Page 311 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

23 River Advocacy as a Case of/for Novelizing Discourse in Science Education 285

Taken literally, Scarlett uses the word “oxygen” without violating its natural scientific
meaning. But of course oxygen is invisible! We all know this since our first steps
in science education. Thus, her use of the word “oxygen” is completely different
from what is considered appropriate in the discourse of science. By positioning it
in the way she does, “it is permeated with the parodic and ironic accents of the
author” (Bakhtin 1981, p. 46). As a result, the entire expression obtains a com-
pletely new meaning – one used to question the very discourse of science educa-
tion. To me, then, this vignette is particularly salient since it provides evidence that
river advocacy provides an opening for the advocate to question the dominant
established literary genre of the natural sciences and to internalize dialogue in this
discourse. By allowing students and river advocates to contribute to novelizing
the discourse of science education, river advocacy has the potential to internalize a
dialogue between the natural sciences and “folk” language in place-based activities.

Towards an Internalized Dialogue in Place-Based Activities

I think Pagan’s study can be read as an outstanding example of river advocacy since
it lays bare the openings for science educators toward place-based activities in
which dialogue is internalized in the discourse at hand. In such place-based activi-
ties, “folk” language becomes part of the discourse. This is not only a matter of
teachers who invent intermediary languages to bridge the gap to “folk” language or
scientific literary genres that become part of students “folk” language. Rather, such
activities provide space for ridiculizing the established literary genres of the natural
sciences and therewith, along a process of linguistic stratification, to invent new
languages on the plane between the language of the natural sciences and individu-
als’ “folk” language. Particularly, given the cognitive connection between language
and tool use, the emergence of such new languages is required for a process of
learning to use the tools of science for individuals’ own well-being and that of oth-
ers in the local community. Hence, I read in Pagan’s study how river advocacy is
harvesting the potential to open spaces for such a language-tool development and
therewith to link humans, their life worlds, and their experiences in particular
settings to formal science education.
To conclude, I think the message from the work of Pagan pertains to more than
place-based activities only. Given the scope of this book, I think novelizing the
discourse of science education is also important in regard to both ecojustice and
indigenous knowledge. This relation lies in the requirement of providing space for
speaking through places such as rivers by means of “folk” language. As stated in
the introduction to this section of the book, place refers to the word plateia, a cen-
tral place for feasts, celebrations, events, and meetings in ancient Greece (plateίa,
street). Hence the significance of places is in people’s events and meetings that
“take place” in the place. Providing space for speaking through places calls for
a process in which all relevant voices to which the place matters can be heard
irrespective of their language. This requirement extends place-based activities to