Advertisement

Dialectical Anthropology

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 447–463 | Cite as

Field philosophy: dualism to complexity through the borderland

  • Lissy Goralnik
  • Michael Paul Nelson
Article

Abstract

For 5 years, we have taught an interdisciplinary experiential environmental philosophy—field philosophy—course in Isle Royale National Park. We crafted this class with a pedagogy and curriculum guided by the ethic of care (Goralnik et al. in J Experiential Education 35(3):412–428, 2012) and a Leopold-derived community-focused environmental ethic (Goralnik and Nelson in J Environ Educ 42(3):181–192, 2011) to understand whether and how wilderness experience might impact the widening of students’ moral communities. But we found that student pre-course writing already revealed a preference for nonanthropocentric and nonutilitarian ethics, albeit with a naïve understanding that enabled contradictions and confusion about how these perspectives might align with action. By the end of the course, though, we recognized a recurrent pattern of learning and moral development that provides insight into the development of morally inclusive environmental ethics. Rather than shift from a utilitarian or anthropocentric ethic to a more biocentric or ecocentric ethic, students instead demonstrated a metaphysical shift from a worldview dominated by dualistic thinking to a more complex awareness of motivations, actions, issues, and natural systems. The consistent occurrence of this preethical growth, observed in student writing and resulting from environmental humanities field learning, demonstrates a possible path to ecologically informed holistic environmental ethics.

Keywords

Natural World Environmental Ethic Traditional Ecological Knowledge Moral Community Wolf Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Algona, P.S., and G.L. Simon. 2010. The role of field study in humanistic and interdisciplinary environmental education. Journal of Experiential Education 32(3):191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brady, Emily, Alan Holland, and Kate Rawles. 2004. Walking the talk: Philosophy of conservation on the Island of Rum. Worldviews 8(2–3):280–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callicott, J.Baird. 1986. The metaphysical implications of ecology. Environmental Ethics 8:301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callicott, J.Baird. 1990. The case against moral pluralism. Environmental Ethics 12:99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Elder, John (ed.). 1998. Stories in the land: A place-based environmental education anthology. Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.Google Scholar
  7. Freese, Curtis H., and David L. Trauger. 2000. Wildline markets and biodiversity conservation in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):42–51.Google Scholar
  8. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays, 3–30. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  10. Goralnik, Lissy, and Michael P. Nelson. 2011. Framing a philosophy of environmental action: Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and the importance of community. The Journal of Environmental Education 42(3):181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goralnik, L., K. Millenbah, M.P. Nelson, and L. Thorp. 2012. An environmental pedagogy of care: Emotion, relationships, and experience in higher education. The Journal of Experiential Education 35(3):412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grace, Marcus M., and Mary Ratcliffe. 2002. The science and values that young draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education 24(11):1157–1169. doi: 10.1080/09500690210134848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln, 105–117. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Hungerford, Harold R., and Trudie L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior. Journal of Environmental Education 21(3):8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, B.L., and L.M. Frederickson. 2000. ‘What’s in a good life?’ Searching for ethical wisdom in the wilderness. The Journal of Experiential Education 23(1):43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, Peter C., J.Quentin Merritt, and Clare Palmer. 1999. Critical thinking and interdisciplinarity in environmental higher education: The case for epistemological and values awareness. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 2:349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kellstedt, M., S. Zahran, and A. Vedlitz. 2008. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis 28(1):113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimmerer, Robin Wall. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
  19. Knapp, Clifford E. 2005. The ‘I-thou’ relationship, place-based education, and Aldo Leopold. The Journal of Experiential Education 27(3):277–285.Google Scholar
  20. Kollmuss, Anja, and Julian Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3):239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knapp, Doug and Poff, Raymond. 2001. A qualitative analysis of the immediate and short-term impact of an environmetnal interpretive program. Environmental Education Research 7(1):55–65.Google Scholar
  22. Kulpa, Jack. 2002. The wind in the wire. True North, 141–147. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lincoln, Y., and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Loomis, J.B. 2000. Can environmental economic valuation techniques aid ecological economics and wildlife conservation? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):52–60.Google Scholar
  26. Louv, Richard. 2009. A walk in the woods. Orion. Retrieved March 24, 2009. www.orionmagazine.org.
  27. Marcinkowski, Tom. 1998. Predictors of environmental behavior: A review of three dissertation studies. In Essential readings in environmental education, ed. H.R. Hungerford, W.J. Bluhm, T.L. Volk, and J.M. Ramsey, 227–236. Champaign, IL: Stipes.Google Scholar
  28. Mathews, Freya. 1991. The ecological self. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Maykut, P., and R. Morehouse. 1994. Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moore, Kathleen Dean. 2004. Pine Island paradox. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
  31. Moore, Kathleen Dean, and Michael P. Nelson (eds.). 2010. Moral ground. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mortari, L. 2004. Educating to care. The Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 9(1):109–122.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, M.P. 1998. An amalgamation of wilderness preservation arguments. In The great new wilderness debate, ed. J.B. Callicott, and M.P. Nelson, 154–200. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nelson, Michael P. 1996. Holists, fascists, and paper tigers…Oh my! Ethics and the Environment 1(2):102–117.Google Scholar
  35. Peterson, Rolf O. 2008. Letting nature run wild in the National Parks. In: Michael P. Nelson and J. Baird Callicott (Eds.). The Wilderness Debate Rages On pp. (645–663). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  36. Plumwood, Val. 1991. Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia 6(1):3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Preston, C.J. 2003. Grounding knowledge: Environmental philosophy, epistemology, and place. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  38. Proudman, B. 1992. Experiential education as emotionally-engaged learning. The Journal of Experiential Education 15(2):19–23.Google Scholar
  39. Ramsey, C., and R. Rickson. 1977. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education 13(1): 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Russell, Constance L. & Bell, Anne C. 1996. A politicized ethic of care: Environmental education from an ecofeminist perspective. In: K. Warren (Ed.). Women’s Voices in Experiential Education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. pp. 172–181.Google Scholar
  41. Smith-Sebasto, N.J. 1995. The effects of an environmental studies course on selected variables related to environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 26(4): 30–34.Google Scholar
  42. Sobel, David. 2004. Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.Google Scholar
  43. Strauss, Anselm and Corbin, Juliet M. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded Theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Vucetich, John, and Michael P. Nelson. 2013. The infirm ethical foundations of conservation. In Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation, ed. Marc Bekoff, 9–25. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Warren, Karen J. 2000. Ecofeminist philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Wolcott, Harry F. 1994. On seeking—and rejecting—validity in qualitative research. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 337–371.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations