Reconstructing and Representing Nature: the Challenge for Botanic Garden Educators
Contributed by John Huckle, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London SE1 OAA, U.K.
I am pleased to be at your conference and to have the opportunity of presenting a keynote that will suggest some guidelines for botanic gardens seeking to become centres of excellence in education for sustainability (EfS). My letter of invitation suggested that you would be particularly keen to explore how plants raise development and environmental issues and how you might explore such issues in your work.
My approach is in two parts. The first theoretical part suggests that Ayruvedic philosophy and medicine shares with critical theory and critical EfS certain assumptions about the health of the individual and society and the links between health, education and sustainability. Ayruvedic medicine and critical EfS suggest that doctors and teachers require appropriate theoretical knowledge, clarity of reasoning, wide practical experience, and personal skills. The second more practical part suggests how the critical educators for sustainability might explore development and environmental issues in a botanic garden. Three case studies, each using one of the healing plants of India as a focus, have been chosen to illustrate the issues raised by genetically modified plants, new gardening in Britain, and community gardening around the world. The case studies respectively serve to illustrate the importance of the content and pedagogy of the botanic garden curriculum and the locations where it is delivered.
The theme that runs through my keynote is the social construction and presentation of nature. At a time of profound social change, that encompasses the process of globalisation, nature is being increasingly capitalised (given a price and made the subject of market transactions) and enframed (represented by texts of all kinds as in advertisements, television documentaries, environmental campaigns, and brochures for botanic gardens) (Braun and Castree 1998). The rise of biological and information technologies, together with the increasing significance of the cultural economy, means that nature and society are increasingly inseparable. Nature is both the site of new forms of capital accumulation and the source of increasing numbers of signs and symbols that pervade our everyday lives. Societies that formerly expanded outwards to push back the frontiers of non-commodified nature and create such phenomena as commercial agriculture, now turn inwards to remake these social natures afresh and commodify such new ones as the human body. This process is legitimated and challenged by the various discourses of environmentalism (Dryzek 1997) as new natures are constructed both in reality and in our imaginations. The discourse of sustainable development can mask the ways in which nature is constructed in ways that disadvantage the poor, women and certain races, and we will see that environments, meanings and educations created in the name of sustainability are often challenged.
Such challenges should extend to botanic gardens. At a time when dominant forms of nature are being constructed and represented in unsustainable ways, can botanic gardens and their educators reconstruct and represent nature in more sustainable ways? For guidance as to how this might be done let us look first to Ayurvedic philosophy and medicine.
Ayurvedic Philosophy and Medicine
Ayurvedic philosophy (Patnaik 1993) maintains that people’s highest goal is to understand the principle of Brahman, the unity of life, or how we are linked to the rest of human and non-human nature. Such understanding promotes health, or a sound body, mind and soul, because people are not isolated from their own energies or from the energies in the world that surrounds them. Mental health depends on their ability to live in harmony with their inner nature; spiritual health on their ability to live in harmony with external nature. The physical, mental and spiritual health of individuals and the health of society are all related, and by using healing plants to improve people’s physical and mental health, the Ayurvedic doctor seeks to promote their spiritual health and the health of society.
Ayurvedic philosophy further maintains that people are the highest form of life and that they should act as stewards, ensuring that the fragile balance of nature and living organisms is not disturbed. They should live sustainably, preventing pollution and the wanton destruction of nature, replacing what they take from nature, and reconstructing damaged nature. Ayurvedic doctors are the guardians of the knowledge and values that enables society to live in this way. Professional ethics require them to devote themselves to the health and sustainability of society while their training ensures that they have appropriate theoretical knowledge, clarity of reasoning, wide practical experience, and personal skills.
Critical Social Theory and EFS
Like Ayurvedic medicine, critical EfS is based on theory that seeks to heal the separation or alienation of people from the rest of nature. This critical social theory is based on dialectical and systemic materialism and unites the study of nature and society through such philosophical frameworks as that provided by critical realism (Collier 1994; Dickens 1996; Soper 1995). It rejects the modern scientific notion of an objective, knowable nature, outside society, and like the traditional wisdom of India, pictures a total reality that is the product of ecological and social processes. Ecological processes result from structures in the physical and biological worlds (ecological relations) that allow a realist concept of nature. This suggests that nature is the permanent ground of all human activity and environmental change that sets elastic limits on how we live or might try to live. Social processes are a distinct subset of ecological processes since humans have the ability to form social relations that affect their behaviour and ecological relations. Habits, customs, laws, language, and such institutions as botanic gardens, are the outcomes of unique articulations of social relations in time and space. They are products of class, gender, political, spatial and other relations that act back on ecological relations ensuring that all places, environments and natures are socially constructed, both in a material and discursive sense.
The critical social theory of the environment that has developed over the last twenty years (Goldblatt 1996) leads to distinctive kinds of environmental politics and education. Environmental politics becomes a struggle over social relations, their impact on ecological relations and on our physical, mental, spiritual and social health. Production and consumption within the capitalist world economy is ecologically unsustainable because it fails to reproduce the conditions of production (ecological resources and services) on which it depends. At the same time it is socially unsustainable, because it requires social relations based on inequity and domination at all scales from the local to the global. Radical environmental politics seeks to democratise social relations in order that mutually beneficial relations between humans, between humans and other species, and between organisms and their environment, can be sustained. It seeks to change the institutions, beliefs and practices that reproduce unsustainable social relations and to this end engages in action at many sites (the family, community, the economy, the state, botanic gardens). Such action aims to end domination, democratise and decentralise power and establish an economy that meets social needs in an ecologically responsible way (Hartmann 1998).
Like Ayurvedic medicine, critical education for sustainability that draws on critical theories of the environment and education, seeks to enlighten people as to the unity of nature and society and the manner in which changed social relations might promote more sustainable and healthy ways of living (Huckle 1993; Huckle and Sterling 1996; Fien and Tilbury 1998; Plant 1999). It too is guided by a stewardship ethic and recognises that such an ethic is more likely to emerge once people realise that the world they inhabit is their own construction and responsibility. Critical and participatory forms of democracy, citizenship and education can then allow them to turn the actions whereby they construct nature into the objects of explicit and discursively justified communal choice (Dryzek 1996). A process of praxis, or critical action research (Rahman 1993), allows them to create socially useful knowledge, by testing a wide range of ideas and values in action. In such settings as those provided by the Local Agenda 21 process, it can enable sustainability to be translated into a regulative social principle, expressed in laws and an ecological social contract between the state and the responsible citizen (Selman 1996).
Critical environmental educators, like Ayurvedic doctors, are committed to the welfare of their students and society and require an appropriate professional education. They should be able to use critical theory of the environment to enlighten and empower their students and critical pedagogy (Gadotti 1996) to clarify reasoning in ways that counter dominant ideology and charges of indoctrination. They should have experience of assisting the transition to sustainability in a wide range of sites and the personal skills to inspire their students with visions of more sustainable futures. Topics suggested by three of the healing plants of India suggest how such professionalism might currently inform the EfS carried out by botanic garden educators.
Black Pepper, Genetically Modified Plants and Critical Knowledge
Black pepper, long a key item of Indian trade, is used in the mixed spices that form the basis of curry powders and to alleviate colds and coughs. It is just one of the many plants that has been subject to bioprospecting; the process whereby a handful of transnational seed, agrochemical and pharmaceutical companies assert property rights over species with the help of governments and intellectual property regimes. The companies suggest that they will use their newly acquired rights in nature to develop more sustainable forms of agriculture that help to solve the world’s food crisis. Their critics reject such property rights, seek a different approach to biotechnology, and argue that the world’s food problems are best tackled by forms of sustainable development that improve traditional agriculture through land reform, permaculture, intercropping, composting, cheap credit, and other innovations.
How should botanic garden educators present the debate on biotechnology? How should they encourage people to recognise what Riffkin (1999) has described as the hard and soft paths to a future shaped by this technology (Figure 1)? Clearly the two paths are informed by different views of nature, different kinds of knowledge, and serve different political interests? Vandana Shiva reminds us that in educating for sustainability we have to reveal these interests and persuade people that no technology is inevitable or beyond our control. We also have to facilitate community empowerment in order that they can act.
Ordinary people just need to realise that gene technology is not a cosmic phenomenon, globalisation is not a cosmic phenomenon, patent rights are not a cosmic phenomenon. They are human endeavours. They are not beyond our control. Community empowerment is to me the heart of resistance. People just need the right information in order to act.
(Vandana Shiva 1997, pp28-29)
Community resistance to hard applications of biotechnology can be found in the North and South. How should botanic garden educators encourage consumers in the North to network with farmers in the South? How should they tell the stories of farmers, such as those in India, who are caught up in a growing ecological and social crisis, partly caused by green revolutions that failed to deliver what they promised (Vidal 1999b)? How should they counter the public relations and media rhetoric of the biotechnology companies and their supporters in government who regard trade liberalisation and biotechnology as the keys to food security? And having engaged visitors in the politics of biotechnology, bioprospecting and intellectual property rights in nature, should botanic garden educators suggest, as Shand (1997) recommends, that the conservation of biodiversity depends on the conservation of human diversity?
Figure 1: Two views of biotechnology (based on Riffkin 1999)
|Hard Path||Soft Path|
|Nature as external to society and to be ‘tamed’, ‘mastered’ and ‘controlled’.||Nature as a seamless web of symbiotic relationships and mutual dependencies that includes society or human nature.|
|The world is seen in reductionist terms and scientists regard themselves as grand engineers, continually editing, recombining and reprogramming the genetic components of life to create more compliant, efficient and useful organisms that can be put to the service of humankind.||The world is seen in dialectical and systemic terms with the earth and its living things constituting a single (differentiated) organism – the biosphere. Scientists and others should engage in subtle forms of manipulation that enhance rather than sever existing relationships.|
|Molecular biologists insert alien genes into the biological code of food crops to make them more resistant to herbicides, pests, bacteria and fungi. They envision these engineered hybrids living in a kind of genetic isolation, walled off from the larger biotic community, and ignore the environmentalists fears of genetic pollution.||Ecologists use the new genomic information to help them understand how environmental factors affect genetic mutations in plants. They use the new scientific knowledge to improve classical sustainable farming methods, such as breeding, pest management, crop rotation.|
|Uses the new genetic science to engineer changes in the very blueprint of species||Uses the same genetic science to create more integrative and sustainable relationships between existing species and their environments.|
|Privately financed, centralised, corporate control. Establishes ecological monocultures and erodes biodiversity and human diversity.|| State financed, decentralised, community control.Promotes biodiversity and human diversity.|
|Promotes academic knowledge over local knowledge.||Values local knowledge.|
"We cannot save the world’s biological diversity unless we nurture the human diversity that protects and develops it. We cannot afford to undervalue the traditional knowledge of rural people. Without it we lose our last, best hope for salvaging and developing the living resources upon which we all depend."
Clearly your answers to such questions determine the kinds of knowledge you will need to educate for sustainability. Giving soft paths to a future with biotechnology more visibility and consideration in your botanic garden means giving greater attention to new approaches to the natural and social sciences, people’s local knowledge of plants, and political struggles for alternative futures. The content of your displays, presentations and lessons, may well be challenged for in some botanic gardens you are likely to upset existing interests.
The Hundred Leaf Rose, the New Gardening and Postmodern Pedagogy
The hundred leaf rose is widely used in India for perfumes, to make a gentle laxative, and to flavour sweet dishes. It provides a bridge to gardening in Britain where roses remain one of the most popular plants. Gardening in Britain is currently big business, with consumers spending £3 billion each year (£80 million on garden gnomes!) and the industry growing at 20% a year (Vidal 1999a). Much of this growth is prompted by a new kind of gardening programme on television, that fosters the cult of the instant garden; through which people are encouraged to express themselves and make an aesthetic or lifestyle statement through their gardens. The new gardening is made possible by new technologies in container growing that allow ‘just in time’ gardens, and seeks to sweep away the mystique of seeds, catalogues and cuttings that surrounded the old gardening programmes. It is presented as entertainment and fantasy by the media with gardens becoming fashion led living spaces. Plants are valued like furniture; the new gardener wants them instantly and will dispose of them once the fashion passes.
Like the gardens of the past, the instant garden reflects social and cultural trends in contemporary Britain. In disorganised capitalism or what some label postmodernity, the foundations of social structure and agency shift from the sphere of production to that of consumption. Identity and politics are increasingly focussed on the goods, services people consume and the images and meanings which surround these commodities. Those with money, can select from an increasing range of gardens: wildflower, cottage, organic, religious, minimalist, etc. Style, image and presentation are everywhere, and the garden is increasingly a statement of ownership, freedom, lifestyle, pleasure, and identity. Many public parks and gardens lie neglected and the dominant designs express control over nature rather than stewardship.
David Hartley (1997) describes the postmodern society that has produced the new gardening and the new gardener.
"Capitalism in its quest to establish insatiable demands has commodified not just a material world, but the social and psychological. Our identities are literally wrapped up in the packages which we buy. We display our identities, for a price, in style, a style whose life-span is short, soon to be re-made from the re-stocked shelves which lure us to them. Images are traded. Bodies are cared for. And we consume the info-products as easily as we consume those material products that are essential to our physical survival. The fix is quick, but it is fleeting. It all costs money. Those who lack it can ‘choose’ either to languish as non-consumers (and therefore as non-beings) or to steal it, at risk to themselves and to others."
(Hartley 1997, p73)
How should botanic garden educators respond to such changes? Clearly there is a role for cultural theory in informing the content of displays, publications and lessons, but I wish to focus on the shifts in pedagogy or the teaching and learning process. The new gardening suggests that postmodern individuals are rather different from modern individuals, in the ways that Thompson suggests (Figure 2).
|The Postmodern Subject|
|Is HOMOGENEOUS – all subjects share the same basic nature;||Is HETEROGENEOUS OR FRAGMENTED – patched together out of a variety of different bits of values, identities and beliefs;|
|Is UNIFIED – individual subjects do not possess internal contradictions;||Is DISPERSED OR DECENTRED – characterised by all sorts of internal divisions, such as that between consciousness and unconsciousness;|
|Is RATIONAL – characterised by the power of conscious reason;||Is SOMATIC - inseparable from the body and its needs and desires;|
|Is AUTONOMOUS – able to exercise its reason in order to be self-governing;||Is CREATIVE – while lacking the modernist power of autonomy, it may be inventive in ways unknown to the modernist subject;|
|Is STABLE IN IDENTITY – unchanging over time;||Is UNSTABLE – changing over time;|
|Is an INDIVIDUAL – possessing unique qualities and abilities (although not different basic natures) that mark it out as distinct from all others.||Although not a self-contained individual, the patchwork of which it is composed may mean it is at least IDIOSYNCRATIC.|
|A sovereign individual, with a solid and stable core, possessing powers of rational autonomy.||A complex combination of relatively random components.|
Figure 2: The modern and postmodern subjects compared (Thompson 1998, p148)
Disorganised capitalism encourages and requires more fragmented, decentred, somatic and reflexive individuals, who are able to assess and criticise their own values and behaviour and alter them if necessary. The unified knowable self has ceased to exist and teachers should therefore learn to work with people’s diverse identities, desires, and pleasures, engaging them in dialogue and activity that draws on their grounded cognitive and aesthetic understandings of plants and nature. Such activity is likely to contain significant elements of media and consumer education, will give greater attention to the body as a site where nature is constructed (Payne 1999), will convey a questioning and reflexive attitude, and will enable students to perceive the structural origins of their subjectivities (Castells et al. 1999). It will accommodate diverse voices, from peoples and species variously located within ecological and social relations, and so develop the kind of communicative rationality that fosters ecological democracy and sustainability. Botanic garden educators can glimpse elements of such pedagogy in the work of Body Shop, AdBusters, Greenpeace, and such new attractions as the Earth Centre in Doncaster, U.K.
Indian Hemp, Community Gardening, Wide Experience and Practical Skills
Indian hemp or cannabis has religious, recreational and medicinal uses in India. It provides a bridge to Exodus, a community living in Luton, thirty miles north of London, and to other community gardeners around the world. Exodus originated as a travelling sound system delivering free music to ravers and attracted the attention of the police at a time when Mrs Thatcher’s Conservative Government was seeking to outlaw outdoor rave parties and crack down on hard and soft drugs (McKay 1996; Saunders 1999). The largely unemployed and homeless members of Exodus squatted in derelict buildings and on land in Luton, establishing a housing action zone (HAZ Manor) and a city farm by ‘do it ourselves’ methods. At HAZ Manor they have a communal organic garden, a sustainable water system, and are saving for a renewable energy system. They have gradually found an accommodation with the police and Luton Council and have plans for The Ark, a community centre for others who are socially excluded on Luton’s Marsh Farm estate. It will have a non-profit community shop, provided with organic fresh vegetables by the farm, a wind generator making energy for the whole estate, and cheap entertainment of all sorts for young people. In describing their approach to sustainable development Glen Jenkins of Exodus echoes Ayurvedic philosophy and that of critical EfS.
This is regeneration by the people, for the people. We are taking responsibility for our environment, we want to make it liveable and sustainable. We can’t leave it to people who think regeneration is about repainting a few doors and promising computers to schools. What people don’t realise is that our philosophy addresses social, environmental and spiritual poverty, as well as problems with money.
(Glen Jenkins quoted in Saunders 1999, p29)
The sort of initiative that Exodus has taken in establishing a community garden is found all around the world. Stocker and Barnett (1998) remind us that community managed gardens of various kinds, can act as change agents for sustainability by producing fresh, safe organic food (physical and ecological sustainability); creating community places for social and cultural interaction, encounter, negotiation, and embodied engagement with the land, other community members, and the wider society (sociocultural sustainability); and providing sites of research, development, design, demonstration and dissemination for community science, horticultural techniques, and innovative technologies (economic sustainability). They can fulfil important functions in the Local Agenda 21 process: acting as living examples of the praxis of sustainability; establishing embodied participatory democracies that acts as a political signpost to local government and the wider society; and employing a communicative rationality based on people’s love of gardening that fosters reflection and action on wider sustainability issues. Of particular interest to educators is their significance as sites for action research that combines academic and local knowledge to create citizens’ or community science.
Stocker and Barnett’s case study of King William Park in Fremantle Australia has much in common with Irvine, Johnson and Peter’s (1999) account of the Alex Wilson Community Garden in Toronto, Canada. The garden in Toronto, established in memory of the Canadian horticulturalist, author and community activist, demonstrates the principles of sustainable land use and community planning in ways that reveal the ecological and social relations between people, communities and landscape. It reconstructs the natural and cultural history of southern Ontario and its pedagogical significance lies in the ways in which it reflects Wilson’s belief that ‘…we must build landscapes that heal and empower, that make intelligible our relations with each other and the natural world’. The garden draws attention to the history that made community gardens possible and necessary and in Wilson’s words, illustrates the theme of my keynote;
"The environmental movement has begun to undermine the social consensus for growth, development and the promotion of commodified relations with the land. It must now directly engage in social debate for the culture of nature – the ways we think, teach, talk about and construct the natural world – is as important a terrain for struggle as the land itself."
(Wilson 1991, p87 quoted in Irvine, Johnson and Peters 1999, p45)
Botanic garden educators should be involved in community gardening. They should encourage their colleagues to share their expertise with community gardeners and open botanic gardens to the community. I realise that there has been much innovation and progress in this direction, but the community garden is the key site at which botanic garden educators can bring sustainability alive to ordinary people. I regret that I have focussed on three gardens in the North and neglected the wealth of knowledge and expertise amongst small farmers and gardeners in the South, but others at this conference will, I am sure, compensate for my neglect (Pushpangadan 1998). We should remind ourselves also that pathways to sustainability are only partly local. Community gardens and other initiatives for change from below can only grow if there is change from above.
In his book Nature’s Keepers, Stephen Budiansky (1995) recounts the experience of William Jordan at the University of Wisconsin Arboretum (U.S.A.). He found that a conventional environmentalism, based on modern ecology, that asks people to love and revere nature but never touch her, brought ‘overuse’ of the arboretum by passive consumers of nature. When he began to promote a radical environmentalism, based on postmodern ecology that asks people to reconstruct nature so that it better meets their interests and those of other species, a huge number volunteered for restoration projects in the Chicago area.
In reconstructing nature such volunteers, like community gardeners, bring ‘…the full scope of human attitudes to bear on the landscape, aesthetic, scientific, utilitarian, even moral. They know that what they are fashioning will reflect their creativity and wisdom, but they know in the end that their effort is a joint one’ (Budiansky 1995, p250). My challenge to you as botanic garden educators is to consider the role you may play in the social construction of unsustainable natures and to engage with colleagues and communities seeking to reconstruct nature in more sustainable forms. I hope I have provided some insights into the kinds of knowledge, skills and visions that will help you in your constructional and presentational work.
John Huckle is grateful to the British Council in India for a travel grant that enabled him to attend the conference.
Braun, B. and Castree, N. (1998) (eds) Remaking Reality, Nature at the Millennium. Routledge, London.
Budiansky, S. (1995) Nature’s Keepers, The New Science of Nature Management. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London.
Castells, M., Flecha, R., Freire, P., Giroux, H. A., Macedo, D. and Willis, P. (1999) Critical Education in the New Information Age. Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford.
Collier, A. (1994) Critical Realism, An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy. Verso, London.
Dickson, P. (1996) Reconstructing Nature, Alienation, Emancipation and the Division of Labour. Routledge, London.
Dryzek, J. (1996) Political and Ecological Communication in Mathews, F. (ed) Ecology and Democracy. Frank Cass, London.
Dryzek, J. (1997) The Politics of the Earth. OUP, Oxford.
Fien, J. and Tilbury, D. (1998) Education for Sustainability: Some Questions for Reflection in Roots (17) Botanic Gardens Conservation International U.K.: 20 – 24.
Gadotti, M. (1996) Pedagogy of Praxis, A Dialectical Philosophy of Education. SUNY, New York.
Goldblatt, D. (1996) Social Theory and the Environment. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hartley, D. (1997) Re-schooling Society. Falmer Press, London.
Hartmann, F. (1998) Towards a Social Ecological Politics of Sustainability in Keil, R., Bell, D. V. J., Penz, P., and Fawcett, L. (eds) Political Ecology, Global and Local. Routledge, London.
Huckle, J. (1993) Environmental Education and Sustainability, A View from Critical Theory in Fien, J. (ed) Environmental Education, A Pathway to Sustainability. Deakin University Press, Geelong.
Huckle, J. and Sterling, S. (1996) (eds) Education for Sustainability. Earthscan, London.
Irvine, S., Johnson, L. & Peters, K. (1999) Community Gardens and Sustainable Land Use Planning: A Case-study of the Alex Wilson Community Garden. Local Environment 4(1) pp33–46.
Patnaik, N. (1993) The Garden of Life, an Introduction to the Healing Plants of India. Aquarian, London.
McKay, G. (1996) Senseless Acts of Beauty. Verso, London.
Payne, P. (1999) Postmodern Challenges and Modern Horizons: Education ‘for being for the environment’. Environmental Education Research 5(1) pp5–34.
Plant, M. (1999) Education for the Environment, Stimulating Practice. Peter Francis, Dereham.
Pushpangadan, P. et al. (1998) Empowering the Community; Wealth for All. Roots (17) Botanic Gardens Conservation International, U.K. pp29–31.
Rahman, M. D. A. (1993) People’s Self Development, Perspectives on Participatory Action Research. Zed Books, London.
Riffkin, J. (1999) The Perils of the Biotech Century. The New Statesman 6 September pp12–13.
Saunders, J. (1999) Seizing the Reins. New Internationalist 313 June pp28–29.
Selman, P. (1996) Local Sustainability, Managing and Planning Ecologically Sound Places. Paul Chapman, London.
Shand, H. (1997) Bio-meltdown. New Internationalist 288 March pp22–23.
Shiva, V. (1997) Secrets and Lies. New Internationalist 293 August pp28-29.
Soper, K. (1995) What is Nature? Culture, Politics and the non-Human. Blackwell, Oxford.
Stocker, L. & Barnett, K. (1998) The Significance and Praxis of Community-based Sustainability Projects: Community Gardens in Western Australia. Local Environment 3(2) pp179–191.
Thompson, S. (1998) Postmodernism in Lent, A. (ed) New Political Thought. Lawrence & Wishart, London.
Vidal, J. (1999a) This Green and Instant Land. The Guardian, 22 May.
Vidal, J. (1999b) The Seeds of Wrath. Guardian Weekend, 19 June.
Wilson, A. (1991) The Culture of Nature: North American Landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Between the Lines, Toronto.