,” Will acknowledges that he finds the
structure of her argument “effective.” While he continues to disagree with the idea of
468
325
“placing animal society on… the same level that the human race is on,” he does appear to be
actively considering the argument. This engagement with the material is, I would argue,
much more valuable than simple agreement. In fact, despite mildly mocking the practice of
referring to “animals” as nonhumans, both in his response paper and during class discussion,
Will later adopted the term himself in many of his response papers over the rest of the
semester. Perhaps he felt pressure to mirror my own adamant use of the term, but his
willingness to employ the word may demonstrate some openness to the process of
relanguaging, or some change in his attitudes toward nonhumans.
During week 9 Will expresses reflection on humans and their role in the world:
I found this reading somewhat eye opening for me and I was able to gain a new
and slightly scary perspective like most of the other perspectives that I gain in
this class. The author simply used a perspective making humans out to be just
another animal on this earth. He gave examples of past animals that have gone
extinct which made me feel as though our time is limited…. The passage made
me feel like humans are a parasite to the world one that is growing so fast, and I
just don’t see a viable solution to all the thoughts I had as a result of this.
This statement demonstrates increased thinking about the potential future consequences of
human behavior, one of many “slightly scary” perspectives Will comments that he has
acquired from the class. In this post he also refers to humans as “just another animal on this
earth,” and one equally vulnerable to extinction, suggesting that humans are not all-powerful
and perhaps share some equivalency with other beings.
During the course Will also begins to engage in critical analysis of US culture, seen in
statements such as this post from week 10 in which he responds to a reading about unequal
consumption of resources between nations:
326
His comparison was that of countries and people taking and taking and others
going hungry or not having what they need due to others gluttony. When I think
about that concept I am immediately reminded of the hundreds of obese people
that I see on a daily basis, and the large portions of American restaurants in
comparison to other countries in the world. I have traveled all over the world so
I know this first hand too, how greedy in a way that the American lifestyle is
compared to other countries conservative ways of society. I at times wonder
how long all of this will last and how long we as a planet can go on this way.
And in a discussion during week 11 about whether nonhuman animals and the natural world
should have legal rights, Will states:
I feel as though certain rights for nature should be enforced worldwide with
some type of international code. I am sure this type of policy exists now but,
how is it enforced? Also during recent years I could see the need to raise the
standards of natural world rights, under the terms of earth conservation.
At this point in the semester, during a class discussion, I asked Will if he thought species bias
was as bad as other forms of bias like sexism and racism – a question raised by another of my
students in her discussion board post. Will responded that he thought it was, and for
evidence he referred back to our week 5 discussion about Joan Dunayer’s argument against
linguistic species discrimination. During week 5 Will had mocked this argument as
ridiculous, both in our class discussion and in his post, as seen above. However, a few weeks
later he used Dunayer’s examples as support for his assertion of the dominance of species
bias.
Will’s stance on the subject of nonhuman-human interaction did not reverse
completely; for example, in his in-class comments and his writings in the later weeks of the
semester he still voices strong support for the consumption of meat. However, he begins to
raise valid questions as to the most humane ways to acquire this meat. In a class discussion
during week 12, Will challenged the notion that buying meat from a store (which, he pointed
327
out, would most likely have been raised in a factory farm) is more ethically sound than
shooting a deer in the woods – a complex and viable ethical question. And he raises similar
points in his response paper for that week as well:
I am just not sure where that area of this week’s topics is going to bring up
valid and useful points that I am able to see. However, I will stay open minded
as always…. Numbers two of Shiva’s principles stand out the most for me, in
short it states that humans, nature, and the earth are all interconnected into a
fragile web and that we must act with consideration to the earth, and nature in
all of our choices. It also said that no man should have the right to encroach on
nature’s ecological space and that no man has the right to act violently or cruel
toward any species. I agree with this statement 100%. The catch to number two
of her principles is how far it is taken. One may consider the shooting of deer
violent acts towards another species, and I would not agree with that by any
means. I would agree with inhumane killing or things such as veal, eating baby
cows that are kept in very bad conditions. I would agree with things such as
cows having free range and eating things that are meant for them to ingest. You
can see where I am going with this.
In a reply to a classmate from the same week, Will also references socio-
environmental knowledge he had recently gained from the course, some of it apparently from
his viewing of An Inconvenient Truth469 for a small-group film assignment:
Most people just continue through their day to day loves and they are oblivious
of the effects they are having on the earth…. The hurricanes of the last 50 years
have been more fierce and have occurred more often, this is most likely due to
environmental changes caused by humans. People need to see the big picture
before the big picture fall on top of us.
In the final two weeks of the semester, Will expressed more than once how surprised
he was by his reaction to the class. In a conversation with me about his final paper topic
(which I recorded in my field notes after class), Will said that he had started the semester
thinking he wouldn’t be able to relate to any of the course material, thinking that it was
469
Davis Guggenheim, An Inconvenient Truth, DVD, Documentary (Paramount, 2006).
328
“hippy” viewpoints, and thinking that I “probably ate maple leaves for dinner.” But he said
he had discovered that he was able to respect and agree with a lot of the arguments presented
in the class, and that it had changed his thinking. He added that he no longer saw me as a
“treehugger vegetarian,” that he respected my ideas. He said that he found it fascinating that
he could debate ideas and respectfully challenge me in class, that he liked the class for that,
and that he knew there were times when the rest of the students agreed with his viewpoints.
And he said that in his final paper we wanted to talk about those readings from the semester
that, when he first read them, he thought they were ridiculous, but that he now saw he could
agree with, at least in part. He wanted to write about how those arguments could be
presented to “people who have their hand up against these sorts of ideas,” by which he
appeared to mean people who are defensive or closed off to considering viewpoints they may
have labeled as “hippy” or “liberal.”
Will articulates similar sentiments in a reply to a classmate in the discussion board
during week 13:
…after reading your post my perspective was shifted and I was able to see
different points that you have, and how your personal views came into effect in
your interpretation of the readings. I find it very interesting that even though
some of us are environmentalist, when we read through a writing written by a
environmentalist we may not agree with what they say. I personally and finding
that to be true from the opposite side of that spectrum. I have never been an
environmentalist type but through the readings and discussion in class I am able
to agree with things that are written by people having views that I would
normally dismiss and ignore. The class has helped me see a new look on
humans and their relationship with earth. Some of the readings this week made
my mind race with the thoughts that they provoked. I enjoyed reading your
post.
329
These sorts of comments present encouraging evidence of transformation in student
thinking, not only among those students who entered the course with favorable attitudes
toward the material, but more significantly among those who did not.
However, the spring semester did provide one story of failure, as well. Another
student enrolled in the class who, like Will, identified herself as conservative and objected to
the arguments made by some of the authors in the course readings. I’ll call this student
Megan. During week 5, we viewed clips in class of media sources making value claims
about environmental protection, in the context of discussing rhetorical methods of persuasion
and their use to advance a group’s agenda through media influence. We viewed a few clips
of television advertisements and news commentary. Three of these clips were segments from
Fox News in which commentators made obvious use of persuasive strategies that painted
environmental advocates and environmental issues as worthy of derision. Megan objected to
my use of these clips. She stated that she was a consistent viewer of Fox News, and that
showing these clips made Fox News “look ridiculous.” She suggested that selecting
“conservative” clips was an indicator of bias, and asked what the “point” of viewing these
videos was.
I asked this question of the class at large, to which nearly every other student
responded, very diplomatically, that they believed we needed to learn about media persuasion
strategies so that we could be informed viewers and not simply assume that what we hear on
television is truth. They suggested that this media awareness was necessary because media
and popular culture influence public opinion about environmental issues. They defended my
own role in the process, saying that I had never advocated what opinion any student in class
should hold but was simply encouraging them to think critically about the subject-matter. I
330
added that I believed Fox News was a valuable example of media persuasion strategies
because the network employs them very effectively, and because it is a highly-viewed news
network. I encouraged Megan to suggest additional video clips from other sources that she
thought were worthy of analysis. Although I tried to support her input, she did not show up
to the next class and dropped the course shortly after.
The collection of print and video segments that I presented to the class during the
sessions in which we engaged in media analysis did include examples from sources that
could, in simplified terms, be identified as both “conservative” and “liberal.” I included
corporate statements on environmental policy, websites of environmental organizations,
public service announcements by organizations promoting the welfare of nonhuman animals
such as the ASPCA, blogs arguing against the significance or existence of global warming,
and press releases about global warming from organizations like the United Nations.
Although I encouraged students to identify persuasive strategies and motivations in all of
these materials, it is true that I included more “anti-environmental” than “pro-environmental”
examples, and that the majority of students, and I myself, identified more to critique within
the clips and excerpts from some of the more “conservative” sources such as Fox News.
Also, this activity was spread out over two class sessions, and some of the more “pro-
environmental” pieces were critiqued on the second day, for which Megan was not present,
having already stopped returning to class. During this second class session students
themselves also raised other examples of “pro-environmental” or “liberal” or “pro-animal
rights” organizations that offered effective subject-matter for media analysis, such as PETA,
whose images and campaigns are often identified as controversial and divisive in public
discourse. We viewed examples of PETA billboards and print ads, and this proved a
331
valuable addition to the discussion, one that I intend to employ again in future uses of the
curriculum.
Still, the fact that Megan felt alienated or offended by the class engaging in critique of
Fox News is perhaps more a failing of mine as a teacher than of the course material itself. It
is worth noting that, when teaching subject-matter that is inherently critical of cultural norms,
a strong effort must be made to avoid making students feel too personally challenged or
criticized. Most students in the class were admirably willing to examine their own behavior
critically, and students like Will remained impressively open to discussing ideas even when
he initially felt repelled by them. But this self-reflection can be challenging. However, I
must also comment that Megan had not been a strong student during the first five weeks of
the semester, that she had not completed many of her assignments, had missed multiple class
sessions, and had not appeared to be intellectually engaged in the materials. It may be the
case that she would not have been interested in, or willing to consider, the arguments
presented in the class no matter how supportive and balanced the course atmosphere. Still,
this continues to be a challenge worth exploring in future uses of these materials.
This case presents valuable food for thought about how to cultivate critical
ecoliteracy in ways that push student thinking and encourage cultural and personal reflection,
while at the same time maintaining an open and supportive atmosphere in which students feel
that their perspectives are heard. However, it does not diminish the overall pattern of student
reaction described above, which strongly suggests that, for many students, my curriculum did
provide a transformative experience that provoked new modes of thinking, sparked new
engagement in the practice of empathy and ethical imagination, and motivated and equipped
students to intentionally consider and reformulate their approaches to the world.
332
In the following section I explore whether the reactions I have seen here are unique to
my own classes, or whether they are reflected in other groups of students, as well.
E. Teacher Feedback and Observations
As explained above, in addition to teaching my model curriculum myself, I also
enlisted Jason, a volunteer teacher, to use selections of the materials in his classroom and
provide me feedback about his students’ reactions and his own experience. Jason teaches
developmental writing and introductory English courses at a Baltimore-area community
college. As outlined in more detail in my Methods section, I presented him with the course
materials I had developed, he reviewed the materials, and he chose readings and assignments
that he wanted to use in his classes. He incorporated his selected materials into two
developmental writing classes, one during the spring semester of 2010 and one during
summer 2011. After using these materials, he provided written feedback to me about his
thoughts on them.
In his feedback, in answer to the question of which parts of the curriculum he used,
Jason writes:
I did not use any of the lessons as presented, but I used selected materials,
including poems by Federico García Lorca, Gérard de Nerval, Leroy V.
Quintana, and Tupac Shakur. I also used excerpts from the book Stuff: The
Secret Lives of Everyday Things by John C. Ryan and Alan Thein Durning. I
also screened the documentary No Impact Man. Some of the activities I
assigned were inspired by the materials: I had students write stories and poems
from the perspectives of others. I asked them to imagine what it would be like
to be someone they didn’t like, or someone undergoing a traumatic experience,
or even an animal, or a consumable item like toothpaste.
333
In this way Jason seems to have been able to adopt the materials to suit his own class content
and student needs, choosing selections from the curriculum that he felt were most suited to
the skill level of his students and could easily be integrated with the other activities he
already employed in his classes. He also developed new assignments inspired by the
curriculum that he could incorporate into existing lessons. In fact, making a valuable
addition to the materials, Jason also created an assignment in which he asked his students to
record every item of trash they throw away for one day, and then to write an essay reflecting
on the activity.
When asked to describe his experience using the materials, Jason states:
I had an extremely positive and productive teaching experience using

these materials. I found the materials to be extremely effective at engaging and
challenging students. Students found the poems interesting for their unique
perspectives and impassioned tones. One student said of Quintana’s poem
“Sharks,” “I never would have thought to write from the perspective of a
shark.”
Regarding Stuff, students were fascinated by where their food, clothing,
and other everyday items come from. I expect my students are rarely asked to
consider the external implications of their purchases. They expressed concern
over the environmental and humanitarian impacts of consumerism. My students
seemed eager to learn about the world outside their communities, to
contextualize themselves and their actions within a global ecosystem.
Students were genuinely appreciative of materials such as Stuff that
provide a wealth of information about issues students almost never consider.
They want to look at the world around them in new ways, and they are grateful
for the opportunity.
I loved teaching the materials for all the reasons the students loved
being taught them. It’s exciting to see students who might not ever consider
themselves social critics or humanitarians to engage with issues such as
corporate exploitation of third-world workers and the moral implications of
consumerism.
It is gratifying to hear that teaching the materials was a good experience for Jason and his
students, and seemed to spark valuable thinking, conversation, and analysis. Indeed, Jason
334
noticed something with his students that I noticed with mine as well, that they appear glad for
the “opportunity” to explore other perspectives, to learn about their impact within the larger
ecosystem, and to look at their world “in new ways.”
In response to the question of whether he believes his students’ attitudes changed as a
result of the materials, Jason writes:
I believe many of my students’ attitudes were challenged in a significant

way, but I cannot say for certain whether they changed. Students took quickly
and seriously to the notion that animals are not as different from humans as
they would like them to be. They understood that cows and chickens, for
example, have heart-beats and emotions and nerve endings. They understood
the clear deterioration of the natural environment and why that destruction is
harmful on both utilitarian and spiritual levels. And being confronted with and
challenged by these facts in a critical setting I believe made students at least
momentarily aware of the ethical implications of their everyday choices.
Students expressed horror at many practices of mass production such as
the treatment of baby chicks and the Pacific Garbage Patch.
Here is a fair and encouraging analysis, that students’ thinking was at least “challenged,”
although it is hard to determine definitively whether the materials produced any lasting
change.
Commenting on whether he noticed any increased empathy, critical awareness,
imagination, or agency in his students, Jason reflects:
For those of my students with children at home, these materials,

particularly Stuff, were troubling. Almost every parent, that I knew of,
expressed concern for what they were feeding their families or the
environmental impact of the clothes they were buying. Many made declarations
such as “I want to start with my family to be more aware of the items we take
for granted.” The parent demographic seemed particularly empowered by the
informative materials.
335
Jason also shared short anonymous excerpts and quotes from his students. In response to a
screening of No Impact Man,470 one of Jason’s students writes, “I learned so much. I never
thought about the science behind a recycled bottle. We as a people take the earth for granted.
We throw away so much unnecessary trash and we never give it a second thought….”
Another comments, “This was a very eye opening documentary for me, I have never thought
about the impact I have on the planet… After watching No Impact Man I will recycle more
and try to eat fruits and vegetables locally grown.” In another comment about consumption
and waste disposal, a student states, “You don’t think about your effect on the environment
until you are asked to analyze your trash or what you’re buying. Most people don’t think;
they just buy.”
In reaction to the text Stuff,471 one of Jason’s students writes:
The earth cries as we fill it with our stuff. I had no idea what it took take sustain
my coffee habits. This was a eye opener ... I had no idea there was pulp from
the coffee bean that polluted the Cauca River. This has changed my way of
thinking entirely. Everything that we use on a daily basis helps destroy the
earth. All the toxins fill our waters that we drink. Local production should be
the way of life. We are hurting ourselves by our lack of knowledge.
This response is strikingly similar to those posted by my own students in their discussion
boards, suggesting that students of different backgrounds, ages, and skill levels may all gain
insight from at least some of the course materials. Also in response to Stuff, another of
Jason’s students states:
I want to start with my family to be more aware of the items we take for
granted. The everyday items we use like cheese affect the Oregon coast. This
book should be read every classroom to educate our children. If we continue to
470
Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein, No Impact Man: The Documentary, DVD, Documentary (Eden Wurmfeld
Films, 2009).
471
Ryan and Durning, Stuff.
336
live so carelessly what will our future hold? I see life from a new perspective
now.
These comments indicate increases in socio-environmental awareness, critical
cultural analysis, and personal agency. From the feedback and evidence provided by Jason, I
feel confident in concluding that the reactions I witnessed in my own students are not a
unique and isolated occurrence, but are directly linked to the materials included in the critical
ecoliteracy curriculum. As such, I endorse its use and adaptation for a range of post-
secondary humanities classrooms.
Based on my combined evidence, I also recommend the use of the curriculum in
secondary classrooms. Although I did not test the materials in a secondary classroom setting,
I believe the contexts of the classrooms in which the materials were used lend support to the
conclusion that these materials can easily be adapted for use in secondary schools. My own
application of the materials was with college freshman, newly graduated from high school,
and although Jason’s students were more diverse in age they all had significant gaps in their
academic skill levels that resulted in their placement in developmental writing courses; as
such, they likely entered Jason’s class with reading and writing skills at or below the level of
many state and national objectives for high school students. Since the critical ecoliteracy
curriculum materials appear to be engaging and thought-provoking for students in both of
these educational contexts with this diversity of skill levels and backgrounds, I believe they
could be effectively employed in high schools, as well.
337
F. Further Reflections
As I reflect back on the experience of teaching my curriculum, I find reaffirmation
that the elements and approaches I had theorized as essential to a critically ecoliterate
approach to the world do indeed appear to be key components that result in the sort of
nuanced and culturally aware transformative thinking I set out to cultivate. In their writing,
as well is in their class discussions, I saw my students demonstrating each of the qualities
that I believe are necessary for critically ecoliterate thinking, including empathy, mutuality,
ethical reflection, awareness of context, critical language awareness, comparative cultural
perspective, imagination, and agency.
I found that some of these qualities seemed easier for students to adopt than others,
and some they engaged in readily but perhaps needed a longer period of time than one
semester could provide in order to develop deeper and more sophisticated approaches.
Ethical reflection and imagination, in particular, are capacities that I suspect students could
have developed much further given a more extended period of exposure and study. On the
other hand, as they began employing the qualities of empathy, a sense of mutuality and
interdependence, and critical language awareness, I was very pleasantly surprised by the
advanced complexity, insight, and depth my students achieved in their thinking.
I believe that the results exhibited by my students also serve as a confirmation of the
key role that pedagogical strategies play in supporting the development of the intellectual and
emotional resources necessary for critically ecoliterate interactions with the world.
Contemplating my students’ body of work as a whole, it seems to me that one of the most
effective functions the course served for students was to provide a process of guided
apprenticeship that supported students as they constructed their own practice of critical
338
cultural and environmental analysis. Through this process, the class readings and viewings,
my own questioning and challenging of student assumptions, and classmates’ thoughts and
reactions all together served as models of the types of intellectual skills, conceptual
frameworks, and emotional and ethical capacities available for students to adopt and enact in
their own engagement with the world. The curriculum materials and pedagogical approaches
I employed operated together to both demonstrate and allow space for students to think about
the nonhuman world, to question cultural beliefs about nonhuman-human relationships, and
to explore, evaluate, and try out alternative viewpoints and modes of interacting with the
world. This is perhaps the most essential outcome of the materials, and one I hope that any
instructor who employs part or all of this curriculum in the future will seek to achieve as
well.
G. Future Research and Curriculum Design
In February 2011 I ran into a student who had taken my class during the fall semester,
and we had a conversation that I later recorded in my researcher journal. Here I quote from
my journal:
Today I was speaking with one of my students who took my class in the fall,
and he said he was surprised at how much he still thinks about ideas from the
class. He said it’s always on his mind, or that he’s always thinking about it. He
said he sees things in new ways because of what we discussed in class. He told
me that he was recently having a conversation with his father about Copernicus,
and how it took people a really long time to figure out that the universe doesn’t
revolve around the earth, and he said that he was jotting down notes to himself
about how you could apply that same thinking to vegetarianism and other
topics. I told him I was really glad he was still thinking about it, and he said he
definitely was, and that he thought I’d be happy about that, because, “isn’t that
the point – education and awareness?” To which I responded yes, definitely.
339
It is my hope that the majority of students who take my course have this reaction, and
continue applying the ideas and ways of thinking they developed in the class to the rest of
their lives. I only have this one conversation to indicate that this may be the case, although I
can also add that after their semesters ended, two of my fall students and two of my spring
students later e-mailed me links to articles about environmental issues or sustainable design
because they thought I’d be interested to see them, suggesting continued interest on their
parts, as well.
Given the obvious question of whether students retain any positive effects they gain
from the curriculum, a key area for future research may be to follow up with students in the
months or years after they complete a class containing critical ecoliteracy materials, in order
to investigate the long-term impact. Such research could be conducted with my own
students, and with the students of future classrooms in which critical ecoliteracy materials are
employed.
Additional exploration could also be carried out utilizing the many other assignments
produced by my students during the same two semesters in which I conducted the research
described here. For my current research I focused my analysis on students’ weekly
discussion board postings (my reasoning for this is described in my Methods section above).
However, students also completed many other assignments, some of which I describe or
quote from briefly in this dissertation and some of which I do not, simply due to space
constraints and the feasibility of analyzing such a wide range of work within one document.
Beyond their discussion board posts, student work included three creative writing
assignments, three in-class or take-home writing assignments addressing specific questions
related to the readings during certain weeks, digital stories exploring personal bonds with
340
place, reports on films that students were assigned to view outside of class, and final papers.
Each of these sets of student work could provide an additional rich supply of data to analyze,
and I intend to conduct such expanded analysis in the future.
In addition, this curriculum, and other critical ecoliteracy materials, should be tested
and evaluated in other classrooms and educational contexts. Future research could further
explore the applicability of the materials to varying groups of students, disciplinary subjects,
and school settings, and could seek to determine whether results similar to those I found in
my students can be replicated elsewhere. As part of these endeavors, more research should
be undertaken in which the materials are employed in small portions, rather than as a whole
curriculum, in order to further study the effect of the materials on students when incorporated
in pieces into existing classroom curricula.
I also hope that other educators not only utilize my materials in their classrooms, but
expand them and design other curricula informed by my recommendations for cultivating
critical ecoliteracy. My materials could be modified and used in poetry classes, art classes,
creative writing classes, history and social studies classes, and other humanities-oriented
settings. Teachers could also take the approaches I have suggested here and stretch them
more far afield, creating curricula to use in classes with diverse disciplinary focuses and in a
variety of in- and out-of-school settings. A series of more advanced classes could also be
devised, as the materials I have collected could be studied in much greater depth than one
introductory course allows for.
Indeed, as I examined my students’ writing, I noted that quite a few of them picked
up on and formulated theories that are on the cutting edge of environmental philosophy,
arguing that nature/culture dichotomies are illusory and that nonhuman nature has expressive
341
intelligence that calls for attention and interaction.472 Advanced critical ecoliteracy curricula
could give students the opportunity to explore such insights further. I suspect that both the
scholarly community and our larger culture could benefit from discovering the depth of
theory that students are able to develop on these subjects. It seems that when students are
given the opportunity to think about such questions, the results can be truly enlightening for
all involved.
In my own experience teaching the materials I also noticed that two of the topics
which most consistently provoked passion in students were food production and the recent
Gulf oil spill. These are topics that students can directly connect to their own lives or that
they feel as though they personally witnessed, so they find them especially relevant. Linking
to personally relevant issues such as these is extremely valuable for connecting students to
the material, and for providing the scaffolding that allows them to develop their critical
thinking skills, which they can then apply to a wider range of socio-environmental issues and
theories.
In an example of the ways that the issue of food production can help students link and
develop complex critical understandings, I offer a poem written by a student during my fall
semester, in response to an assignment in which students were asked to write from the
perspective of a being who is in some way affected by a product the student consumes. This
student titled her piece “Milking.” It reads:
Eventually, we all fall prey

to the ultimate predator machine.
Cut me into a succulent filet,
take away all life’s gleam,
stuff me with nutritional landfill.
472
For examples see Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous; Bekoff, “Minding animals, minding earth”; Smith, An
Ethics of Place.
342
I’ll chew on yesterday’s meal
and stay in my penned mill.
No, I don’t think you know I feel
the stab of the blade, the brand;
this isn’t home, I’m in demand
for tomorrow’s best-cut steak,
or I’d be dead by corn long before
it really should take
one cow to hit the floor.
Tainted with chemicals, poisons, pesticide,
my fat transfers to yours, glowing,
golden, modified; fine-cut joke, inside
me is a wasteland that’s growing
as large and as deadening, as cunning,
as the lives this place has been numbing.
In this piece the student masterfully brings together an array of new information and ideas
she has gained throughout the course, considering US consumption patterns and their
consequences, factory farm conditions, and the use of subsidy-supported corn as inexpensive
though biologically inappropriate food for cows, as well as the use of other chemical
additives and hormones. She links these issues to a powerful empathetic imagining of the
cow’s experience, hinting at an intersubjective merging of the interests and feelings of the
narrator and reader, of nonhumans and humans. It is no coincidence that she focuses her
poem on the subject of food, through which all beings experience a direct merging of self and
other. Food, then, is perhaps one of the topics that most clearly allows students to see the
interdependence of human and nonhuman well-being, and the implications of daily practices
in contemporary society.
In the case of such personally-significant issues as food production and the Gulf oil
spill, students often have some general knowledge of the subject, but are astonished to learn
more about the layers of implications, details, factors, and considerations they had not
previously been exposed to. This deepens their understanding of cultural, material, and
343
ecological dynamics overall, and makes them realize that they need to question connections,
influences, and motivations in other aspects of society and in our relationships with the
natural world. As such, these issues help provide an excellent training ground for critically
ecoliterate thinking. It may be valuable, therefore, to explore ways to center critical
ecoliteracy curricula around issues investigation. Some environmental education programs
have utilized this approach, but the added layers of critical cultural and conceptual analysis
that critical ecoliteracy represents would broaden and deepen such undertakings.
These are just a few of the potential next steps that I hope will establish critical
ecoliteracy as a viable and valuable educational endeavor that should be employed in
widespread practice. I look forward to additional curriculum development and additional
research into the proposals I have made here, and I look forward to advancing the study of
critical ecoliteracy further in the future.
344
III: Conclusions
In this dissertation I have argued that, in order to find sustainable, healthy and just
ways of approaching the world in the future, we as a society and as a species must critically
examine the belief systems that influence our understandings of the nonhuman world and
guide our interactions within it. I contend that our culturally-influenced worldviews shape
our perceptions of living beings, ecosystems, and the land, and that these perceptions steer
our actions in every aspect of our lives. Given the clearly destructive path that our current
dominant cultural structures have established, we must identify intellectual resources and
formulate systematic methods for actively reflecting on our embedded cultural attitudes and
their origins and implications. We must draw on insights that can put these attitudes into
larger perspective, we must creatively formulate and re-envision possible alternative views of
the world inspired by capacities for compassion, creativity, and contextualized analysis, and
we must forge strategies to enact such positive transformation.
I further argue that the resources necessary to engage in this thoughtful evaluation
and reformulation include a capacity for empathy, understanding of ecological and relational
interdependence, ethical reflection, knowledge of modern socio-environmental conditions,
critical language awareness, comparative cultural perspective, imagination, and a sense of
personal agency to enact change.
I have also discussed some of the approaches and content of my own model
curriculum in critical ecoliteracy, and explored the effects of this curriculum in use. Based
on my qualitative content analysis of my own students’ writing, combined with student
surveys and with feedback from a volunteer teacher who used the materials, I conclude that
curricula designed to encourage the resources I have identified as features of critical

345
ecoliteracy do indeed seem to provide students with new experiences and tools for seeing
their world differently. Students begin critically examining their cultural context in light of
ecological interactions and consequences; investigating the discursive construction of
knowledge and beliefs; questioning what views they wish to adopt toward nonhumans and
the natural world and evaluating dominant cultural views in comparison with alternative
options; reflecting on the value of bonds with nonhuman nature; critiquing their own
consumption practices and the larger industrial and institutional patterns at work in their
culture; and envisioning better futures and imagining paths toward greater sustainability.
These outcomes are extremely encouraging, and I hope they demonstrate the value of
incorporating critical ecoliteracy materials into a range of educational contexts.
As I review the picture created by my students’ responses, it seems that nearly all are
intrigued and engaged by the ideas presented in my curriculum. They are eager to find
similarities and forge understanding between themselves and nonhuman beings. They seem
desperate for examples and models of ways to live in the world that are kinder, more aware,
and more sustainable. They want to spend time bonding with natural places, and to learn
strategies to inspire widespread shifts in attitude and behavior. They all find the elaborate
processes of modern industry and culture somewhat excessive and at times even absurd, and
they often identify behaviors they consider typical of the US as foolish, unhealthy, or
destructive. Some support more dramatic change than others, but all desire some change, all
want a more sustainable world. Many of them wonder whether sweeping change is possible.
They question which path is right, what attitudes toward the natural world they wish to
support, and what ethical standards they find reasonable and just in regard to nonhuman and
human others. But they are engaged in the conversation. What’s more, they seem to feel that
346
the conversation is necessary, and they want the knowledge and insight to approach the
conversation effectively, to question, and to contribute. Students do not always agree with
the course materials or with each other, but they seem excited to have the chance to explore
the ideas presented in the class, glad to be able to use the sorts of language and to express the
sorts of sentiments the class makes room for.
Perhaps, as authors like Terry Tempest Williams and Anna Peterson have suggested,
all of us want, on some level, to rediscover our innate connection, and need for connection, to
the more-than-human world. And perhaps we want to find ways to enact impulses of
compassion, care, relationality, and love, not just in interactions with our closest loved ones
but in our wider lives, in the public sphere, in our discourse, in our academic and
professional pursuits, in our inter-species encounters, and in our planning for the future. My
curriculum in critical ecoliteracy may provide students the barest beginnings of a way to do
this. It may offer them “glimpses of alternative values and practices,”473 and a chance to start
enacting those alternative values in their thinking and in their discussions with each other. If,
through a course in critical ecoliteracy, students are able to create, or at least to imagine, a
space where “the structural changes that [they] seek are embodied in their everyday
interactions and relationships,”474 these structural changes may begin to seem both
reasonable and possible.
By the end of the semester, my students often suggest that, in order to achieve broad
positive change, they feel it is necessary to find ways to change dominant attitudes within
society at large. Many come to cite education as one of their primary hopes for effecting
such change. In this they certainly mirror my own beliefs. It is my hope that my curriculum
473
474
Ibid., 29.
347
and my recommendations can offer new ways that education can contribute to this process of
critically examining and reformulating our culturally-constructed attitudes. To achieve this
end I would note that the education in critical ecoliteracy my students receive in my class
does not just emerge from course content; it emerges from dialogue. Perhaps the most
important goal in the cultivation of critical ecoliteracy is to spark desire for such dialogue,
and to create conditions in which this dialogue is able to take place. I hope my own materials
have done just this, and I hope they will continue to do so.
348
Appendix A: Research Documents
I. Teacher Questionnaire
“Critical Ecoliteracy” Teacher Questionnaire
Participants will have the option of completing an online questionnaire that will contain the following
text, including consent information and questions:
Thank you for your participation in teaching Rita Turner’s “Critical Ecoliteracy” curriculum
materials in your classroom and providing feedback!
Before we start, we’d like for you to read the informed consent information below. Informed consent
refers to the voluntary choice of an individual to participate in research based on an accurate and
complete understanding of its purposes, procedures, risks, benefits, and alternatives. The survey will
be completely anonymous and voluntary. We do not ask or identify any individuals who plan to
participate in this survey. If you have any questions before completing this survey, please contact
Rita Turner at rita.turner@umbc.edu.
Informed consent:
You must be 18 years or older to participate in this survey.
The purpose of this study is to determine if Rita Turner’s curriculum materials are effective for
cultivating critical environmental consciousness, if they are useful in the classroom, how students
respond to them, and how they might be improved. You are being asked to provide feedback because
you have expressed interest in using these materials in your classroom. Once you have taught as few
or as many of the lesson plans as you like, we are asking you, if you are willing, to complete the
following survey in order to share your experiences teaching the materials. The survey may take
about 20 minutes to complete.
There are no known risks involved in completing the survey. There are no tangible benefits for
completing the survey, but your responses will be very valuable in helping Rita Turner improve her
curriculum materials so that they may become more effective and may be used in more classrooms in
the future.
Participation is entirely voluntary; you may at any time withdraw from participation. All data
obtained will be anonymous. There is no way for us to find out who you are, and your data will not be
shared with any other parties under any circumstance.
This study has been reviewed and approved by the UMBC Institutional Review Board (IRB). A
representative of that Board, from the Human and Animal Research Protections Office, is available to
discuss the review process or my rights as a research participant. Contact information of the Office is
(410) 455-2737 or HARPO@umbc.edu.
After reading the consent items, please proceed to the questionnaire on the next page. Click "Next" to
get started with the survey. If you'd like to leave the survey at any time, just click "Exit this survey."
349
Questions
Please answer the following the questions. Remember that you are under no obligation to
answer, and you may skip any questions if you choose.
1. What type of school do you teach at – public, private, charter?
2. In what school system or district do you teach?
3. What grade(s) and subject(s) do you teach? In which of these grades and subjects did you use
Rita Turner’s lesson materials?
4. Which of the lessons did you use in your classroom?
5. Describe your experience using the materials. How do you think it went? Please give any
details you can to describe your thoughts on teaching these materials. Did you enjoy teaching
the materials? What were your favorite or least favorite parts?
6. How did your students respond to the materials? Please describe any details, examples,
student comments, etc. to describe how your students reacted to the materials and how class
discussions, readings, and writing assignments went. Also please comment on any particular
part of the materials that students responded especially well or especially poorly to.
7. Do you think your students were interested and engaged in the materials?
8. Do you think your students’ attitudes toward environmental issues, nonhuman animals, and
the natural world changed at all as a result of these materials? Please describe any evidence
of students’ attitudes (like comments and behavior) and of any changes in these attitudes.
9. Did you notice any evidence of an increase in empathy, critical awareness, imagination, or
agency among your students?
10. Do you think you and your students gained anything from the materials?
11. Would you use these materials in your classroom again?
12. What changes would you make to the materials? Is there anything you would add, take out,
or alter? Would you like to use more materials of this sort?
13. Is there anything else you’d like to add about the materials or your experience teaching them?
If you would like to make any additional comments or express any concerns about the
materials, please do so here.
14. Are you willing to provide anonymous photocopies of student writing to help Rita Turner
assess the materials? If so, please e-mail her at rita.turner@umbc.edu or include your e-mail
address here so that she can contact you to arrange to provide paper and pick up the
photocopies.
350
II. New Ecological Paradigm Survey Instrument
Listed below are statements about the relationship between humans and the environment. For
each one, please indicate whether you STRONGLY AGREE, MILDLY AGREE, are
UNSURE, MILDLY DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE with it.
Do you agree or disagree that: SA MA U MD SD
1. We are approaching the limit of the number

of people the earth can support
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural
environment to suit their needs
3. When humans interfere with nature it often
produces disastrous consequences
4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT
make the earth unlivable
5. Humans are severely abusing the environment
6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if
we just learn how to develop them
7. Plants and animals have as much right as
humans to exist
8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope
with the impacts of modern industrial nations
9. Despite our special abilities humans are still
subject to the laws of nature
10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing
humankind has been greatly exaggerated
11. The earth is like a spaceship with very
limited room and resources
12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest
of nature
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and
easily upset
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about
how nature works to be able to control it
15. If things continue on their present course,
we will soon experience a major ecological
catastrophe
SA = Strongly Agree, MA = Mildly Agree, U = Unsure, MD = Mildly Disagree, and SD =

Strongly Disagree.
351
III. Course Evaluation Questions for Students
1. What did you like best about this course?
2. What did you like least about it?
3. What was your favorite reading/viewing? Why?
4. What was your favorite assignment? Why?
5. What was your least favorite assignment? Why?
6. Did you gain any new insights, ideas, or points of view from the course? Please discuss
any new thoughts the class has raised for you.
7. How could the course be improved?
8. Was taking this course a valuable experience for you? What do you take away from it?
9. Any further comments, suggestions, opinions?
352
IV. List of Coding Categories
1 – imagining how another might feel, expressing concern or sympathy for another’s pain,
expressing interest in the well-being of another, expressing distress at how another was
treated, imagining another’s point of view
2 – discussing the positive qualities of other species, highlighting that human life isn’t the
only life that’s valuable, suggesting that humans and other species are similar and can relate
3 – parallels between human oppression and nonhuman oppression
4 – comments about ecological or social complexity, one system or issue affecting another,
all humans depending on the earth for survival
5 – ethical questions/ reflections on ethical stances, including statements of “this is wrong” or
“this shouldn’t be this way,” use of “should,” statements about “what’s important” or “what
matters,” questions about what stances are “right,” references to “responsibility”
6 – direct articulation of increased knowledge of socio-environmental conditions, including
new knowledge of how products are made and the consequences of production and
consumption
7 – references to existing/available knowledge about environmental conditions
8 – expressions of astonishment, horror, or anger at environmental conditions
9 – critical questioning of society, including typical attitudes, behaviors, ways of living,
social injustice
10 – critical questioning of media
11 – critical questioning of language choices
12 – increased knowledge of other cultures, beliefs, cultural background, new awareness that
there are differences in belief across individuals and cultures
13 – reflection on the pros and cons of various cultural attitudes/stances/points of view/belief
systems
14 – existing knowledge of other beliefs/cultures
15 – imagined alternatives for the future, including ways of building, producing, as well as
possible new attitudes
16 – articulations of agency, decisions to act
17 – ‘we need to do’ or ‘it needs to be’ statements
18 – expressing that language shapes perception
19 – proposing ways to get people to think about/care about the environment
20 – statements that “this [ideal thing/situation] won’t happen/ is unrealistic,” statements of
“what does that [strategy/action] really accomplish”
21 – direct articulations of changed opinions/attitudes, stating that an idea is new/unfamiliar
22 – uses of metaphors for the natural world that were discussed in class
23 – uses of ‘relanguaging’
24 – statements about negative human qualities such as “humans are greedy”
25 – use of the phrases “Mother Nature” or “Mother Earth”
26 – phrases using “nature is viewed as” or “nonhumans are views as”; questions about the
best/most useful way to view the natural world
27 - ascribing action to the planet (i.e. it will “get back at us”)
28 – statements about “how bad things are,” about bad things humans do, statements of “we
could be doomed if we keep this up,”
353
29 – reflections on personal behavior and experiences
30 – disagreeing with a reading or critiquing a reading
31 – expressions that humans should “use resources,” “use the earth,” that the earth is there
for humans to make use of
32 – uses of metaphors that weren’t discussed in class, or before they were discussed in class
33 – critiquing specific corporations, governments, laws, policies
34 – reference to needing to make informed decisions and consider consequences, including
considering how a product is produced
35 – ‘hope’ statements like “this [outcome] could be,” “then we could [achieve x]”;
statements admiring the positive actions of others
36 – personifying the natural world
37 – questioning human-nonhuman communication
38 – expressions that nonhumans should not be used as resources
39 – questioning what can be done to change things, what the most sustainable choices are,
questions of why people don’t act more sustainably
40 – listing benefits of interacting with the natural world
41 – statements supporting “eating animals,” being “part of the natural cycle of life”
42 – comments about learning from the natural world
43 – appreciation for the beauty of natural world, for positive qualities of natural world
44 – statements about disconnection or disregard, like “we’re not connecting enough to the
natural world” or “we’re ignoring the natural world” or “people are taking the earth for
granted” or “we’re not respecting the natural world”
45 – references to or descriptions of personal connections to the natural world
46 – references to “false boundaries” or “false divisions” between humans and the nonhuman
world
47 – opinions that nonhumans are not aware, that humans are more intelligent or skilled than
other beings
48 – other general critical thinking: considering motives, exploring two sides of an argument,
suggesting that it’s important to be aware of bias in writing, commenting on what was left
out of a story or ad
49 – statements about not understanding a reading or its connection to the topic of the class
50 – comments that, at first the student wasn’t sure about a reading’s meaning or relevance,
but then realized it or it became clear
51 – comments that the student was not sure about a reading but another student’s
interpretation clarified it or provided a new angle
52 – misinterpreting a reading entirely
53 – referring to previous weeks’ readings
54 – references to local sustainability efforts researched or discussed in class
354
V. Total Occurrences of Coding Themes
Table 1: Tabulations of Themes by Week for Fall 2010 Semester

Week
Theme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 Total
A 50 34 8 37 42 17 21 20 2 4 29 12 1 277
B 31 95 3 29 13 20 57 18 5 6 12 12 4 305
C 18 46 2 48 10 3 32 18 17 8 10 8 4 224
D 27 25 16 25 31 25 22 37 18 20 37 35 10 328
E 21 11 15 24 9 35 4 45 77 74 60 33 25 433
F 4 4 18 11 38 12 11 18 20 35 27 27 17 242
G 17 20 52 34 101 37 23 18 20 7 21 20 1 371
H 8 13 39 19 30 5 10 17 11 3 8 10 1 174
I 13 14 7 16 12 10 7 7 13 21 18 18 45 201
J (Single) 1 0 8 1 8 1 0 2 5 1 0 0 1 28
J (Total) 25 27 28 34 31 31 23 21 33 43 20 25 32 373
K 5 2 0 3 8 0 0 0 5 2 0 4 3 32
L 2 4 4 2 9 9 8 4 2 5 4 7 5 65
M 5 24 15 19 16 20 18 15 35 22 22 8 7 226
Note that fall semester students were not required to post response papers during Week 13,
due to the Thanksgiving break, so this week is excluded from the above table.
Table 2: Tabulations of Themes by Week for Spring 2011 Semester

Week
Theme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total
A 51 21 3 27 25 15 5 6 1 6 11 8 5 1 185
B 38 42 4 24 13 17 31 12 4 3 10 7 4 1 210
C 17 21 3 30 3 4 9 11 6 2 1 5 0 1 113
D 41 19 10 12 15 8 3 11 19 11 20 31 9 5 214
E 24 6 26 11 5 29 3 28 68 54 15 22 22 6 319
F 12 11 24 9 33 13 8 22 17 12 22 11 15 9 218
355
G 16 7 13 28 48 24 12 9 4 1 10 15 4 2 193
H 9 2 19 13 9 3 7 5 1 0 5 5 1 1 80
I 5 6 12 13 6 8 4 11 18 7 12 13 19 32 166
J (Single) 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 12
J (Total) 11 16 19 19 15 13 6 16 45 16 10 20 26 27 259
K 11 3 4 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 27
L 6 1 0 2 10 3 5 2 5 1 2 5 11 4 57
M 13 15 11 7 13 2 8 11 17 7 5 3 11 10 133
356
Appendix B: Curriculum Materials
I. Sample of State and National Learning Standards Fulfilled by the Critical

Ecoliteracy Curriculum
Maryland Voluntary State Curriculum for English, Grades 9-12475
Objective 1.2.2: The student will determine the critical or central idea(s) of a text
Objective 1.2.4: The student will interpret a literary work by using a critical approach (e.g.,
reader response, historical, cultural, biographical, structural)
Objective 2.1.1: The student will analyze organization, structure, and syntax that reveal an
author’s purpose
Objective 2.1.2: The student will analyze stylistic elements in a text or across texts that
communicate an author’s purpose
Objective 3.1.4: The student will compose effective research essays that support, modify, or
refute a thesis; use a logical structure; provide relevant and complete evidence; and cite and
document sources accurately
Objective 3.2.1: The student will prepare for writing by generating and developing ideas
Objective 3.2.3: The student will revise and edit texts for clarity, completeness, and
effectiveness
Objective 3.3.2: The student will assess the appropriateness of sources of information on a
self-selected and/or given topic
Objective 3.3.4: The student will use a systematic process for recording and documenting
information
Objective 4.1.1: The student will determine the relationship among the meaning, position,
form, function and the grammatical classification of words
475
Maryland State Department of Education, “Voluntary State Curriculum for English Grades 9-12,”
mdk12.org, 2008, http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/reading/index.html.
357
Maryland Core Learning Goals for Language Arts476
Indicator 1.1.5 The student will identify specific structural elements of particular literary
forms: poetry, short story, novel, drama, essay, biography, autobiography, journalistic
writing, and film
Indicator 1.2.1 The student will consider the contributions of plot, character, setting, conflict,
and point of view when constructing the meaning of a text
Indicator 1.2.3 The student will explain the effectiveness of stylistic elements in a text that
communicate an author's purpose
Indicator 1.2.5 The student will extend or further develop meaning by explaining the
implications of the text for the reader or contemporary society
Indicator 1.3.1 The student will explain how language and textual devices create meaning
Indicator 1.3.5 The student will explain how common and universal experiences serve as the
source of literary themes that cross time and cultures
Indicator 2.1.1 The student will compose to inform by using appropriate types of prose
Indicator 2.1.2 The student will compose to describe, using prose and/or poetic forms
Indicator 2.1.3 The student will compose to express personal ideas, using prose and/or poetic
forms
Indicator 2.2.1 The student will use a variety of prewriting strategies to generate and develop
ideas
Indicator 2.2.3 The student will revise and edit texts for clarity, completeness, and
effectiveness
Indicator 2.3.1 The student will identify sources of information on a self-selected and/or
given topic and assess their appropriateness to accomplish a purpose
Indicator 2.3.2 The student will use various information retrieval sources (traditional and
electronic) to obtain information on a self-selected and/or given topic. Electronic sources
include automated catalogs, CD ROM products, and on-line services like Internet, World
Wide Web, and others
Indicator 2.3.3 The student will use a systematic process for recording and documenting
information
476
“Using the Core Learning Goals: English,” mdk12.org, 2010,
http://mdk12.org/instruction/clg/english/goal1.html.
358
Indicator 2.3.5 The student will synthesize information from two or more sources to fulfill a
self-selected or given purpose
Indicator 3.1.7 The student will vary sentence types—simple, compound, complex, and
compound/complex—to sustain reader or listener interest
Indicator 3.2.2 The student will differentiate connotative from denotative meanings of words
Indicator 4.1.1 The student will state and explain a personal response to a given text
Indicator 4.2.2 The student will explain how the specific language and expression used by the
writer or speaker affects reader or listener response
Indicator 4.2.4 The student will explain how repetitions of words, phrases, structural features,
and ideas affect the meaning and/or tone of a text
Maryland Environmental Literacy Standards477
Standard 4.A.1 Explain how organisms are linked by the transfer and transformation of
matter and energy at the ecosystem level.
Standard 5.A. Human Impact on Natural Processes
Indicator 1: Analyze the effects of human activities on earth’s natural processes.
Indicator 2. Analyze the effects of human activities that deliberately or inadvertently alter the
equilibrium of natural processes.
Standard 5.B. Human Impact on Natural Resources
Indicator 1. Analyze, from local to global levels, the relationship between human activities
and the earth’s resources.
Standard 7.A.1. Investigate factors that influence environmental quality.
Standard 8.B.1 Recognize the concept of sustainability as a dynamic condition characterized
by the interdependency among ecological, economic, and social systems and how these
interconnected systems affect individual and societal well-being.
b. Explain how natural and built communities are part of larger systems (e.g. farms as part of
the regional watershed and food systems for cities, a mine as part of the regional economy)
and the interrelationships that exist among those systems.
Standard 8.C.1 Investigate and make decisions that demonstrate understanding of how the
dynamics of economic systems affect the sustainability of ecological and social systems.
477
“Maryland State Environmental Literacy Curriculum.”
359
Common Core Standards for English Language Arts, Grades 6-12478
Reading Standards
1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from
it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from
the text.
2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the
key supporting details and ideas.
4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical,
connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning
or tone.
6. Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.
7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and media, including visually
and quantitatively, as well as in words
9. Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build
knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.
10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and
proficiently.
Writing Standards
1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid
reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and
information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis
of content.
3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences.
4. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are
appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
478
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, “The
Standards,” Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010, http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.
360
5. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or
trying a new approach, focusing on addressing what is most significant for a specific purpose
and audience.
6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or
shared writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or
information.
7. Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including
a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when
appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the
subject under investigation.
8. Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using
advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each source in terms of
the task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the
flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and overreliance on any one source and following a
standard format for citation.
9. Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and
research.
10. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision)
and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes, and
audiences.
Speaking and Listening Standards

1. Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with
diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.
2. Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including
visually, quantitatively, and orally.
3. Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric.
4. Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the
line of reasoning and the organization, development, and style are appropriate to task,
purpose, and audience.
361
5. Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and
enhance understanding of presentations.
Language Standards
3. Apply knowledge of language to understand how language functions in different contexts,
to make effective choices for meaning or style, and to comprehend more fully when reading
or listening.
5. Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in
word meanings
362
II. First-Year Seminar Syllabus and Full List of Readings
Sustainability
in
American
Culture
FYS 101R
Tuesday/Thursday
2:30-3:45
Fine Arts 530
Instructor:
Rita Turner
rita.turner@umbc.edu
Course Description:
This course explores the concept of “sustainability” and how it is presented and enacted in
popular American culture. We will examine cultural conversations and beliefs about the
environment and about pressing environmental challenges, investigating how attitudes
toward these issues are portrayed, debated, and constructed in American culture, through
such media as books, movies, television, poetry, art, and news stories. We will examine
issues such as the relationship between personal identity and the natural world, worldviews
and metaphors our culture employs to understand nonhuman nature and humankind’s
relationship to it, cultural attitudes toward place, consumption, and ethics, and creative
visions of sustainable futures. Students will be expected to critically analyze readings and
viewings, to discuss and reflect upon their own environmental attitudes and experiences, and
to produce creative writing, digital stories, research presentations, and a final essay exploring
an issue related to sustainability in American culture.
363
Course Objectives:
-To explore and reflect on a range of socio-environmental issues, challenges, arguments, and
perspectives relating to the concept of sustainability as it is discussed and enacted in culture
-To investigate American attitudes and ideologies toward the natural world and toward
environmental issues, and to understand the mechanisms through which those attitudes and
ideologies are formed and their consequences
-To review and critique cultural narratives about sustainability and the natural world
-To reflect on personal attitudes toward and experiences with the natural world
-To consider future possibilities for living sustainably
Required text:
Reading the Environment, edited by Melissa Walker
Additional Readings:
All other readings will be available through Blackboard (see course schedule and course
bibliography for a full list).
Topics We’ll Examine:

natural world
Weeks 3-4: Masters, Stewards, Family: Views of Humankind’s Relationship to the Natural
World
discourse
carbon footprints
Assignments:
Attendance and Participation

You are required to attend each class and contribute thoughtfully to class discussions, both in
person and online. In person, this means coming to class having completed all required
readings and being prepared to share your thoughts and reflections about the readings (see
364
the list of questions to consider when writing your response papers, below, for a guide to the
sorts of the questions you should be prepared to discuss in class). Online, you must reply to
at least two of your classmates’ posted response papers each week. Replies may include
asking a question, expanding on a classmate’s idea, agreeing or (politely!) disagreeing with a
classmate’s point (and explaining why), relating a classmate’s post to your own post, etc.
Replies should average at least 100 words. Due dates are listed in the weekly schedule
below.
Weekly Response Papers

Each week you must post a response to that week’s readings on our online Discussion Board
on Blackboard. Responses should include your personal reflections as well as critical
analysis of the readings. You must directly discuss at least two of the readings for that week
in your response. Responses should be approximately 500-700 words. If you quote directly
from the readings (which is encouraged), make sure you cite page numbers. Due dates are
listed in the weekly schedule below.
Some questions you should consider when you write your weekly response papers:
-What is your favorite passage, sentence, or line from the readings and why?
-What struck you most about the readings? What surprised you? What new insights did you
gain?
-Do you agree or disagree with the authors’ points? Why?
-Are there any passages or concepts in the readings that confused you? Points you want to
clarify? Questions you want to discuss? Complex issues you want to unpack?
-How do these readings relate to other readings we’ve done in class? Do these authors make
points that expand, reinforce, or contradict other pieces we’ve read?
-How can you relate these readings to your own life experiences and to texts you’ve read and
seen outside of class?
-How do the readings relate to this week’s topic? Do these readings give you any new
perspectives on the topic we’re discussing this week, and/or on sustainability in general?
Poems or Short Stories

During the semester you will be expected to complete three creative writing assignments;
you may choose to write either poems or short stories. Due dates are listed in the weekly
schedule below.
1. Write a poem or short story from your own perspective, describing an experience you’ve
had with the natural world, a meaningful interaction with a nonhuman being, or your
thoughts and feelings about the conditions facing the ecosystem.
2. Write a poem or short story from the perspective of a nonhuman being, describing an
aspect of that being’s experience. Think about how she/he/they experience daily life, who
365
they interact with, what resources or conditions are important to them, who and what they
love, what they fear, how they use their senses, how they communicate, and how
environmental degradation has affected them or will affect them.
3. Write a poem or short story from the perspective of a nonhuman being who is connected to
the process of producing a product or material you use in your daily life. This may be a
mountain from which coal is extracted that powers your computer, a plant or nonhuman
animal that is raised for food which you then eat, an insect living on a plant which is being
grown for food, a fish in a river that contains runoff from the production of a product you
use, etc. Think about the details of how this creature is affected by the production and
consumption of the specific product or material, and think about how this creature
experiences these effects.
Short stories should be 1-2 single-spaced pages in length; poems do not have a length
requirement but should demonstrate careful construction to effectively utilize the poetic
form. Poems and short stories should demonstrate personal reflection and insight as well as
detailed, empathetic consideration of the experiences of others, and should employ creative
details, imagery, word choice, rhythm, style, and syntax to engage readers and evoke an
emotional response.
Digital Story of a Place

Create a digital story describing a place that you feel connected to. You may select a place
from your home area or a place you knew as a child, or you may choose a spot on or near
campus. Keep in mind that if you select a place that isn’t local, you’ll need to be able to
remember this place well enough to write about it from a distance, and you’ll need access to
photographs of the place. If you choose a local spot, spend some time each week sitting in
the location you’ve chosen and get to know it. Watch how it looks at different times of day
and as the season begins to change, watch the other people and creatures that occupy the
space, notice how it interacts with your senses (what sounds, colors, smells, temperatures,
textures, etc. do you notice when you’re there?), and think about how you feel when you’re
in this place. Take notes each time you visit the spot. Also research the place you’ve chosen
and find out some details about its history. What did it look like 200 years ago? How about
100? 50? 10? Look into the ecology of the place as well, and any modern threats that may
affect this place in the future.
Then develop a digital story that introduces the class to this place. Describe the features of
this place, both physical and emotional. What is the landscape? What is the local
ecosystem? What plants grow there, and what nonhuman animals live there? What
watershed is this place a part of? How have humans interacted with and changed this place
over time? What have humans built here? Tell us the biography of this place, its history, but
366
also tell us about its spirit. Think of this place as a “repository of meaning,” a source of
memories, experiences, and various types of resources for you and others. Think about what
those resources are: what have you gained from this place? (Shelter? Space for play? An
opportunity to learn, to grow, to spend time with loved ones? Beauty? Relaxation? A link
to the rhythms of nature?) And what have others (both human and nonhuman) gained from
this place? Think about who values and has valued this place, and why. What have you and
others brought to this place? How have you interacted with the place, and what does it mean
to you? Do your own “ecological identity work” and explore your relationship with this
place.
Your digital story should include both pictures and narration. If you can, locate historical
photos as well as photos of the place as it looks today. You may also want to take your own
photographs that express the character of this place and what it’s like from your perspective.
The narration can either take the form of text that accompanies a slide show, or of a recorded
voiceover. You may want to narrate your story from your own perspective, or you may
consider narrating your story from the perspective of someone else who has experienced this
place: a plant or nonhuman animal living there, a building that has been built there, or even
from the perspective of the place itself.
Your digital story is due via Blackboard, flash drive, or other method by 2:30pm March 29.
You will present your digital story to class March 29, March 31, April 12, or April 14 (you
will sign up in class to present one of those days). Your presentation should be
approximately 10 minutes in length.
Research a Local Sustainability Effort

Find a project, program, or innovation intended to improve sustainability that someone is
working on in the Baltimore area. Do some research into local organizations, businesses, and
initiatives, and select one specific effort that a group or individual is engaged in, then talk to
the person or people involved. Prepare a description and analysis of this project to present to
the class. Include an outline of what the project is, who is behind it, what their goals for the
project are, and how they hope it will improve sustainability. Then discuss your own take on
this project and its potential to improve sustainability. Draw on the readings and
perspectives we’ve discussed in class to analyze the project. What worldview and beliefs do
you think inspired it? What do you notice about how the people behind this project talk
about sustainability and about the natural world? What transformative potential do you think
this project has for the future (if any)?
367
Your presentation should be approximately 5-7 minutes long (and visual aids are encouraged
but not required). Presentations will take place throughout the semester (you’ll sign up for a
specific date in class).
Film Viewings
In class, you’ll be given a list of films – sign up to view at least two of these films outside of
class. Then, in small groups, prepare a wiki page (on Blackboard) and a brief presentation
about the film.
Your wiki page and presentation should include the following components:
1. Describe the film. Identify the genre (is it a documentary? biographical account? fictional
story?) and year the film was made. Tell us if it is based on a real person, and if so, briefly
summarize the story behind the film. Then outline the plot.
2. What is the message of the film and what did you learn? Do the filmmakers have a
specific opinion and point of view they are trying to convey? If so, what is it? How can you
tell? Does the film have a ‘moral’? What information did you learn by watching it?
3. What worldviews and belief systems are at work in the film? Identify the attitude(s) you
believe the filmmakers have about the natural world, about humans, and about the
relationship between the two. What leads you to draw that conclusion? How is the natural
world presented in this film? How is it talked about? What images of it are shown? How
are humans presented? What sorts of actions are humans shown engaging in with regard to
the natural world? Is this portrayed as positive or negative? What does this say about
humans, nature, and sustainability?
4. Your response to the film. Tell us what you thought of the film. Did you feel aligned with
the perspective of the filmmaker? Did you identify with any of the characters? Why/why
not? How did you feel after the film ended? Did it change your attitudes in any way?
In your groups you may choose to divide these questions up and answer them individually or
to work together on all of them. Your wiki content should be a minimum of 400 words, and
your presentation to the class should be 10-15 minutes in length. Due dates will be
determined in class.
Final Paper
For your final paper, you will write an essay discussing one of the themes raised in class.
You can take any angle on the theme you like, including analyzing a personal experience in
light of what you’ve learned in class, examining a particular environmental threat and tracing
how that threat is influenced by human consumption patterns or by language and rhetoric,
tracing how a particular worldview influences human activity and imagining alternative
worldviews that could lead to greater sustainability, analyzing the language used by a
368
business or government in discussing environmental issues, etc. Your essay must directly
make use of at least three of the readings/viewings from class, and at least two outside
sources. Please quote directly from the texts to provide evidence supporting your arguments.
Cite your sources and adhere to the style and format of a formal paper. Your paper should be
7-10 pages in length. Due via e-mail May 17 by 5pm.
Grading Criteria for Assignments:

Assignments will be graded on the following criteria:
-Work demonstrates thorough reading and comprehension of course materials
-Work demonstrates personal reflection, critical thought, and insight into course texts
-Arguments are clear, well-developed, and documented with evidence from texts
-Work demonstrates critical analysis of course topics, questions, and subject-matter
-Style, usage, format, grammar, imagery, and presentation support meaning and are
intentional, creative, and original
-Work meets all requirements of the assignment and is utilized to facilitate development of
personal understanding
Final Grade Will Be Based On:

15% Attendance and participation in class discussion, in person and online: both contributing
to in-class discussions and posting replies to classmates’ reflections on Blackboard
20% Response papers discussing each weeks’ readings, posted to Blackboard
10% Three creative writing pieces, either short stories or poems
15% Digital story about a place that’s personally important
5% One presentation on an innovative local effort for sustainability
10% Two group presentations about films
25% Final essay discussing one of the themes raised in class
Course Policies:
• Academic Integrity: By enrolling in this course, you assume the responsibility of
being an active participant in UMBC’s scholarly community in which everyone’s
academic work and behavior are held to the highest standards of honesty. Cheating,
fabrication, plagiarism, and helping others to commit these acts are all forms of
academic dishonesty. The correct way of making use of the works of others is
through quotes, referenced paraphrases, and a bibliography. Learning to produce
original work is one of the most important aspects of your college career. Academic
misconduct could result in disciplinary action that may include, but is not limited to, a
369
failing grade on an assignment, a failing grade in the course, suspension or dismissal.
To read the full Student Academic Conduct Policy, consult the UMBC Student
Handbook.
• Harassment: Harassment of any nature will not be tolerated. If you feel you are
disrespected by anyone (including either of us), please report the behavior to the
appropriate UMBC personnel.
• Disabilities: We are committed to accommodating students with verifiable
disabilities. Please let us know at the beginning of the semester if you need
particular accommodations.
Class Cancellation Procedure:

If a class session is cancelled due to weather conditions, additional discussion of the week’s
readings will take place on Blackboard instead of in person. This means that in addition to
posting your required weekly response paper and your two required replies to classmates’
response papers, you will be expected to post at least three additional replies to that week’s
discussion board forum. At least one of these additional replies must be to another
classmates’ reply.
On April 5 and April 7, class will not meet in person. This week, all discussion of the
week’s readings will take place on Blackboard. For this week, please post at least four
additional replies to the week’s discussion board forum. At least two of these replies should
be to classmates’ replies. Additional replies are due by Friday April 8 at 11pm.
370
Weekly Schedule and Assignments
( (
!
X"":()*!?0$,2"(0'.($E"(!"-4*(R"2;&'0-(2"-0$%&';E%M;(>%$E($E"(
'0$,20-(>&2-.(
(
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!H&X#!?!8+1!J:%.'18B!H&X#!E!
! !
I"0.%'/;*( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!]8+%8.B!
F*&K'!^8=8)08X0&!8'!91<'!*+!3085YX*8.1_[! E?!
`T*01&+!Q)+&'a!XB!Tb.8.1!1&!I&.=80!
`":!D8)+ca!XB!])KKB!G8+()8,*!3858!
`G:8.Y'a!XB!Q&.*B!Z#!$%)+(8+8!
`4*+\(!J&00!7&!I*(!(*!3*(:&.!d*%a!XB!H&..%55)*!3.%,+8.*!
`"+)K80!Q)X&.8()*+a!XB!T&++B!Q)K!
`J:&!G)0&+5&!*<!F08+('6a!`Z)&>!>)(:!8!T.8)+!*<!G8+16a!`GYB6a!8+1!
`"K*+,!(:&!7%0()(%1&'a!XB!/)'e8>8!GfBKX*.'Y8!
`":6!+*(!(*!X&!5%(!*<<a!8+1!`S!Q)=&!7B!Q)<&a!XB!D8)+&.!78.)8!D)0Y&!
À+),K8'a!XB!F8X0*!I&.%18!
Ì&>!d*.Ya!XB!H&1&.)5*!T8.5g8!Q*.58!
`J:&!D*'&!(:8(!T.&>!<.*K!;*+5.&(&a!XB!J%985!G:8Y%.!
!
".(>*.Y'!XB!"+1B!T*01'>*.(:B!^0)+Y'!8.&!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1_!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! ]8+%8.B!E?'(!8(!
! ??9K!
!
D&90)&'!(*!9*'()+,'! 4%&!XB!
! /&1+&'18B!H&X#!
C!8(!??9K!
( (
!
X"":(H*(?0$,2"(0'.($E"(!"-4(
(
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!H&X#!R!8+1!J:%.'18B!H&X#!?M!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!H&X#!2!
371
!"#$%&'()*"(+&,%-.&/"&)(&1)(&1!XB!7&0)''8!/80Y&.6!99#!L?ULR6!@?U
2E!
0*"(1#&(1#$"(.2(3.-$4!XB!I#!G5*((!7*K818B!^)+!-%.!Q8+16!
-%.'&0=&'6!&1)(&1!XB!F&(&.!H*.X&'6!"++!".KX.&5:(6!8+1!V&0&+!
/:BX.*>6!99#!2?U2E_(
5(6#&$(7.8&)9(5:/#&#;!XB!"01*!Q&*9*01[!`]8+%8.B!J:8>6a!99#!EU@h!
`J:&!T.&&+!F8'(%.&6a!99#!@LU@Nh!`S<!S!/&.&!(:&!/)+16a!99#!2MU2?!
5&(<&4=.>"&(?8&'"-@(6).-%"4(2-./()*"(A%":$!XB!J&..B!J&K9&'(!
/)00)8K'[!`J:&!".5:)(&5(%.&!*<!8!G*%06a!99#!?EU?@6!`D&1&K9()*+6a!
99#!?LEU?LL!
Ì8(%.&!Q8+,%8,&6a!>&X')(&!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1!
!
D%">%'/*( !
! !
B:#&")(+#-)*6!`F*0&!(*!F*0&a! ^/&\00!>8(5:!)+!
508''_!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! H&X#!2!8(!??9!
! !
4%&!XB!
D&90)&'!(*!9*'()+,'! /&1+&'18B!H&X#!
! O!8(!??9K!
1;;%/'3"'$;(O,"*( !
! !
F*&K!*.!':*.(!'(*.B!8X*%(!8!9&.'*+80!&P9&.)&+5&!>)(:!(:&!+8(%.80! 4%&!=)8!&UK8)0!
>*.01! J%&'18B!H&X#!R!
! XB!?9K!
! !
! !
F*&K!*.!':*.(!'(*.B!8X*%(!8!+*+:%K8+\'!&P9&.)&+5&! 4%&!=)8!&UK8)0!
! J:%.'18B!H&X#!
?M!XB!?9K!
( (
!
X"":(G*(@0;$"2;Y(!$">02.;Y(=03%-7*(D%">;(&4(E,30':%'.Z;(
2"-0$%&';E%M($&($E"('0$,20-(>&2-.(
(
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!H&X#!?@!8+1!J:%.'18B!H&X#!?2!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!H&X#!?L!
372
1")#=*.-4(3"(C%,"(D9!XB!T&*.,&!Q8Y*<<!8+1!78.Y!]*:+'*+6!99#!EU
?E6!CCUCL!
0*"(<&%,"-4"(E"F)(G..-@(5(D#4%;(3.-:$,%"H(7#)#:.'!XB!]8K&'!G).&6!
.&81!99#!?EUCM6!(:&+!'Y)K!(:.*%,:!99#!C@ULE6!@MU@N6!NCU2L6!R@URR6!
???U??R6!8+1!?EOU?@E!
B-%/#:(19)*4@(7-"#)%.&(19)*4(5-.8&$()*"(3.-:$!XB!38.X8.8!
G9.*%06!99#!LOU@O6!O?U?MC6!?CCU?CN6!?2OU?R?6!?OOUCMM6!CNRUCRL6!
CR2UCO@!
5(6*.-)(?%4).-9(.2(B-.'-"44!XB!D*+801!/.),:(6!99#!?UC2!
`"!V*0&!)+!(:&!/*.01a!XB!I8*K)!i0&)+!^8!0)+Y!(*!(:&!*+0)+&!8.()50&!
)'!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1_!
!
-9()*+80[!
0*"(?%$$"&(7.&&";)%.&4!XB!H.)(j*<!;89.86!99#!EEULE!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! H&X#!?L!8(!??9K!
! !
!
D&90)&'! 4%&!XB!
! /&1+&'18B!H&X#!
?N!8(!??9K!
( (
!
X"":(B*(@0;$"2;Y(!$">02.;Y(=03%-7(
(
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!H&X#!CC!8+1!J:%.'18B!H&X#!CL!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!H&X#!C?!
!"#$%&'()*"(+&,%-.&/"&)6!99#!?LOU?NE!
G&0&5()*+'!<.*K!+&,%-.&/"&)#:(G%4;.8-4"(#&$(B-#;)%;"!&1)(&1!XB!
Q)'8!3&+(*+!8+1!]*:+!D&++)&!G:*.([!`V*>!;8+!-+&!G&00!(:&!").Wa!
XB!;:)&<!G&8((0&6!99#!?CU?Eh!`J:&!V**9!*<!(:&!/*.01a!XB!3085Y!A0Y6!
9#!C@2h!À''8B!*+!"K&.)58+!G5&+&.Ba!XB!J:*K8'!;*0&6!99#!R2UOMh!
`/80Y)+,a!XB!V&+.B!48=)1!J:*.&8%6!99#!OEUO@h!`"!Z*)5&!<*.!
/)01&.+&''a!XB!]*:+!7%).6!99#!?MCU?MLh!`;*+'&.=8()*+6!
F.*(&5()*+6!D&508K8()*+6!8+1!S..),8()*+a!XB!J:&*1*.&!D**'&=&0(6!
99#!??MU??Eh!`J:&!-X0),8()*+!(*!A+1%.&a!XB!D85:&0!;8.'*+6!99#!
373
?CNU?CRh!`7&''8,&!(*!;*+,.&''a!XB!D)5:8.1!I)P*+6!99#!?ECU?EOh!
`;*+<&'')*+'!*<!8+!A5*U/8..)*.a!XB!48=&!H*.&K8+6!99#!?ORUCMMh!
À5*<&K)+)'Ka!XB!;8.*0B+!7&.5:8+(6!99#!CMOUC?E!
0*"(+&$(.2(E#)8-"!XB!3)00!75i)XX&+6!99#!L2UN?6!22UO?!
`/8(&.a!XB!/)'e8>8!GfBKX*.'Y8!
À8.(:!;:*.%'a!XB!]%8+!H&0)9&!V&..&.8!
`/&8(:&.a!XB!78B!G>&+'*+!
5(6#&$(7.8&)9(5:/#&#;[!`J:)+Y)+,!Q)Y&!8!7*%+(8)+6a!99#!?E2U?L?h!
`F.8).)&!3).(:18B6a!99#!L2U@Lh!`J:&!Q8+1!FB.8K)16a!99#!C@?UC@R!
+;.2"/%&%4)(B*%:.4.=*9!XB!i8.&+!/8..&+6!99#!C?UC26!E@UEN!
`J:&!V)'(*.)580!D**('!*<!-%.!A5*0*,)5!;.)')'a!XB!QB++!/:)(&((
5&.)*"-(08-&(.2()*"(7-#&>!XB!/&+1&00!3&..B6!99#!NLU22!
`Q)+&'!)+!(:&!7)+1a!XB!4*+&008!V#!7&81*>'!^)+!-%.!Q8+16!
-%.'&0=&'6!99#!@EU@@_!
/&X')(&'!8+1!*+0)+&!8.()50&'!k!0)+Y'!8.&!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1!
!
-9()*+80[!
0*"(6*#::.H(#&$()*"(G""=@(C.&'(!#&'"(+;.:.'9(1.,"/"&)4I(5(
68//#-9(XB!".+&!I8&''!
`"!7%0()+8()*+80!F&.'9&5()=&!*+!(:&!D&08()*+!X&(>&&+!]%1&*U
;:.)'()8+!D&0),)*%'!3&0)&<'!8+1!"(()(%1&'!*<!A+=).*+K&+(80!
;*+5&.+a!XB!G5:%0(f6!l&0&f+B6!8+1!480.BK90&!
`J:&!G&98.8()*+!<.*K!7*.&U(:8+UV%K8+!I8(%.&a!XB!]#!G5%00!!
`;:8+,&'!)+!(:&!Q8+1a!XB!/)00)8K!;.*+*+!^)+!-%.!Q8+16!-%.'&0=&'!
99#!NLUNN_!
`/*.01!8'!Q*=&.6!/*.01!8'!G&0<a!XB!]*8++8!785B!^)+!-%.!Q8+16!
-%.'&0=&'6!99#!?R2U?RO_!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! H&X#!C?!8(!??9K!
! !
!
D&90)&'! 4%&!XB!
! /&1+&'18B!H&X#!
CE!8(!??9K!
(
!
X"":(J*(S0'/,0/"Y(@".%0Y(0'.($E"(6'F%2&'3"'$*([&>($E"(
'0$,20-(>&2-.Y(0'%30-;Y("#&;7;$"3;Y(0'.("'F%2&'3"'$0-(
374
%;;,";(02"(M2";"'$".(0'.(.%;#,;;".(%'(M,<-%#(.%;#&,2;"(
!
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!78.5:!?!8+1!J:%.'18B!78.5:!E!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!H&X#!CR!
6.;%#:(C%&'8%4)%;4(#&$(C%)"-#;%"4@(J$".:.'9(%&(G%4;.8-4"4!XB!]8K&'!
F8%0!T&&6!99#!NU?@!
5&%/#:(+K8#:%)9@(C#&'8#'"(#&$(C%L"-#)%.&!XB!]*8+!4%+8B&.6!99#!?U
CM6!?2OUCM?!
A5*2"/%&%4)(B*%:.4.=*9(XB!i8.&+!/8..&+6!99#!C2UE@!
+&,%-.&/"&)#:(7.//8&%;#)%.&(#&$()*"(B8L:%;(6=*"-"!XB!D*X&.(!
;*P6!99#!CEUCR6!@RU2M6!?@CU?@26!?NEU?N@6!?2LU?2O!
!
-9()*+80[!
0*"(?%$$"&(7.&&";)%.&4!XB!H.)(j*<!;89.86!99#!@LUNL!
C#&'8#'"(.2(+&,%-.&/"&)M(+&,%-.&/"&)(.2(C#&'8#'"@(5(7.8-4"(%&(
+;.:%&'8%4)%;4!XB!F&(&.!7m:0:n%'0&.6!99#!?@UCN!
7.&4)-8;)%&'(7.&48/#L:"4(#&$(7.&4"&)@(5(7-%)%;#:(5&#:94%4(.2(
A#;).-9(A#-/(J&$84)-9(G%4;.8-4"!XB!;8(:B!T0&++!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! !
4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! H&X#!CR!8(!??9K!
! !
D&90)&'! 4%&!XB!
! /&1+&'18B!
78.5:!C!8(!
??9K!
( (
!
X"":(W*(S0'/,0/"Y(@".%0Y(0'.($E"(6'F%2&'3"'$(
(
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!78.5:!R!8+1!J:%.'18B!78.5:!?M!
!
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!78.5:!
5(6#&$(7.8&)9(5:/#&#;6!`F)+&'!"X*=&!(:&!G+*>6a!99#!RNUOE! 2!
`"!H8)+(!T.&&+!G&00[!"1=&.()')+,!8+1!(:&!I8(%.80!/*.01a!XB!]%0)8!
;*.X&((!^)+!A+=).*9*96!&1)(&1!XB!7&)'(&.!8+1!]8996!99#!?L?U?NM_!
375
0*"(5'"(.2(1%44%&'(J&2.-/#)%.&!XB!3)00!75i)XX&+6!99#!RUCR!
-+0)+&!8.()50&'!k!0)+Y'!8.&!*+!3085YX*8.1!
!
-9()*+80[!
D")-#9#:(.2(6;%"&;"(#&$(!"#4.&@(?.H(5&)%N+&,%-.&/"&)#:(!*").-%;(
0*-"#)"&4(O8-(A8)8-"!XB!F8%0!A:.0)5:!8+1!"++&!A:.0)5:6!99#!?ROU
CM?!
7-%/"4(5'#%&4)(E#)8-"@(?.H(P".-'"(3I(D84*(#&$(?%4(7.-=.-#)"(
B#:4(5-"(B:8&$"-%&'()*"(7.8&)-9(#&$(?%Q#;>%&'(O8-(G"/.;-#;9!XB!
D*X&.(!H#!i&++&1B!].#6!99#!CMULL6!ONU??E6!?2LU?RO!
!
D%">%'/;*( !
! !
`H*P!I&>'!T%&'([!-)0!8+1!;*80!8.&!T**1!<*.!(:&!A+=).*+K&+(a! ^S+!508''_!
`H*P!I&>'[!J.&&'!;8%'&!T0*X80!/8.K)+,a!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! 78.5:!2!8(!
D&90)&'! ??9K!
!
! 4%&!XB!
/&1+&'18B!
78.5:!O!8(!
??9K!
(
!
X"":(A*(R-0#"(0'.(!M0#"Y(&2(XE"2"(X"(S%F"*([,30'(0'.(
0'%30-(E0<%$0$Y(,2<0'(.";%/'Y("#&-&/%#0-(;7;$"3;Y(0'.(;"';"(
&4(M-0#"(
(
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!78.5:!?@!8+1!J:%.'18B!78.5:!?2!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( !
!
!"#$%&'()*"(+&,%-.&/"&)6!99#!RRU???!
5(6#&$(7.8&)9(5:/#&#;6!`T**1!-8Y6a!99#!NU?O!
`/:&.&!S\K!H.*Ka!XB!T&*.,&!A008!QB*+!
!
-9()*+80[!
5&(<&4=.>"&(?8&'"-!XB!J&..B!J&K9&'(!/)00)8K'6!`d&00*>'(*+&[!
376
J:&!A.*()5'!*<!F085&6a!99#!R?UR2!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! 78.5:!?L!8(!
! ??9K!
!
D&90)&'! 4%&!XB!/&1#!
! 78.5:!?N!8(!
??9K!
D%">%'/*( !
! !
B:#&")(+#-)*6!`S5&!/*.01'a! ^S+!508''_!
!
( (
!
!M2%'/(+2"0:*(@02#E(HCUHA(
(
X"":(\*(R-0#"(0'.(!M0#"Y(&2(XE"2"(X"(S%F"(
(
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!78.5:!CO!8+1!J:%.'18B!78.5:!E?!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!78.5:!
0-""@(5(C%2"(6).-9!XB!48=)1!G%f%Y)!8+1!/8B+&!T.81B6!99#!OU?@6!LEU CR!
@C6!2?U2L6!?EEU?LM6!?@NU?NL!
68L8-L#&(E#)%.&@(0*"(!%4"(.2(6=-#H:(#&$()*"(G";:%&"(.2()*"(
5/"-%;#&(G-"#/!XB!4%8+B6!F08(&.UlBX&.Y6!8+1!G9&5Y6!99#!EUCM!
0*"(P".'-#=*9(.2(E.H*"-"@(0*"(!%4"(#&$(G";:%&"(.2(5/"-%;#R4(
1#&N1#$"(C#&$4;#="!XB!]8K&'!V*>8.1!i%+'(0&.6!99#!EOULC6!R@U
OL6!??EU?C?!
-+0)+&!8.()50&!k!0)+Y!)'!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1!
!
-9()*+80[!
`J:&!J.*%X0&!>)(:!/)01&.+&''h!*.6!T&(()+,!385Y!(*!(:&!/.*+,!
I8(%.&a!XB!/)00)8K!;.*+*+!^<.*K!o+5*KK*+!T.*%+16!&1)(&1!XB!
/)00)8K!;.*+*+6!99#!NOUOM_!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
377
! 78.5:!CR!8(!
! ??9K!
D&90)&'! !
4%&!XB!/&1#!
! 78.5:!EM!8(!
??9K!
1;;%/'3"'$;(O,"*( !
( !
4),)(80!'(*.B!*<!9085&! G%XK)(!XB!
C[EM9K!78.5:!
CO#!F.&'&+(!(*!
508''!&)(:&.!
78.5:!CO!*.!
78.5:!E?!^'),+!
%9!)+!508''_!
(
!
X"":(L*(R2&.,#$%&'Y(5&';,3M$%&'Y(0'.(X0;$"*(!$,44Y(4&&.Y(
-0'.4%--;Y(0'.(#02<&'(4&&$M2%'$;(
(
?&(9'UR"2;&'(5-0;;(@""$%'/;(PE%;(X"":]](
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!"9.)0!L!
6)822@(0*"(6";-")(C%,"4(.2(+,"-9$#9(0*%&'4!XB!]*:+!DB8+!8+1!"08+!
J:&)+!4%.+)+,6!99#!2UC@6!NCUNN!
O8-(+;.:.'%;#:(A..)=-%&)@(!"$8;%&'(?8/#&(J/=#;)(.&()*"(+#-)*!XB!
/)00)8K'!D&&'6!78(:)'!/85Y&.+8,&06!8+1!F:)0!J&'(&K80&6!99#!2UEM!
5(6*.-)(?%4).-9(.2(B-.'-"44!XB!D*+801!/.),:(6!99#!COUN@!
7-#$:"().(7-#$:"!XB!/)00)8K!754*+*%,:!8+1!7)5:8&0!3.8%+,8.(6!
99#!?2UE26!OCU?MC!
!
-9()*+80[!
0*"(+&$(.2(E#)8-"!XB!3)00!75i)XX&+6!99#!EULN!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
"9.)0!L!8(!??9K!
! !
D&90)&'! 4%&!XB!
! /&1+&'18B!
! "9.)0!N!8(!??9K!
!
378
! F*'(!XB!H.)18B!
F*'(!8(!0&8'(!<*%.!811)()*+80!.&90)&'! "9.)0!R!8(!??9K!
!
(
!
X"":()C*(R2&.,#$%&'Y(5&';,3M$%&'Y(0'.(X0;$"(
!
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!"9.)0!?C!8+1!J:%.'18B!"9.)0!?L!
!
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!"9.)0!
!"#$%&'()*"(+&,%-.&/"&)6!99#!CMUC?! ??!
`4)'5*%.'&'!*<!;*+'%K9()*+!)+!oGU"K&.)58+!;%0(%.&a!XB!D)(8!
J%.+&.!
`J:&!;8.X*+!;*++&5()*+a!XB!48=)1!-..!
0*"(O/&%,.-"S4(G%:"//#!XB!7)5:8&0!F*008+6!996!?@UE?!
6).:"&(?#-,"4)!XB!Z8+18+8!G:)=86!99#!@UCM!
`G&&)+,!D&1a!XB!"0!d*%+,!
!#$%;#:(6%/=:%;%)9!XB!])K!7&.Y&06!99#!CU?N!
/&X!,.89:)5!k!0)+Y!)'!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
"9.)0!??!8(!
! ??9K!
D&90)&'! !
! 4%&!XB!
/&1+&'18B!
"9.)0!?E!8(!
??9K!
1;;%/'3"'$;(O,"*( !
! !
F*&K!*.!':*.(!'(*.B!8X*%(!8!+*+:%K8+!5.&8(%.&!>:*!)'! 4%&!=)8!&UK8)0!
J:%.'18B!"9.)0!
5*++&5(&1!)+!'*K&!>8B!(*!8!9.*1%5(!*.!K8(&.)80!B*%!%'&! ?L!XB!?9K!
( !
4),)(80!'(*.B!*<!9085&! ;*+()+%&!
! 9.&'&+(8()*+'!
"9.)0!?C!8+1!?L(
(
!
X"":())*(I%/E$;Y(6$E%#;Y(0'.(6'F%2&'3"'$0-(^,;$%#"(
!
379
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!"9.)0!?O!8+1!J:%.'18B!"9.)0!C?!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!"9.)0!
5&%/#:(C%L"-#)%.&!XB!F&(&.!G)+,&.6!99#!?UCE! ?R!
5&%/#:(+K8#:%)9@(C#&'8#'"(#&$(C%L"-#)%.&!XB!]*8+!4%+8B&.6!99#!
?NOU?22!
Ì&>!d*.Ya!XB!H&1&.)5*!T8.5g8!Q*.58!
`T&08()+!H85(*.Ba!XB!i&=)+!3*>&+!
5(6#&$(7.8&)9(5:/#&#;6!`J:&!Q8+1!A(:)56a!99#!CE2UCLN!
+;.2"/%&%4)(B*%:.4.=*9!XB!i8.&+!/8..&+6!99#!E2UER!
6*.8:$(0-""4(?#,"(6)#&$%&'!XB!;:.)'(*9:&.!G(*+&6!99#!?UE?!
;*+'()(%()*+!*<!(:&!D&9%X0)5!*<!A5%81*.6!F.&8KX0&!8+1!&P5&.9(!
<.*K!5:89(&.!*+!D),:('!<*.!I8(%.&!
o#G#!;*+'()(%()*+!8+1!o#G#!4&508.8()*+!*<!S+1&9&+1&+5&6!&P5&.9('!
-+0)+&!8.()50&!8+1!>&X')(&'6!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
"9.)0!?R!8(!
! ??9K!
D&90)&'! !
! 4%&!XB!
/&1+&'18B!
"9.)0!CM!8(!
??9K!
!
( (
!
X"":()H*(I%/E$;Y(6$E%#;Y(0'.(6'F%2&'3"'$0-(^,;$%#"(
!
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!"9.)0!CN!8+1!J:%.'18B!"9.)0!CR!
! !
I"0.%'/;*( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!"9.)0!
o+'%'(8)+8X0&[!5(B-%/"-(2.-(P:.L#:(+&,%-.&/"&)#:(T84)%;"!XB! C@!
F8(.)5Y!V*''8B6!99#!?UL?!
+#-)*(G"/.;-#;9!XB!Z8+18+8!G:)=86!99#!OU??!
`"+8(*KB!*<!A+=).*+K&+(80!D85)'Ka!XB!D*X&.(!3%008.1!^)+!A+=!
4)'5*%.'&!8+1!F.85()5&!99#!CCEUCE?_!
`J:8(!T*1!781&a!XB!/)00!V&<*.1!
380
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
"9.)0!C@!8(!
! ??9K!
D&90)&'! !
! 4%&!XB!
/&1+&'18B!
"9.)0!C2!8(!
??9K!
( (
!
X"":()G*(6'F%;%&'%'/($E"(=,$,2"*(?0220$%F";(0'.(%30/";(&4(
M&;;%<-"(4,$,2";(
!
;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!78B!E!8+1!J:%.'18B!78B!@!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!78B!C!
!"#$%&'()*"(+&,%-.&/"&)6!99#!@CEU@EEh!@N2U@2C!
!
D%">%'/*( !
! !
G&0&5()*+'!<.*K!P#-L#'"(3#--%.-( ^S+!508''_!
!
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! !
4%&!XB!7*+18B!
! 78B!C!8(!??9K!
D&90)&'! !
! 4%&!XB!
/&1+&'18B!78B!
L!8(!??9K!
( (
!
X"":()B*(6'F%;%&'%'/($E"(=,$,2"(
!
H)+80!;08''!7&&()+,'[!J%&'18B!78B!?M!8+1!J:%.'18B!78B!?C!
! !
I"0.%'/;*(( D&81!XB!
! 7*+18B!78B!O!
+;.).=%#!XB!A.+&'(!;800&+X85:6!99#!?UCR!
381
7-#$:"().(7-#$:"@(!"/#>%&'()*"(3#9(3"(1#>"(0*%&'4(XB!/)00)8K!
754*+*%,:!8+1!7)5:8&0!3.8%+,8.(6!99#!NRURE6!?MCU?M@6!??LU??@!!
/&X')(&'!8+1!*+0)+&!8.()50&'!k!0)+Y'!8.&!9*'(&1!*+!3085YX*8.1!
!
-9()*+80[!
7-#$:"().(7-#$:"!99#!??RU?@N!
`/&!;**9&.8(&6!*.!/&!4)&a[!G%'(8)+8X0&!;*&P)'(&+5&!)+!J&..B!
F.8(5:&((\'!J:&!"K8f)+,!78%.)5&!8+1!V)'!A1%58(&1!D*1&+('6a!XB!
78.&Y!-f)&>)5f!
(
+-0#:<&02.(R&;$%'/;*( !
! !
S+)()80!9*'()+,!(*!3085YX*8.1! 4%&!XB!7*+18B!
78B!O!8(!??9K!
! !
D&90)&'! 4%&!XB!
/&1+&'18B!78B!
??!8(!??9K!
( (
!
X"":()J!
! !
I*!508''!'&'')*+'!(:)'!>&&Y#! !
=%'0-(R0M"2;(O,"]( 4%&!=)8!&UK8)0!
78B!?2!XB!@9K!
382
Course Bibliography
Alvarado, Paula, ‘7 Animals Way Smarter Than Us’, TreeHugger, 2010

<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/7-animals-way-smarter-than-us.php>
[accessed 28 August 2010].
‘andy goldsworthy - Google Search’

<http://www.google.com/images?expIds=17259,25652,25900,25958,26119,26262&s
ugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=andy+goldsworthy&cp=7&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-
8&source=univ&ei=QeZ2TOLmB8X6lweU0b3sCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group
&ct=title&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQsAQwAA&biw=1440&bih=6> [accessed
28 August 2010].
‘Andy Goldsworthy Digital Catalogue’, University of Glasgow, Crichton, 2006

<http://www.goldsworthy.cc.gla.ac.uk/> [accessed 28 August 2010].
Baca, Jimmy Santiago, ‘Ah Rain!’, in Poetry Like Bread, ed. by Martín Espada (Willimantic:
Curbstone Press, 2001), p. 54.
Bennett, Lisa, ‘Lisa Bennett: New Orleans Students Challenge Schools on Use of Oil’, The
Huffington Post, 2010 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bennett/new-orleans-
students-chal_b_656128.html> [accessed 28 August 2010].
Benton, Lisa M., and John Rennie Short, eds., Environmental Discourse and Practice: A
Reader (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000).
Berry, Wendell, Another Turn of the Crank: Essays (Washington, D.C: Counterpoint, 1995).
Bowen, Kevin, ‘Gelatin Factory’, in Poetry Like Bread, ed. by Martín Espada (Willimantic:
Curbstone Press, 2001), pp. 68-69.
Brugnaro, Ferruccio, ‘Don't Tell Me Not to Bother You’, in Poetry Like Bread, ed. by Martín
Espada (Willimantic: Curbstone Press, 2001), p. 75.
Callenbach, Ernest, Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston (Berkeley, CA:
Banyan Tree Books in association with Heyday Books, 2004).
Capra, Fritjof, The Hidden Connections (London: HarperCollins, 2002).
‘CoolClimate Context’, deviantART, 2010 <http://www.coolclimate.deviantart.com/>

Cox, Robert, Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, 2nd edn (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010).
Cronon, William, Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (New York:
383
Norton, 1995).
Def, Mos, New World Water, Black on Both Sides (Priority Records, 1999).
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck, Suburban Nation: The Rise of
Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (New York: North Point Press,
2000).
Dunayer, Joan, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (Derwood, MD: Ryce, 2001).
‘Ecuador Constitution, 2008’, Political Database of the Americas, 2009

<http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador08.html> [accessed 31
August 2010].
Ehrlich, Paul R, and Anne H Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-
Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future (Washington, D.C: Island Press,
1996).
Folbre, Nancy, ‘Is Another Economics Possible?’, NYTimes.com, 2010

<http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/is-another-economics-possible/>
Folkenflik, David, ‘In Gulf Spill Area, Reporters Face Security Hurdles’, NPR, 2010
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128419985> [accessed 28
August 2010].
‘Food Posters From the Past are Recipes for the Present’, Treehugger, 2010
<http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2010/08/food-posters-from-the-past-are-
recipes-for-the-present.php?page=1> [accessed 28 August 2010].
Forbes, Peter, Ann Armbrecht, and Helen Whybrow, eds., Our Land, Ourselves: Readings on
People and Place, 2nd edn (San Francisco: Trust for Public Land, 1999).
Fox Attacks the Environment, 2007

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnt3FWToSWs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> [accessed 29 August 2010].
Fox News Guest: Oil And Coal Are Good For The Environment, 2008
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhVNSllz4fU&feature=youtube_gdata_player>
Fox News: Trees Cause Global Warming, 2007

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnXToHGldxo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> [accessed 29 August 2010].
Gee, James Paul, Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, 3rd edn
384
(London: Routledge, 2008).
Glenn, Cathy B., ‘Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory
Farm Industry Discourse’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 28 (2004), 63-81
<doi:10.1177/0196859903258573>.
Heford, Will, ‘That God Made’, in From Totems to Hip-Hop: A Multicultural Anthology of
Poetry Across the Americas, 1900-2002, ed. by Ishmael Reed (New York: Thunder's
Mouth Press, 2003), pp. 216-217.
Herrera, Juan Felipe, ‘Earth Chorus’, in From Totems to Hip-Hop: A Multicultural Anthology
of Poetry Across the Americas, 1900-2002, ed. by Ishmael Reed (New York:
Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003), pp. 30-32.
Hodge, Oliver, Garbage Warrior (Open Eye Media, 2007).
Hossay, Patrick, Unsustainable: A Primer for Global Environmental and Social Justice
(London: Zed Books, 2006).
Jordon, Chris, ‘Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption’, Chris

Jordan Photography, 2003 <http://www.chrisjordan.com/> [accessed 29 April 2010].
Kennedy, Robert Francis, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate
Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy, 1st edn (New York:
HarperCollins, 2004).
Klein, Naomi, ‘A Hole in the World’, The Nation, 2010

<http://www.thenation.com/article/36608/hole-world?page=0,0> [accessed 28 August
2010].
Kunstler, James Howard, The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's
Man-Made Landscape, 1st edn (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1980).
Leopold, Aldo, A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River,
1st edn (New York: Ballantine Books, 1970).
Lim, Genny, ‘Animal Liberation’, in From Totems to Hip-Hop: A Multicultural Anthology of

Poetry Across the Americas, 1900-2002, ed. by Ishmael Reed (New York: Thunder's
Mouth Press, 2003), pp. 34-36.
Linkins, Jason, ‘Adam Dillon, BP Contractor Who Once Blocked A Local Reporter, Became
A Whistleblower’, The Huffington Post, 2010
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/adam-dillon-bp-
385
contractor_n_642894.html> [accessed 28 August 2010].
Lorca, Federico García, ‘New York (Office and Attack)’, in News of the Universe: poems of
twofold consciousness, ed. by Robert Bly, trans. by Robert Bly (San Francisco: Sierra
Club Books, 1980), pp. 110-112.
Lyon, George Ella, ‘Where I'm From’, in United States of Poetry, ed. by Joshua Blum, Bob
Holman and Mark Pellington (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), pp. 22-23.
McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We
Make Things, 1st edn (New York: North Point Press, 2002).
McKibben, Bill, The Age of Missing Information (New York: Plume, 1993).
---, The End of Nature, 1st edn (New York: Anchor Books, 1990).
Meister, Mark, and Phyllis M Japp, eds., Enviropop: Studies in Environmental Rhetoric and
Popular Culture (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002).
Mendick, Robert, ‘'Duck Man' catches five ducklings before they crash to earth’, Telegraph,
2010 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7896407/Duck-
Man-catches-five-ducklings-before-they-crash-to-earth.html> [accessed 28 August
2010].
Merkel, Jim, Radical Simplicity: Small Footprints on a Finite Earth (Gabriola Island, B.C:
New Society Publishers, 2003).
‘Mos Def Lyrics - New World Water’, AZLyrics

<http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/mosdef/newworldwater.html> [accessed 5 July
2010].
Mühlhäusler, Peter, Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in

Ecolinguistics (London: Battlebridge, 2003).
Naess, Arne, ‘The Shallow and the Deep: Long Range Ecology Movements. A Summary’
<http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/pessimism/Naess_deepEcology.html>
[accessed 8 October 2009].
‘Nature Language’, The Nature Language Project, 2010 <http://naturelanguage.com/>

Neruda, Pablo, ‘Enigmas’, in News of the Universe: poems of twofold consciousness, ed. by
Robert Bly, trans. by Robert Bly (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1980), pp. 113-
114.
de Nerval, Gérard, ‘Golden Lines’, in News of the Universe: poems of twofold consciousness,
386
ed. by Robert Bly, trans. by Robert Bly (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1980), p.
38.
O'Callaghan, Darcey, and Virginia Gordon, ‘UN Prepares to Vote on Water as a Human
Right’, Food & Water Watch, 2010 <http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2010/07/un-
prepares-to-vote-on-water-as-a-human-
right/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=food+&+water+wa
tch> [accessed 28 August 2010].
Orr, David, ‘The Carbon Connection’, Center for Ecoliteracy

<http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/carbon-connection> [accessed 29 August 2010].
Oziewicz, Marek, ‘"We Cooperate, or We Die": Sustainable Coexistence in Terry Pratchett's

The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents’, Children's Literature in
Education, 40 (2009), 85-94 <doi:10.1007/s10583-008-9079-3>.
Planet Earth: The Complete BBC Series (BBC Warner, 2007).
Pollan, Michael, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (New York:
Penguin, 2007).
Quintana, Leroy V., ‘Sharks’, in Poetry Like Bread, ed. by Martín Espada (Willimantic:
Curbstone Press, 2001), pp. 202-203.
Rees, Williams E., and Mathis Wackernagel, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth (New Catalyst Bioregional Series) (Gabriola Island, B.C.: New
Society Publishers, 1996).
Richard, Michael Graham, ‘Wild Tiger Population Dropped by 96.8% in 20 Years’,

TreeHugger, 2010 <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/wild-tiger-population-
3200-in-2010-100000-in-1990.php> [accessed 28 August 2010].
Rilke, Rainer Maria, ‘Ah, not to be cut off’, in Ahead of All Parting: The Selected Poetry and
Prose of Rainer Maria Rilke (New York: Modern Library, 1995), p. 191.
---, ‘I Live My Life’, in News of the Universe: poems of twofold consciousness, ed. by Robert
Bly (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1980), p. 76.
Ryan, John C, and Alan Thein Durning, Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things (Seattle,
WA: Northwest Environment Watch, 1997).
Schultz, P. Wesley, Lynnette Zelezny, and Nancy J. Dalrymple, ‘A Multinational Perspective

on the Relation between Judeo-Christian Religious Beliefs and Attitudes of
Environmental Concern’, Environment and Behavior, 32 (2000), 576 -591
<doi:10.1177/00139160021972676>.
387
Scull, John, ‘The Separation from More-than-Human Nature’, 1999, 1-8.
Shakur, Tupac, ‘The Rose that Grew from Concrete’, in The Rose that Grew from Concrete
(New York: MTV/Pocket Books, 1999), p. 3.
Shiva, Vandana, Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace (Cambridge, MA:
South End Press, 2005).
---, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End
Press, 2000).
Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco, 2002).
Sire, James W., The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 2nd edn (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988).
Sproul, Barbara C, Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around the World, 1st edn (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1991).
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment,
3rd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
Suzuki, David T, and Wayne Grady, Tree: A Life Story (Vancouver: Greystone Books,
2004).
Swenson, May, ‘Weather’, in From Totems to Hip-Hop: A Multicultural Anthology of Poetry

Across the Americas, 1900-2002, ed. by Ishmael Reed (New York: Thunder's Mouth
Press, 2003), pp. 52-53.
Szymborska, Wis!awa, ‘Among the Multitudes’, in Poems: New and Collected 1957-1997
(San Diego: Harcourt, 1998), pp. 267-268.
---, ‘Sky’, in Poems: New and Collected 1957-1997 (San Diego: Harcourt, 1998), pp. 223-
224.
---, ‘The Silence of Plants’, in Poems: New and Collected 1957-1997 (San Diego: Harcourt,
1998), pp. 269-270.
---, ‘View with a Grain of Sand’, in Poems: New and Collected 1957-1997 (San Diego:
Harcourt, 1998), pp. 185-186.
---, ‘Water’, in Poems: New and Collected 1957-1997 (San Diego: Harcourt, 1998), pp. 58-
59.
‘The Declaration of Independence’, ushistory.org, Independence Hall Assocation, 2010

<http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm> [accessed 31 August
388
2010].
Turner, Rita, ‘Discourses of Consumption in US-American Culture’, Sustainability, 2 (2010),

2279-2301.
‘U.S. Constitution’, Legal Information Institute <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution>

Walker, Melissa, Reading the Environment, 1st edn (New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
1994).
Warren, Karen, Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It

Matters (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).
‘What is Art? What is an Artist? Photograph by Andy Goldsworthy’, Department of Art

History, Sweet Briar College, 1997
<http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/photoandy.html> [accessed 28 August
2010].
White, Lynn Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’, Science, 155 (1967), 1203-
1207.
‘Why You Should Stop Drinking Bottled Water’, TermLifeInsurance .org

<http://www.termlifeinsurance.org/stop-drinking-bottled-water/> [accessed 28
August 2010].
Williams, Terry Tempest, An Unspoken Hunger: Stories from the Field (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1994).
‘Wolf dog sings to a baby to stop his cry’, YouTube, 2009

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhA_TTKetyM&feature=related> [accessed 28
August 2010].
Wright, Ronald, A Short History of Progress, 1st edn (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers,
2005).
Young, Al, ‘Seeing Red’, in From Totems to Hip-Hop: A Multicultural Anthology of Poetry
Across the Americas, 1900-2002, ed. by Ishmael Reed (New York: Thunder's Mouth
Press, 2003), p. 69.
389
III. Full Text of Selected Poems
Sharks by Leroy V. Quintana479
When men purchase suits made from our skin

they become dukes, barons of giant corporations
with thousands of loyal employees
producing mirrors, locks, bibles, perfumes and
phosphorescent matches, all vital
for the survival of their countries.
Soup made from our fins makes men

want to slurp their way
up and down womens’ calves.
Our jaws can provoke nightmares

a thousand miles inland, when displayed
dangling over the silver spoons, cameos
and other precious heirlooms
locked in glass cases, along
with the stale copies of Life
sleeping in the corners of antique shoppes
anywhere there is a Main Street.
Only gangs that are cool name themselves

after us, bold red letters
dripping blood down the backs
of their smooth black leather jackets.
We swim towards blood the way

some people cross an imaginary line
into the United States to pick lettuce,
or sink their hands into small oceans
of soapy water, bring dishes back to life
iridescent as oyster shells slurped dry
at a Republican fund-raiser for the governor
of California who will later pour gas
into the ocean and hand out match sticks.
Like the lettuce pickers and dishwashers,
all we are good for is fighting, trouble.
We carry fearsome switchblades, and
are born knowing how to use them.
479
Quintana, “Sharks.”
390
The Silence of Plants by Wis!awa Szymborska480
Our one-sided acquaintance

Grows quite nicely.
I know what a leaf, petal, ear, cone, stalk is,

what April and December do to you.
Although my curiosity is not reciprocal,

I specially stoop over some of you,
And crane my neck at others.
I've got a list of names for you:

maple, burdock, hepatica,
mistletoe, heath, juniper, forget-me-not,
but you have none for me.
We’re traveling together.

But fellow passengers usually chat,
exchange remarks at least about the weather,
or about the stations rushing past.
We wouldn’t lack for topics: we’ve got a lot in common.

The same star keeps us in its reach.
We cast shadows based on the same laws.
We try to understand things, each in our own way,
and what we don’t know brings us closer too.
I'll explain as best I can, just ask me:

what seeing with two eyes is like,
what my heart beats for,
and why my body isn’t rooted down.
But how to answer unasked questions,
while being furthermore a being so totally
a nobody to you.
Undergrowth, coppices, meadows, rushes –

everything I tell you is a monologue,
and it’s not you who listens.
Talking with you is essential and impossible.

Urgent in this hurried life
and postponed to never.
480
Szymborska, “The Silence of Plants.”
391
Gelatin Factory by Kevin Bowen481
No need to look for the place,

just follow your nose,
the man at unemployment
said, not sure he was joking.
Down where the river turned
and the factory rose,
there were always jobs
on the night shift.
Only you and the foreman
Knew English.
Not Hbctor and Josb6!
>:*!9%+5:&1!)+!08(&!
(:*'&!'%KK&.!+),:('!
<.*K!X8.'!'()00!5%.')+,!
>*K&+6!X8'&X800!8+1!(:&!;*0*KX)8+'#!
78BX&!)(!>8'!+*'(80,)8!
<*.!(:&!:&8(!(:8(!X.*%,:(!(:&K#!
I&=&.!0&''!(:8+!?MM!1&,.&&'!
*+!(:&!58(>80Y'6!K*.&!+&8.!
(:&!*=&+'#!!"+1!800!'%KK&.!
K&+!*<!K8+B!5*0*.'!1B)+,!
)+!j%+,0&'!8+1!5)()&'!*<!"')8#!
3%(!*+0B!9),'!1)&1!:&.&#
You didn’t believe at first,
but saw the evidence:
morning, freight cars,
loaded like ships to the gunnels
with carcasses of dead piglets,
pulled onto the sidings.
All day, their small, twisted bodies
grayed in the sun, legs
pointed to the heavens
that failed them.
No farmer to claim
the honor of this crop,
raised to be boiled in acid,
rendered a sticky mass
rolled on screens and cooked
in sheets to glass, smashed
and ground to a fine power
useful for many things
481
392
but best for those sweet desserts,
late on Sundays, children
circled and ate.
393
References
Abbey, Edward. “The Serpants of Paradise.” In Reading the Environment, edited by Melissa
Walker, 51-56. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994.
Abram, David. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human
World. 1st ed. New York: Vintage, 1997.
Adger, Carolyn Temple, Walt Wolfram, and Donna Christian. “Dialect Awareness for
Students.” In Dialects in Schools and Communities, 151-186. 2nd ed. Mahwah, N.J:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
Alim, H. S. “Critical Language Awareness in the United States: Revisiting Issues and
Revising Pedagogies in a Resegregated Society.” Educational Researcher 34, no. 7
(2005): 24-31.
Anderson, Mark W., Mario Teisl, George Criner, Sharon Tisher, Stewart Smith, Malcolm
Hunter, Stephen A. Norton, et al. “Attitude Changes of Undergraduate University
Students in General Education Courses.” The Journal of General Education 56, no. 2
(January 1, 2007): 149-168.
Arminio, Jan L., and Francine H. Hultgren. “Breaking Out from the Shadow: The Question
of Criteria in Qualitative Research.” Journal of College Student Development 43, no.
4 (2002): 446-60.
Armstrong, Jeannette C. “En’owkin: Decision-Making as if Sustainability Mattered.” In

Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World, edited by
Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 11-17. 1st ed. San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books, 2005.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. “From Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.” In The Rhetorical
Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell
and Bruce Herzberg, 1210-1226. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001.
———. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by
Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.
———. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” In Speech genres & other late essays, edited by
Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 60-102. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press,
1986.
Baudrillard, Jean. America. Translated by Chris Turner. London: Verso, 1989.
394
Bekoff, Mark. “Minding Animals, Minding Earth: Old Brains, New Bottlenecks.” Zygon 38,
no. 4 (2003): 911–941.
Bell, Anne C., and Constance L. Russell. “Beyond Human, Beyond Words:
Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn.” Canadian
Journal of Education 25, no. 3 (2000): 188-203.
Berry, Wendell. Another Turn of the Crank: Essays. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint, 1995.
Bonk, Curtis Jay, and Kyung A. Kim. “Extending Sociocultural Theory to Adult Learning.”
In Adult Learning and Development: Perspectives from Educational Psychology,
edited by M. Cecil Smith and Thomas Pourchot, 67-88. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum
Associates, 1998.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited by John B Thompson. Translated
by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1991.
———. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited by John B Thompson. Translated by Gino
Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Bowen, Kevin. “Gelatin Factory.” In Poetry Like Bread, edited by Martín Espada, 68-69.
Willimantic: Curbstone Press, 2001.
Brady, Ivan. “Poetics for a Planet: Discourse on Some Problems of Being-in-Place.” In The
Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S.
Lincoln, 979-1026. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.
Brosius, J. Peter. “Analyses and Interventions: Anthropological Engagements with

Environmentalism.” Current Anthropology 40, no. 3 (June 1, 1999): 277-310.
Brouwer, Daniel C. “Privacy, Publicity, and Propriety in Congressional Eulogies for

Representative Stewart B. McKinney (R-Conn.).” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 7,
no. 2 (2004): 191-214.
Bruce, Bertram C, and Ann Peterson Bishop. “New Literacies and Community Inquiry.” In
Handbook of Research on New Literacies, edited by Julie Coiro, Michele Knobel,
Colin Lankshear, and Donald J. Leu, 699-742. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006.
Bruner, Jerome S. The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1996.
Burke, Kenneth. “From A Grammar of Motives.” In The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings

from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg,
1298-1324. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001.
395
———. “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” In The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 1324-
1340. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001.
———. “From Language as Symbolic Action.” In The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, 1340-
1347. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001.
Cahalan, James M. “Teaching Hometown Literature: A Pedagogy of Place.” College English

70, no. 3 (2008): 249-274.
Callenbach, Ernest. “Values.” In Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a

Sustainable World, edited by Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 45-48. 1st ed.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005.
“Campuses and Buildings That Teach.” Center for Ecoliteracy, 2011.

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/real-world-optimal-learning-environment/campuses-and-
buildings-teach.
Capra, Fritjof. “Speaking Nature’s Language: Principles for Sustainability.” In Ecological

Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World, edited by Michael K.
Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 18-29. 1st ed. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005.
———. The Hidden Connections. London: HarperCollins, 2002.
Carbaugh, Donal. “Communication and Cultural Interpretation.” Quarterly Journal of Speech

77, no. 3 (1991): 336-42.
Carspecken, Phil Francis. Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and

Practical Guide. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Cazden, C., B. Cope, N. Fairclough, J. Gee, M. Kalantzis, G. Kress, A. Luke, C. Luke, S.

Michaels, and M. Nakata. “A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.”
Harvard Educational Review 66, no. 1 (1996): 60–92.
Charity Hudley, Anne H., and Christine Mallinson. Understanding English Language
Variation in U.S. Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 2010.
Chawla, Saroj. “Linguistic and Philosophical Roots of Our Environmental Crisis.”

Environmental Ethics 13, no. 3 (1991): 253–262.
Chief Seattle. “How Can One Sell the Air?: A Manifesto for the Earth.” In Environmental
Discourse and Practice: A Reader, edited by Lisa M. Benton and John Rennie Short,
12-13. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000.
396
“Competencies.” Center for Ecoliteracy, 2010.
http://www.ecoliteracy.org/discover/competencies.
Corbett, Julia. “A Faint Green Sell: Advertising and the Natural World.” In Enviropop:
Studies in Environmental Rhetoric and Popular Culture, edited by Mark Meister and
Phyllis M Japp, 141-160. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002.
Coyle, Kevin. Environmental Literacy in America: What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper

Research and Related Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S.
Washington, D.C.: The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation,
2005.
Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York:
Norton, 1995.
Darder, Antonia. “Preface.” In Critical Pedagogy, Ecoliteracy, & Planetary Crisis: The
Ecopedagogy Movement, by Richard Kahn, ix-xix. New York: Peter Lang, 2010.
Delpit, Lisa D. Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New
Press, 1996.
Delpit, Lisa D. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s
Children.” Harvard Educational Review 58, no. 3 (1988): 280-98.
Delpit, Lisa D., and Joanne Kilgour Dowdy, eds. The skin that we speak: Thoughts on
language and culture in the classroom. New York: New Press, 2008.
Denzin, Norman K, and Yvonna S Lincoln, eds. “Paradigms and Perspectives in

Contention.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 183-190. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2005.
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing, 1916.
Díaz, Rafael M., Cynthia J. Neal, and Marina Amaya-Williams. “The Social Origins of Self-
Regulation.” In Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications
of Sociohistorical Psychology, edited by Luis C Moll, 155-172. 1st ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
van Dijk, Teun A. “Discourse Semantics and Ideology.” Discourse & Society 6, no. 2 (April
1, 1995): 243 -289.
van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. Discourse and Power. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
———. Discourse, Knowledge and Ideology: Reformulating Old Questions. LAUD Series
A: General and Theoretical Papers. Essen: LAUD, 2002. Google Scholar.
397
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of
Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000.
Dunayer, Joan. Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood, MD: Ryce, 2001.
———. Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood, MD: Ryce, 2001.
Dunlap, R. E, and K. D Van Liere. “A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary

Results: The ‘New Environmental Paradigm.’” Journal of Environmental Education
9, no. 4 (1978): 10–19.
Dunlap, R. E, K. D Van Liere, A. G Mertig, and R. E Jones. “Measuring Endorsement of the

New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 3
(2000): 425–442.
“Ecuador Constitution, 2008.” Political Database of the Americas, 2009.

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador08.html.
Ehrlich, Paul R, and Anne H Ehrlich. Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-
Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future. Washington, D.C: Island Press, 1996.
“Environmental Literacy.” Maine Audubon, 2009.

http://www.maineaudubon.org/explore/EnvironmentalLiteracy.shtml.
“Environmental Literacy for Illinois Plan.” Illinois Department of Natural Resources, March
22, 2010. http://www.dnr.state.il.us/el4il/index.htm.
“Environmental Literacy Plans by State.” No Child Left Inside, n.d.

http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=924.
“Excellence in Environmental Education Guidelines for Learning (Pre K-12).” North

American Association for Environmental Education, 2004.
http://naaee.org/npeee/learner_guidelines.php.
Fairclough, Norman. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York:
Routledge, 2003.
———. Language and Power. New York: Longman, 1989.
———. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989.
Fawcett, Leesa. “Children’s Wild Animal Stories: Questioning Inter-Species Bonds.”

Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 7, no. 2 (2002): 125–139.
Felstiner, John. Can Poetry Save the Earth?: A Field Guide to Nature Poems. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2009.
398
Fogel, Howard, and Linnea C. Ehri. “Teaching elementary students who speak Black English
Vernacular to write in standard English: Effects of dialect transformation practice.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, no. 2 (2000): 212-235.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan
Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
———. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Edited by

Colin Gordon. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate
Soper. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.
———. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith. New York:
Pantheon Books, 1972.
———. “The Birth of the Asylum.” In The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow, 141-
168. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.
Fox, Josh. Gasland. DOCURAMA, 2010.
Fox, Matthew. Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality Presented in Four Paths,
Twenty-Six Themes, and Two Questions. Santa Fe: Bear & Company, 1983.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. 30th ed.
New York: Continuum, 2000.
Freire, Paulo, and Donaldo Macedo. Literacy: Reading the Word & the World. Boston:
Bergin & Garvey, 1987.
Gabbert, Laura, and Justin Schein. No Impact Man: The Documentary. DVD, Documentary.
Eden Wurmfeld Films, 2009.
Gallimore, Ronald, and Roland Tharp. “Teaching Mind in Society: Teaching, Schooling, and
Literate Discourse.” In Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and
Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, edited by Luis C Moll, 175-205. 1st ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Garrison, D. Randy, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer. “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based
Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education.” The Internet and Higher
Education 2, no. 2-3 (Spring 1999): 87-105.
Gee, James Paul. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. 3rd ed. London:
Routledge, 2008.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation Of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books,
1973.
399
Glenn, Cathy B. “Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory
Farm Industry Discourse.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 28, no. 1 (January 1,
2004): 63-81.
Goatly, Andrew. “Green Grammar and Grammatical Metaphor, or Language and Myth of
Power, or Metaphors We Die By.” In Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and
Environment, edited by Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler, 537-560. New York:
Continuum, 2001.
Godley, Amanda J., Julie Sweetland, Rebecca S. Wheeler, Angela Minnici, and Brian D.
Carpenter. “Preparing teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms.” Educational
Researcher 35, no. 8 (2006): 30-37.
———. “Preparing Teachers for Dialectally Diverse Classrooms.” Educational Researcher

35, no. 8 (2006): 30-37.
Graf, Anastasia. “Representing the Other: A Conversation among Mikhail Bakhtin, Elizabeth
Bishop, and Wislawa Szymborska.” Comparative Literature 57, no. 1 (Winter 2005):
84-99.
Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1971.
Gruenewald, David A. “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place.”

Educational Researcher 32, no. 4 (2003): 3-12.
Guggenheim, Davis. An Inconvenient Truth. DVD, Documentary. Paramount, 2006.
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant
Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003.
Hatley, James. “Techne and Phusis: Wilderness and the Aesthetics of the Trace in Andrew
Goldsworthy”, 2003. http://faculty.salisbury.edu/~jdhatley/technephusis.pdf.
Haussamen, Brock, Amy Benjamin, Martha Kolln, and Rebecca Wheeler. Grammar alive!: A
guide for teachers. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003.
Heller, Monica. “Language Choice and Symbolic Domination.” In Encyclopedia of

Language and Education, Vol. 3: Oral Discourse and Education, edited by Brian
Davies and David Corson, 87-94. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1997.
Hodgkinson, Shari, and J. Michael Innes. “The Attitudinal Influence of Career Orientation in
1st-Year University Students: Environmental Attitudes as a Function of Degree
Choice.” The Journal of Environmental Education 32, no. 3 (2001): 37-40.
hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York:
Routledge, 1994.
400
Hossay, Patrick. Unsustainable: A Primer for Global Environmental and Social Justice.
London: Zed Books, 2006.
Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content

Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15, no. 9 (November 1, 2005): 1277 -1288.
Husserl, Edmund. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by

Dorion Cairns. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1960.
“In the States.” Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010.

http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states.
Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, UNESCO, and United Nations

Environment Programme. “The Tbilisi Declaration.” Connect: The UNESCO/UNEP
Environmental Education Newsletter 3, no. 1 (January 1978).
Jordan, Chris. “Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption.” Chris Jordan
photographic arts, 2005.
http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/intolerable/#cellphones2.
———. “Midway: Message from the Gyre.” Chris Jordan photographic arts, 2011.
http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/midway/#CF000313%2018x24.
Kahn, Richard. “Towards Ecopedagogy: Weaving a Broad-based Pedagogy of Liberation for

Animals, Nature, and the Oppressed People of the Earth.” In The Critical Pedagogy
Reader, edited by Antonia Darder, Marta P. Baltodano, and Rodolfo Torres, 522-540.
2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Kaplan, Matt. “Primate Dialects Recorded in South America—A First.” National

Geographic Daily News, December 3, 2009.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090128-primate-language-
dialects-missions.html.
Kempton, Willett, James S Boster, and Jennifer A Hartley. Environmental Values in

American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Kennedy, Robert Francis. Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate
Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. 1st ed. New York:
HarperCollins, 2004.
Kincheloe, Joe L., and Peter McLaren. “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative
Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K.
Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 303-342. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
2005.
401
Klein, Naomi. “A Hole in the World.” The Nation, June 24, 2010.
http://www.thenation.com/article/36608/hole-world?page=0,0.
Kunstler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s
Man-Made Landscape. 1st ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
Labov, William. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and Jamel Donnor. “The Moral Activist Role of Critical Race
Theory Scholarship.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by
Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln, 279-301. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage Publications, 2005.
Lakoff, George. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and thought, edited
by Andrew Ortony, 202-251. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1980.
Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River.
1st ed. New York: Ballantine Books, 1970.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao. The Sage Encyclopedia of
Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004.
Lieberman, Gerald A., and Linda L. Hoody. Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the
Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. Results of a Nationwide Study.
San Diego: State Education and Environmental Roundtable, 1998.
———. Executive Summary: Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an
Integrating Context for Learning. Results of a Nationwide Study. San Diego: State
Education and Environmental Roundtable, 1998.
Lim, Genny. “Animal Liberation.” In From Totems to Hip-Hop: A Multicultural Anthology

of Poetry Across the Americas, 1900-2002, edited by Ishmael Reed, 34-36. New
York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2003.
Lindholdt, Paul. “Writing from a Sense of Place.” Journal of Environmental Education 30,
no. 4 (1999): 4–10.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. “Language Ideology and Language Prejudice.” In Language in the

USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Edward Finegan and John R
Rickford, 289-304. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
402
———. “Teaching Children How to Discriminate: What We Learn from the Big Bad Wolf.”
In English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United
States, 79-103. London: Routledge, 1997.
Lyon, George Ella. “Where I’m From.” In United States of Poetry, edited by Joshua Blum,
Bob Holman, and Mark Pellington, 22-23. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996.
Maffi, Luisa, and Ellen Woodley. Biodiversity: Culture. Global Environment Outlook:
Environment for Development. Nairobi: UNEP, 2008.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Marx-Engels Reader. Edited by Robert Tucker. 2nd
ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.
Maryland State Department of Education. “Voluntary State Curriculum for English Grades 9-
12.” mdk12.org, 2008. http://mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/reading/index.html.
“Maryland State Environmental Literacy Curriculum.” Maryland State Department of

Education, 2008.
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/environment/tk/els.
McCrary, Donald. “Represent, Representin’, Representation: The Efficacy of Hybrid Texts in

the Writing Classroom.” Journal of Basic Writing (CUNY) 24, no. 2 (2005): 74-91.
McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We
Make Things. 1st ed. New York: North Point Press, 2002.
McKibben, Bill. The End of Nature. 1st ed. New York: Anchor Books, 1990.
McLane, Joan B. “Writing as a Social Process.” In Vygotsky and Education: Instructional

Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, edited by Luis C Moll,
304-318. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
McLaren, Peter. “Critical Pedagogy: A Look at the Major Concepts.” In The Critical
Pedagogy Reader, edited by Antonia Darder, Marta P. Baltodano, and Rodolfo
Torres, 61-83. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008.
Meadows, Donella. “Lines in the Mind.” In Our Land, Ourselves: Readings on People and
Place, edited by Peter Forbes, Ann Armbrecht, and Helen Whybrow, 53-55. 2nd ed.
San Francisco: Trust for Public Land, 1999.
Merchant, Carolyn. “Ecofeminism.” In Environmental Discourse and Practice: A Reader,

edited by Lisa M. Benton and John Rennie Short, 209-213. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2000.
———. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. 1st ed. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980.
403
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Colin Smith. London:
Routledge & K. Paul, 1962.
Midgley, Mary. Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1984.
Mies, Maria. Ecofeminism. Melbourne: Spinifex, 1993.
Mühlhäusler, Peter. Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in

Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge, 2003.
Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Adrian Peace. “Environmental Discourses.” Annual Review of

Anthropology 35, no. 1 (October 2006): 457-479.
“Nebraska Environmental Literacy Plan Draft for Review.” Nebraska Alliance for
Conservation and Environmental Education, n.d. http://www.nacee.org/.
de Nerval, Gérard. “Golden Lines.” In News of the Universe: poems of twofold

consciousness, edited by Robert Bly, translated by Robert Bly, 38. San Francisco:
Sierra Club Books, 1980.
Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1984.
“Oregon Environmental Literacy Task Force.” Oregon Department of Education, 2010.

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2886.
Orr, David. “Place and Pedagogy.” In Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a
Sustainable World, edited by Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, 85-95. 1st ed.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2005.
Orr, David W. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World.
New York: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Oziewicz, Marek. “‘We Cooperate, or We Die’: Sustainable Coexistence in Terry Pratchett’s

The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents.” Children’s Literature in
Education 40, no. 2 (June 2009): 85-94.
Peterson, Anna Lisa. Everyday Ethics and Social Change: The Education of Desire. New
York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
Plummer, Ken. “Critical Humanism and Queer Theory: Living with the Tensions.” In The
Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S
Lincoln, 357-373. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.
Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge, 1993.
404
Practices, National Governors Association Center for Best, and Council of Chief State
School Officers. “The Standards.” Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010.
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.
Princen, Thomas. “Distancing: Consumption and the Severing of Feedback.” In Confronting

Consumption, edited by Thomas Princen, Michael F. Maniates, and Ken Conca, 103-
131. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002.
Quintana, Leroy V. “Sharks.” In Poetry Like Bread, edited by Martín Espada, 202-203.
Willimantic: Curbstone Press, 2001.
Ray, Dixy Lee, and Lou Guzzo. “Environmentalism and the Future.” In Reading the
Environment, edited by Melissa Walker, 528-533. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton
& Company, 1994.
Rees, Williams E., and Mathis Wackernagel. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth (New Catalyst Bioregional Series). Gabriola Island, B.C.: New
Society Publishers, 1996.
Rickford, John R. African American Vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational

implications. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
Rickinson, Mark. “Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A Critical Review of

the Evidence.” Environmental Education Research 7, no. 3 (2001): 207–320.
Rideout, Bruce. “The Effect of a Brief Environmental Problems Module on Endorsement of

the New Ecological Paradigm in College Students.” The Journal of Environmental
Education 37, no. 1 (October 2005): 3-11.
Ryan, John C, and Alan Thein Durning. Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things. Seattle,
WA: Northwest Environment Watch, 1997.
Salwiczek, Lucie H., and Wolfgang Wickler. “Birdsong: An Evolutionary Parallel to Human
Language.” Semiotica 151, no. 1/4 (2004): 163-182.
Shiva, Vandana. Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. Cambridge, MA:
South End Press, 2005.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Ecco, 2002.
Smith, Mick. An Ethics of Place: Radical Ecology, Postmodernity, and Social Theory.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Smitherman, Geneva, and Víctor Villanueva, eds. Language diversity in the classroom:
From intention to practice. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003.
405
Snyder, Gary. “The Call of the Wild.” In Reading the Environment, edited by Melissa
———. “The World Is Places.” In Reading the Environment, edited by Melissa Walker, 88-
91. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994.
Soussan, Tania. “Scientist: Prairie Dogs Have Own Language.” redOrbit, December 4, 2004.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=108412.
Stapp, William. “The Concept of Environmental Education.” Journal of Environmental

Education 1, no. 3 (1969): 31-36.
Stone, Christopher D. Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment.
3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Stone, Michael K, and The Center for Ecoliteracy. Smart by Nature: Schooling for
Sustainability. 1st ed. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2009.
Suzuki, David, and Peter Knudtson. Wisdom of the Elders: Sacred Native Stories of Nature.
New York: Bantam, 1992.
Szymborska, Wis!awa. “The Silence of Plants.” In Poems: New and Collected 1957-1997,
269-270. San Diego: Harcourt, 1998.
“Tbilisi Declaration.” The Global Development Research Center, n.d.

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html.
Thompson, Evan. “Empathy and Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 8, no. 5-

7 (2001): 1–32.
“Using the Core Learning Goals: English.” mdk12.org, 2010.

http://mdk12.org/instruction/clg/english/goal1.html.
Walker, Alice. “The Place Where I Was Born.” In Reading the Environment, edited by
Melissa Walker, 94-98. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994.
Wallace, David Foster. “Tense present: Democracy, English, and the wars over usage.”
Harper’s Magazine, April 2001.
Warkentin, Traci. “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 Environmental Education 7, no. 2 (2002): 241-255.
Warren, Karen. Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It

Matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.
406
Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. 1st ed. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
“What Is Schooling for Sustainability?” Center for Ecoliteracy, 2010.

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/discover/what-schooling-sustainability.
Wheeler, Rebecca S, and Rachel Swords. Code-switching: Teaching standard English in

urban classrooms. Theory & research into practice. Urbana, Ill: National Council of
Teachers of English, 2006.
White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155, no. 3767 (1967):
1203-1207.
White, Marilyn Domas, and Emily E. Marsh. “Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology.”
Library Trends 55, no. 1 (2006): 22-45.
Williams, Terry Tempest. An Unspoken Hunger: Stories from the Field. New York:
Pantheon Books, 1994.
Wilson, E.O. “Storm over the Amazon.” In Reading the Environment, edited by Melissa
“Wolf dog sings to a baby to stop his cry.” YouTube, May 1, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhA_TTKetyM&feature=related.
Wolfram, Walt, Carolyn Temple Adger, and Donna Christian. Dialects in schools and
communities. 2nd ed. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
Wolfram, Walt, and Natalie Schilling-Estes. American English: Dialects and Variation.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 1998.
———. American English: Dialects and Variation. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub,
2006.
Wright, Ronald. A Short History of Progress. 1st ed. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers,
2005.
Zhang, Yan, and Barbara M. Wildemuth. “Qualitative Analysis of Content.” In Applications

of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science, edited
by Barbara M. Wildemuth, 308-319. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2009.
407

II. Critical Ecoliteracy PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

II. Critical Ecoliteracy PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Rita Julia Turner

Degree and Date to be Conferred: Ph.D., 2011

University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2007-2011

Johns Hopkins University, 2005-2007

College of the Atlantic, 1997-2001

Glenelg High School, 1993-1997

Lecturer, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 2010-

Graduate Assistant, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 2008-2011

Writing Tutor, College of the Atlantic Writing Center, 2000-2001

Teaching Assistant, College of the Atlantic, 2000-2001

National Director, Sierra Student Coalition, 1998-1999

Turner, R. (2010). Discourses of Consumption in US-American Culture. Sustainability 2(7):

Turner, R. (2010). “Classroom Discourse through Many Lenses: Applying Theories of

Turner, R. (2009). The Discursive Construction of Anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics

Turner, R. (2011). “Teaching Zoosemiotics: Discourse about and Representations of Animals

Title of Document: CRITICAL ECOLITERACY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY

Rita Julia Turner, Ph.D., 2011

Directed By: Dr. Christine Mallinson

Rita Julia Turner

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

For Boogie, my family, my friend, my teacher.

And with deep appreciation and gratitude to:

Jeanine Williams, for always listening, commiserating, and motivating.

!"#$%&'(H*(52%$%#0-(6#&-%$"20#7(%'(1#$%&'*(@&."-(5,22%#,-,3(0'.(I";,-$; 88888888888888 )JA!

Graph 1: Occurrences of Theme A During Fall 2010 Semester........................................... 170!

I. Introduction: Seeking Sustainability

How do we make a better world? As members of the delicately interwoven system of

ourselves with sustenance, shelter, entertainment, and purpose.

industrial food produced by means of torture and destruction.

between wild and civilized? As a horn of plenty? As a garden to tend? As a web of

relationships? As a neighbor, a community, a home? As a mystery for humans to unlock?

As a family of related beings?

framed as inanimate raw materials or at best as irrelevant bystanders or obstacles.

to the world surpasses mere connection and verges on identity.”2

shaping our thinking and informing our behavior.

and dialogue, or we may hear only silence.

and to consider new possibilities of thought and action.

A. Questioning Our World

Is there a solution based purely on technological innovation, or changes in public policy, or

behavior remains bewilderingly intractable, despite its damaging consequences. I contend

of innovation and transformation, beyond that of technology or engineering: we must pursue

cultural and conceptual innovation.

Environmental ethics theorist Mick Smith comments, “the problems of deforestation,

the critique of environmental destruction necessarily becomes a critique of contemporary

national cultures, hemispheric cultures – whether oriented around ‘western,’ ‘eastern,’

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, we each adopt a combination of the cultural elements

important, “what results of approaching the world this way?”

Critiques of contemporary cultures are not difficult to find. From Marx10 to

identified as representative of the United States, or the combinations of traditions, qualities,

to as ‘Western culture,’ or as ‘occidental,’ ‘industrialized,’ ‘capitalist,’ or ‘Northern’ culture.

my own home culture of the US.12

belief that humankind is always moving toward improvement.13 In modern times,

Modernity, the social condition of our contemporary world, is characterized in

But Wright warns about the “ideal of progress”:

they rely on for survival, resulting in unstable or unsustainable circumstances.

“expansionist industrialism,”16 with its focus on ever-increasing production, consumption,

worth of connection, relationship, and interpersonal, creative, intellectual, and spiritual

This primacy of individual welfare is closely explored and problematized by Anna

Peterson, who suggests that the “individualism emphasized in mainstream Western

…the voluntaristic understanding of relationality, predominant in our present

!"#$%&'(H(52%$%#0-(6#&-%$"20#7(%'(1#$%&'(@&."-(5,22%#,-,3(0'.(I";,-$; 88888888888888 )JA!