3.1. Civilized and sustainable life?
3.1. Civilized and sustainable life?
Section 2 briefly covered the ideal of the Enlightenment which began in the 17th century. The European idea of Enlightenment has considered it important to increase knowledge and understanding in every area of society. This ideal and activity has usually been called civilising: the pursuit of making both the citizens and society civilised. For example, basic knowledge of the world and its functioning (so-called general knowledge), social skills, rhetorical skills, ethical discernment, and appreciation of culture in its different forms have all been considered to be part of civilisation. A civilised person is thus expected to possess fairly wide-ranging knowledge and skills which also include an understanding of the value system and societal influence of their own activity.
This Enlightenment view of civilisation has been heavily criticised during the environmental crisis. We also mentioned this in section 2. Many ideas on how the view of civilisation should change to better serve a sustainable society and a sustainable way of life have also been presented. In Finland, this discussion has been compiled and developed, for example, in the Ihminen osana elonkirjoa (human as a part of biodiversity, in Finnish) report of The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra (Sitra.). The report aims to create guidelines for sustainable civilisation and a new relationship with nature, based on current research. The introduction to the report states that the traditions of the Enlightenment contain ideals that are not sustainable in the era or the environmental crisis: particularly problematic is the idea that “only the Western standpoint and culture is appropriate” as well as the idea that “nature is separate from the human who has an unrestricted right to utilise it”. According to the authors, civilisation should help humans to understand themselves and human societies as parts of nature – as planetary actors, whose current activity is causing an unsustainable burden to the environment. In other words, Sitra's new conception of civilisation includes an idea of planetary responsibility. “When the classic conception of civilisation is based on an idea of citizens upholding society through peaceful interaction, the civilisation in the age of the sustainability crisis extends the idea of societal forces to also include non-humans, and the community that is upheld is the entire planet instead of a human society.” (Haverinen et al. 2021, 42.)
Educationist and philosopher Veli-Matti Värri also emphasises the role of education in societal change: “Creating an ecologically sustainable relationship with the world requires new global ethical standards but also legislation – and, first and foremost, education towards a new, wiser relationship with nature.” (Värri 2018, 14.)
Nature civilisation
In some cultures, e.g., Finnish tradition, European civilisation and the knowledge of nature are intertwined. According to cultural anthropologist Kaisa Vainio, “nature civilisation” (luontosivistys) in Finland includes skills such as identifing different birds and plants, and knowing which mushrooms are safe to pick and eat. It also includes knowing how to act and camp in the wild. These skills have been considered important to pass down on future generations and, for example, to immigrants. Sitra’s report, however, also questions if the ideal of nature civilisation is possible in a modern world, where most Finns live in urban environments. We can also consider how societies – including cities – could be constructed in a manner that all citizens would have opportunities to get to know their local nature and the skills relevant to it. Nature can change, but knowing it and interacting with it are skills that are important now and in the future.
Being civilised about nature is like any other type of civilisation: it is gradually built during one's life. Sensitivity towards nature deriving from, for example, positive experiences with nature in one’s childhood and adolescence may support adopting sustainable ways of living. Connection to and appreciation for nature may, however, also be formed in environments where the connection to local nature is not immediate or daily. According to Sitra’s experts, “it is important to support the notion that the nature within and around us can be experienced in many ways without valuing one over the other. For example, walking in a forest or admiring the distant scenery from the porch of a cabin can both create an understanding and experience of one’s and society’s intertwining with nature.” (Haverinen et al. 2021, 46).
Education and teaching
In a sustainable society, “sustainable education“ can no longer be considered as merely one disrinct aspect of education. Instead, the perspectives and different sectors of sustainability – ecological, social, economic, and cultural – should be considered in all education and teaching. According to Veli-Matti Värri (2018, 114), “ecological education” attempts to change the “human existence in the world” in a fundamental manner. The different sectors of ecological education may relate to, for example, the psychology and philosophy of growing into a human being, understanding and criticising the consumer society, changing relations with technology, and the emotions caused by environmental change, including traumatic experiences. Värri (2018, 114) also points out the importance of cherishing one's capacity for ecological imagination:
“Educators, and all of us who are responsible for making good life possible for the growing generations’, can no longer base our ecological imagination on the idea of a harmony and balance between human and nature. Instead, ecological imagination must cultivate mental maturity that can cope with the strange and uncertain nature of both humans themselves and the environment. It is both a question of “restoring lost memory” and clarifying the sense responsibility: ecological imagination takes into account the fact that the human impact extends a long way, both far in the shadows of the past and into the immeasurable future.”
The changing role of universities
Universities have traditionally been considered actors that define and advance civilisation. Universities build a scientific view of the world through research that constantly transforms itself and sometimes even challenges fundamental conceptions. Veli-Matti Värri points out that even scientific data needs the support of ethical judgement – only then can it be called civilisation. Therefore, the task of universities is also to develop ethical judgement and to help recognise ethical challenges relevant to different situations. As Värri (2018, 110) summarises:
“University should be a Socratic, enquiring, rousing, and provoking pedagogical community. It should address the basic questions of humanity and rouse us to think on what is the ethos of academic expertise: what do we live for, and what is the relation of my actions to others, to the world and to the state of society? Do we have a greater purpose for which or in relation to which we work or study at the university? What kind of epistemic interest do we act on, and how do our deeds relate to the ideals of good life and democracy? The most essential question of good life in the age of the climate crisis is: what kind of possibilities does the university create for ecological civilisation, for sustainable relations between humans and nonhumans, and for solving the ecological crisis?"
Ecosocial education in Finnish teaching and education
The role of civilisation as a part of the well-being of human and nature has also been approached through the concept of ecosocial education. The idea of ecosocial education is that civilisation includes a pursuit of a more sustainable way of living in which the pursuit of a good human life is performed in a manner that considers the world’s bearing capacity, the social relationships between people, and the sustainable functioning of the economy. The conception has been developed particularly by philosopher and educationist Arto O. Salonen. In the Finnish curriculum for basic education, ecosocial education is highlighted as one objective of education.
In ecosocial education, it is essential to perceive how ecological, economic and social questions are connected in a systemic way: for, example, an excessive pursuit of economic profits leads to the regional destruction of natural resources, which in turn leads to a decrease in the living conditions of people living in those regions. Ecosocial education is thus based on the systemic thinking that we examined on the “Systems and planetary well-being” course.
Ecosocial education is based on the following hierarchy:
- ecological questions
- social factors such as human rights
- economic balance
Of these, the ecological dimension, i.e., securing the preconditions for planetary life, is prioritised the highest. This means that the most important aspect of ecosocial education is to preserve the viability of Earth. This in turn means, for example, preserving clean water and air.
Next are human rights, i.e., ensuring the possibilities of a dignified life for all humans. The preconditions of good human life come up as essential questions in the conception of ecosocial civilisation. These include basic needs, such as the clean water and air mentioned above, but also the experience of one's own worth and the possibility to act as a part of human communities.
The last one in the hierarchy is the economy, the task of which is to implement the aims of the two preceding categories. Economy is tasked with ensuring that dignified lives are built on sustainable foundations. Therefore, the economy is not considered intrinsically valuable. The excessive idealisation of economic growth may threaten economic sustainability and the realisation of human rights when production is focused on, for example, low prices and not on ecological effects and the well-being of employees. The economy also relates to ecological questions through the fact that it cannot exist without natural resources from which various products are made of. It also cannot exist without human communities that depend on the same natural resources.
A systemic approach and the well-being of humans within planetary boundaries are shared interests in both planetary well-being and ecosocial education. The concept of planetary well-being, however, emphasises the well-being of non-human nature even more. Ecological education can also function as a path to achieving planetary well-being. The visions and aims of the Finnish National Agency for Education’s climate responsibility education foreground climate responsibility as a civic skill that is guided both by ecosocial education and an “understanding of planetary boundaries”.