Page 487 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

462 M.P. Mueller and D.J. Tippins

some democratic decisions before us. Essentially, should we really be looking out
for the “viability of being a disease?” Should we grant a sort of special status of
“democratic voice” to a disorder so that it will not disappear? Does “ecological
democracy” mistakenly convey that every living thing should have a “say,” vote, or
choice in cultural studies and environmentalism? When do ecological organisms
need advocacy? When should human advocates be appointed to serve as a proxy for
these things, similar to how river advocates represent the appropriateness and
significance of a clean river? What say would the Earth’s rock have, if it could utter
something about our use of its minerals? These questions are important if we wish
to understand the steps to fruitful departures from here, be taken seriously, and
engage in larger conversations about justice, place, and regional wisdom.
The veracity of ecological democracy (ecodemocracy for short) depends much on
where our ideas begin to go from here in schooling, rather than being perpetuated as
contributing to the degradation of thinking and action in school. This goal also
depends on downplaying high-stakes preparedness for economic superiority within
the admin policies of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, which endorse doctrines of shock,
competitiveness, and authority. Will we reclaim ecojustice, geography, and tribal
wisdoms which have been described in this book? Without justice, will we listen to
others and situate them in the best possible light? Without geography, will we attempt
to “walk in the shoes” of others and garner respect for what they know and do?
Without endemic knowledge, will we grant empathy and generosity or extend some
human rights for the Earth? The point of this final chapter is to ponder some possible
critiques for ecodemocracy and discuss its fruitfulness in science education and the
larger educational domain within and outside of schools. Our purpose is to prepare
scholars and educators who align with ideas in this book for scrutiny.
First, we demonstrate how absurd it is to deploy “ecodemocracy” within eco-
mentalism. Yet, logic is not the exclusive force for which we make our arguments for
ecological well-being. We do not need to rely on the superiority of the “rationale para-
digm” in science and education as noted by Pagan and others. There is an interesting
paradox with eco-mentalism which both inspires and puts us at more risk. We make
ourselves more vulnerable to critiques and dismissal because of coined “ecological”
prefixes. These days, everything has teleported itself into the eco-mentalism paradox
for exploitation. While eco-this and eco-that serves to show how we embrace and
value the “greening” of things, it also creates severe vulnerabilities for youth and
adults who spend a lot of money. Without even recognizing it, we have become more
at risk as culturalists and environmentalists. We have become threatened and may
even lose more through the trajectory of the mass media. Concomitantly, we are
actively charting the waters of creativity, imaginative, and genuine appeal.
Repositioning ourselves within the very exclusive science and schooling domains
cannot be avoided. But how? Especially in light of what gets to be tested? Why and
where should we democratize science and schooling in an ecological vogue? We
anticipate that this chapter will open the optimistic doors to cultural studies and envi-
ronmentalism in a way that must be taken seriously with others in this book, and
further endorse our change efforts. We do this change with and alongside of Nature,
not for Nature but for the betterment of all kinds. We conclude with some nurturing
ethical and moral imperatives for cultural studies and environmentalism.