Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 303–308 | Cite as

Love, politics and science education on a damaged planet

  • Jesse BazzulEmail author
  • Sara TolbertEmail author
Forum

Abstract

This article attempts to add to the conversation on equity and science education by arguing that activist work necessitates turning away from conservative fields of research that only forward the agenda of national governments/patriarchy/white supremacy/capital, and turning toward larger sociopolitical movements and non-dominant forms of knowledge that can help communities move toward multi-species flourishing. Building on the work of Chantal Pouliot, who argues that academics have a key role to play in environmental and social issues of public concern, we argue that engaging larger systemic contexts is absolutely necessary when educating for different futures. Specifically, we extend the use of Sheila Jasanoff’s (Science and public reason, Routledge, New York, 2012a.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203113820; Sheila Jasanoff’s in: Rajan (ed) Lively capital: biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets, Duke University Press, Durham, pp. 155–183, 2012b.  https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822393306-005) work that demonstrates how modern Western law and governance specifically aim to take common, “natural” spaces and turn them into profit/capital. We conclude by suggesting that a politics of love can become a guiding force for justice-oriented scholarship in science education.

Keywords

Love Science education Politics Public Activism 

Notes

References

  1. Althusser, L. (1970). Philosophy as a revolutionary weapon. New Left Review, 1(64), 3.Google Scholar
  2. Badiou, A. (2005). Infinite thought (Clemens, O. Feltham, Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  3. Bazzul, J., & Tolbert, S. (2017). Reassembling the natural and social commons. In A. Means, D. Ford & G. Slater (Eds.), Educational commons in theory and practice (pp. 55–73). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazzul, J., Wallace, M. F. G., & Higgins, M. (2018). Dreaming and immanence: rejecting the dogmaticimage of thought in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(3), 823–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (2001). What is critique? An essay on Foucault’s virtue. Available at: http://eipcp.net/transversal/0806/butler/en. Accessed November 27, 2017.
  6. Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 37–68.  https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822373780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. New York: Penguin.  https://doi.org/10.3917/mult.018.0159.Google Scholar
  9. Hooks, B. (2006). Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. (2008). Representation and re-presentation in Litigation Science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116, 123–129. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2199272/.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9976.
  11. Jasanoff, S. (2012a). Science and public reason. New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203113820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jasanoff, S. (2012b). Taking life: Private rights in public nature. In K. Rajan (Ed.), Lively capital: Biotechnologies, ethics, and governance in global markets (pp. 155–183). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822393306-005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lemke, J. (2011). The secret identity of science education: Masculine and politically conservative? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 287–292.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9326-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rancière, J. (2015). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Simpson, L. (2015). Islands of decolonial love: Stories & songs. Arp Books.Google Scholar
  16. Spiller, P. (May 29, 2017). Could subjects soon be a thing of the past in Finland? BBC News online, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39889523.
  17. subRosa. (2008). Common knowledge and political love. In B. da Costa, K. Philip (Eds.), Tactical biopolitics: Art, activism, and technoscience (pp. 221–242). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Tolbert, S., & Bazzul, J. (2017). Toward the sociopolitical in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(2), 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada
  2. 2.College of Education, Health, and Human Development Te Rāngai Ako me te HauoraUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations