Environmental extension: promoting ecological citizenship.

Abstract

While acknowledging the importance of the discussion around ecological citizenship with regard to institutions, policies and social norms, in this paper I propose to focus on the individual, considering the capacities that need to be in place to promote pro-active environmental citizens. As an agronomist, concerned with the transformations of the environment through diverse farming processes, I am debating with the question of why people act the way they do toward the environment. From this perspective, the discussion of environmental ethics becomes pivotal. In this paper, I discuss ethics from an environmental pragmatism standpoint. This approach allows me to focus on the human relationship with non-human nature--important when considering farming--instead of focusing solely on an ideal state of nature. Environmental pragmatism acknowledges our unity with nature, pluralism, and the freedom necessary to structure responsible action. The paper's reflection on ethics encompasses reflexivity regarding our relationship with the environment, as well as care and responsibility for it. These are aspects that arise only in the presence of both a critical consciousness regarding our behaviour and an awareness of our humanness--our essence of being human--not as superior beings, but as beings capable of making conscious choices and learning. Therefore I propose that, along with the development of environmental laws, we emphasize the promotion of environmental ethics, through learning processes involving reflection upon our role in the environment. Considering some experiences in rural areas with farmers, I bring forth some suggestions that include not only the promotion of a formal knowledge of one's environment, but as well a continuous reflection on the concrete actions taken in that environment and their potential impacts, establishing the basis for what I propose to call "environmental extension."

Tout en reconnaissant l'importance du debat autour d'une citoyennete ecologique en ce qui a trait aux institutions, aux politiques et aux normes sociales, dans cet article, je me propose de me concentrer sur la personne, compte tenu des capacites qui doivent etre en place pour promouvoir une citoyennete environnementale proactive chez les gens. A titre d'agronome, preoccupee par les transformations qu'imposent a l'environnement les divers processus agricoles, je me demande pourquoi les gens agissent comme ils le font envers l'environnement. De ce point de vue, le debat sur I'ethique environnementale devient determinant. Dans cet article, j'analyse l'ethique du point de vue du pragmatisme environnemental. Cette approche me permet de me concentrer sur la relation de l'humain avec la nature--primordiale dans le cas de l'agriculture--plutot que de mettre l'accent sur un etat ideal de la nature. Le pragmatisme environnemental reconnait notre unite avec la nature, le pluralisme et la liberte necessaires pour structurer une action responsable. La reflexion sur I'ethique contenue dans cet article contient une introspection au sujet de la relation que nous entretenons avec I'environnement, et du soin et de la responsabilite que nous en prenons. Ce sont la des aspects qui resultent seulement en presence d'une prise de conscience critique concernant notre comportement et d'une reconnaissance de notre etat ou de notre essence d'etre humain, non en tant qu'etres superieurs, mais en tant qu'etres capables d'apprendre et de faire des choix conscients. C'est pourquoi je propose que parallelement a l'elaboration de lois environnementales, nous mettions l'accent sur la promotion d'une ethique environnementale par le biais de processus d'apprentissage qui comprennent notamment une reflexion sur le role que nous jouons vis-a-vis de l'environnement. Compte tenu de certaines experiences dans les regions rurales avec les agriculteurs, j'elabore des suggestions qui ne concernent pas uniquement la promotion d'un savoir formel au sujet de son environnement, mais aussi une reflexion continue sur les actions concretes que l'on peut prendre dans cet environnement et sur leur incidence eventuelle, etablissant ainsi les fondements de ce que je propose de nommer extension environnementale.

Keywords

Ecological citizenship, environmental ethics, environmental extension, learning, humanism

Introduction

The concept of ecological citizenship is a result of our current concern with the state of the natural environment. For me, it immediately prompts reflections on personal daily actions, involving choices, priorities, and specific utopias which take place in this net of interactions with our fellow human beings and the environment surrounding us. Therefore a discussion on ecological citizenship should be grounded in environmental ethics, and more specifically, in our awareness of our humanness and everything it encompasses. This paper starts with the description of the concept of ecological citizenship, which underpins the discussion. Then, the concept of environmental ethics is discussed, emphasizing its influence on the construction of an ecological citizenship. The paper concludes with the proposal of environmental extension, as a process to promote ecological citizenship. Two different experiences with farmers in southern Brazil will exemplify some aspects of this process.

Ecological citizenship

The concept of ecological citizenship is an outcome of the current concern with the state of our environment, offering a way of expressing the shared responsibility of all individuals and institutions for it. This paper proceeds from the assumption that there is agreement on the need for an ecological citizenship; therefore, I will briefly state and explain the characteristics of ecological citizenship that ground this discussion, which considers that:

Ecological citizenship deals in the currency of non-contractual

responsibility, it inhabits the private as well as the public

sphere, it refers to the source, rather the nature of responsibility

to determine what counts as citizenship virtues, it works with the

language of virtue, and it is explicitly non-territorial (Dobson

2003:89).

Non-territoriality

The non-territoriality of Dobson's ecological citizenship is grounded in the interconnectedness and interdependency among societies and environments. This issue is twofold. First, we need to consider that the ecological constituents of ecosystems--water, soil, fauna and flora--have their own spatial dynamics. All ecosystem elements are interwoven, and follow a chain of influences not obstructed by a human community, state or national boundary. Second, the idea of non-territoriality also encompasses what Dobson calls our ecological 'space'. The industrial dynamics, the consumption patterns and the mobility that characterize contemporary societies make us all not only dependent but also influencing agents on environments we are not even aware of. Communities that live in complete isolation from the rest of the world are rare. Food, clothing, and implements cross lands and oceans, creating multinational households. Many goods used in households around the world are produced in other places, and hence have impacts on social and natural environments at a great distance from the place where they are consumed. While this paper shares Dobson's understanding of non-territoriality in ecological and social relations, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge the centrality of place-based or territorial identity, mediated through culture, in feeding a feeling of belonging and care for our homes, which is certainly an important aspect in the construction of citizenship.

Private and public spheres

Most discussions on citizenship relate to the public realm. While still emphasizing the public sphere, Dobson also stresses the importance of the private setting for the development and the expression of an ecological citizenship. "First, private acts can have public implications (...) and second, some of the virtues (...), care and compassion in particular, with their unconditional and non-reciprocal character--are characteristic of ideal-typical versions of private realm relationships" (Dobson 2003: 135). It is in the private realm, especially within the family, that the values underpinning ecological citizenship are first developed. It is there where we learn--or fail to learn--about the Other and about our position in the world. It is there where we learn what the priorities in our lives are, and how to interact with our social and natural environments. Further, the choices we make in the private setting not only influence the environment, but are an expression of our values vis-a-vis ecological issues.

[H]umans transform their environment in order to produce and

reproduce their daily lives. In this sense, the reality of the human

situation lies at the heart of my notion of ecological citizenship

(Dobson 2003:122).

When highlighting the private sphere as a necessary space for the expression of citizenship, Dobson emphasizes coherence of our actions. To consider oneself an ecological citizen is not only about voting green, or standing up for public transportation, or pressuring the government to sign the Kyoto protocol. A citizen expresses concern in daily actions; for example when I open (and close) the water tap in the kitchen, when I flush my toilet, when I go to the grocery store, when I decide on the paper I use to print my work, or the equipment I use to do research. Whether making these daily decisions or taking a stand on some major issue such as the Kyoto protocol, there is the need for a central framework of ethics, more specifically the need for an environmental ethic.

Virtues

To classify someone as an ecological citizen is not just a matter of drawing up a list of 'good deeds' (Dobson 2003). Rather, sound ecological citizenship requires attending to the conditions under which obligations of citizenship are created, and via which, as a consequence, the virtues of such citizenship--whatever they may be--are called into play. The virtues of care and justice are important pillars of an environmental ethics (Dean 2001; Dobson 2003). Ecological citizenship definitely calls for a sensitivity to the Other, and leaves behind the individualistic and instant-gratifying lifestyle that tends to be disseminated and promoted in many contemporary societies. This sensitivity highlights the idea that ecological awareness and care are not only achieved through economic or practical incentives (Beckman 2001)--although this can have an immediate, if superficial, response. The ecological citizen does the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Care, however, is not an unproblematic concept. Nassauer (1997a) stresses that 'care' can be interpreted in different ways, and does not necessarily lead to an ecologically healthy landscape. She stresses that care can be seen as domination of, involvement with and/or accommodation to nature (Nassauer 1988). She speaks about 'cues to care' as cultural symbols that bring forth a meaning, either related to neatness, stewardship or naturalness (Nassauer 1995). It might encompass stewardship, work ethics, personal pride or contribution to the community (Nassauer 1997b). Therefore, more than a general proposal of an ethic of care, the challenge is to understand the values that structure this ethic, and make these values explicit. "People will sustain healthy landscapes if they enjoy them, and they will enjoy them when they know more about how to recognize ecological health" (Nassauer 1997b:78).

Non-contractual responsibility

According to van Steenbergen, the difference between environmental citizenship and other emancipation movements is the notion of responsibility, since "citizenship not only concerns rights and entitlements, but also duties and responsibilities" (1994:146). What are these responsibilities? Dobson (2003: 119) argues that the obligation we have is "to ensure that ecological footprints make a sustainable, rather than an unsustainable impact". This obligation must be toward all those individuals and collectives, near and far, which receive the impact of our daily life choices.

These responsibilities are explicitly non-contractual, and non-reciprocal. According to Dobson, the non-reciprocity is due to unequal 'ecological space' distribution; therefore, some people would have more obligation than others. Taking a slightly different approach, it might instead be argued that we all have the same obligations toward the environment we inhabit, although some people will need to make more adjustments than others. The non-reciprocity is due mainly to the virtues characteristic of the ecological citizen. Actions and lifestyles are not constrained by rewards, or taxes, or because of the law, but by doing the right thing.

The various characteristics of an ecological citizenship delineated above cannot be achieved by a set of normative moral statements. They go beyond institutions, beyond cultures and beliefs of rights and wrongs, and beyond a specific list of environmental actions. To address these characteristics, we need to consider environmental ethics.

Environmental Ethics

Rethinking citizenship from an ecological perspective implies re-creating an identity, a mode of being in the world. Therefore, rethinking the ethics that guide our behaviour, focusing on the virtues--or the types of beings we want to be to develop in a sustainable environment (Barry 2002)--is an essential part of constructing ecological citizenship. Focusing on the virtues that define our being means cultivating the qualities that enable us to be responsive to the uncertain dynamics of the environment (Barry 2002). What are these virtues, though? What is the right thing to do? In any culture, at different points in time, there is the development of 'rights and wrongs' within a normative morality. We might list a series of environmental 'rights and wrongs' at play in many parts of the world: it is 'right', for instance, to recycle, to save energy, to 'go organic', to save water, and other such things. These norms, however, are ultimately not enough if we are to achieve harmony in our interaction with and within the environment. The virtues that emerge out of a recognition of ethical imperatives vis-a-vis the environment should not be exhausted by a list of the 'rights' and wrongs regarding the environment, but should instead lead to reflection about what is 'right' and why. Ethics emerge from a concern with achieving the 'right', located within the knowledge base and cultural settings which we inherit.

Here it is crucial to differentiate between specific sets of actions toward the environment, and sets of directives which establish the grounds that will define such actions. These directives, rather than any specific actions resulting from them, are the focus of the following pages, where they are discussed in the context of human unity with the ecosystem, moral pluralism and freedom.

Unity with the ecosystem

The first aspect to consider when talking about environmental ethics is what we understand the environment to be. "... [T]he environment is above all not something 'out there', somehow separate from us, standing ready to be used up or preserved as we deem necessary" (Parker 1996: 28). This ontological premise is pivotal for environmental ethics. Authors such as Pollan et al. (1990) and Robert (2000), for instance, emphasize the importance of overcoming the binary position characteristic of the post-enlightment period. We cannot separate ourselves from the environment we are in. Humanity evolved in the environment, was influenced by it and shaped a cultural landscape. Our very concern regarding the environment is a direct consequence of this intricate dependency. This premise, however, does not mean that we lose our characteristics as humans. On the contrary, as with any other species, we have our role to play in the various world ecosystems. The issue is to reflect consciously on this role. Humans are the only species able to reflect on their actions, redefine them, and be concerned with their environment. "[T]he human organism is inevitably the one that discusses value, (...) this is not to say that human whim is the measure of all things, only that humans are in fact the measurers" (Parker 1996: 33). It is important to stress that humans are the measurers not because we entitled ourselves as such, but because this very discussion happens amongst humans. We are concerned with the environment, and our impacts on it, because we are searching for 'the right way to act'. Central to all this reflection is our awareness of such a position: that we are part of the environment, but can only perceive it and act upon it from our human perspective. The awareness of this embeddedness in the environment, and the knowledge we have of ecosystem dynamics, feeds into the idea of non-territoriality that Dobson proposes. The awareness of being part of something larger--even if the perceived environment is limited to one's surroundings--allows choices and actions to be contextualized within the broader world ecosystem. Ecological citizenship means being aware of the complexity of our relations, and this awareness will result in more conscious decisions.

Moral pluralism

The complexity of relations exists not only amongst the diversity of ecosystem elements but also amongst a diverse set of intentionalities. Because of this diversity of environments and cultural processes, we have developed different values amongst different social groups. The acknowledgement of this diversity does not imply a relativistic approach, where 'anything goes', but is a way of doing justice to both the complexity of real situations and other modes of valuing environmental issues. This moral pluralism "invites us to conceive the intellectual activities of which morality consists, as being partitioned into several distinct frameworks, each governed by its own appropriate principles" (Stone 2003: 197). This perspective brings forth alternative descriptions of how the world is (or might be), such that a range of values might peacefully coexist over a broad latitude.

If ethics is not merely a descriptive list of 'right' actions within a binary right/wrong framework, but rather a process by which 'right' actions might be teased out, then it must be based on a range of morally credible alternatives, stimulating us to define and approach problems from different angles (Stone 2003).

The question of ethics--what is good?--ultimately brings us back to

concrete questions about what is experienced as good in the

interaction of the organism with its environment. [...] Ethics is

system dependent ... there is no absolute standard for

reference ... the aim of ethics cannot be perfect rightness; rather,

it is the creative mediation of conflicting claims to value, aimed

at making life on the planet relatively better than it is (Parker

1996: 25-27).

Awareness of this pluralism is at the heart of an ethic of care and compassion, an important base from which to structure justice, the basic virtue Dobson identifies for ecological citizenship.

Freedom

In light of the challenges posed by ethics in a context of plurality, I argue that responsibility can only be achieved if there is freedom. I can only be responsible for what I deliberately choose to do. At the moment that I am acting because there is a mandate, a law, or taxes defined by someone else, I can be held accountable for that, but I am not responsible. The responsibility that I am considering is not the one defined by who does or does not pay for the consequences, but rather reflects the ownership of the action, and hence its consequences.

As people who live--in a broad sense--together, we cannot escape the

thought that the terrible occurrences that we see around us are

quintessentially our problems. They are our responsibility--whether

or not they are also anyone else's. [...] That responsibility is

not, of course, the only consideration that can claim our attention,

but to deny the relevance of that general claim would be to miss

something central about our social existence. It is not so much a

matter of having exact rules about how precisely we ought to behave,

as of recognizing the relevance of our shared humanity in making the

choices we face (Sen 1999: 282-283).

The awareness of freedom is central to establishing conscious and responsible decisions regarding different ecological possibilities. Without this freedom, actions happen by default, without reflection, established by a higher hierarchical level, i.e. 'the system'. Thinking about responsibility outside the narrow parameters of each individual's location in particular economic and political systems has two major implications for ecological citizenship. First, it feeds into the characteristic of non-territoriality, since it is no longer the state (or the higher hierarchical level of the system) that provides the parameters guiding individual action, but the environment itself. Second--and this is my central argument--it requires the awareness of our humanness, with everything that this encompasses.

This may sound obvious but many of us act daily without realizing our humanness: that we are able to perceive a world around us and that we are able to process information and make decisions that will lead to consequences that we are capable of perceiving as outcomes of our actions. As Heinz von Foerster (interviewed by Poerksen 2003) argues, we are all historical agents, and have the freedom to choose and be who we are. (1)

What is lacking, in terms of ecological citizenship, is an awakening to our human condition, together with wider knowledge of environmental dynamics (ecological literacy). The teachings of Paulo Freire, a well-known Brazilian pedagogue, provide an interesting location for beginning to think about how such an awakening might occur. Freire promoted the concept of 'critical consciousness'. He was concerned with social citizenship, and the emancipation and inclusion of a large mass of marginalized people. To trigger the freedom from oppression, which is spread through marginalized societies, he established a pedagogical process which is rooted in the local reality, experienced by every person. His methodology was based on the questioning of the everyday circumstances, sparking a process of awakening for full consciousness and citizenship.

Promoting ecological citizenship--environmental extension

In the final section of this paper, I will explore the notion of environmental extension (2), combining Freire's educational philosophy with more conventional approaches to ecological citizenship. Following the discussion of ethics above, promoting ecological citizenship is not about defining the 'good deeds' we are supposed to do. Rather, it must mean awakening toward the ecological implications of our actions and moral responsibility to seek more sustainable futures. It is this process of socio-ecological awakening through a dynamic communication process that I seek to encompass in the term "environmental extension." Perhaps the first ingredient for this process is what Orr (1992) calls ecological literacy.

According to Orr (1992), ecological literacy is the capacity to 'read' the biophysical environment and re-discover a lost intimacy with nature. But this knowledge asks for a certain capacity, which Orr calls the ability to ask 'what then ...?'. This question implies awareness of existing interdependencies, human involvement in them, and their consequences. It also implies reflexivity and the ethics of care. This capacity is not necessarily intuitive, but learned (Freire 1982, Maturana and Varela 1987).

Reflexivity and ethics of care

Answering the question 'what then ...?' has an upstream implication: the very capacity to ask it. Reflexivity implies critical observation and consciousness regarding human involvement in the environment, and new possible patterns of interaction (Gallopin et al. 2001). It implies learning from errors, redefining actions according to this recognition, and a constant openness to change, creativity, and the new. Reflexivity is what Freire has called critical consciousness and the problematization of what is seen and done (Freire 1982). Environmental consciousness entails critically assessing one's place in the world as well as the implications of one's actions (Bauer and Lewis 2000). The choice and adoption of sustainable practices is possible only after the interactive relations between humans and environment are clearly understood. Consciousness is the critical appropriation of these relations (Freire 1982), when actors know about--and commit themselves to--their own reality (Freire 1979). It not only implies the knowledge of strategies and skills, but also the intention to act beyond contemplative passivity conditioned by guidance from 'above' (Bauer and Lewis 2000).

Freire distinguishes three forms of consciousness: naive, fanatic and critical. A naive consciousness is the most basic level of consciousness coming from a magic understanding of the world. On this level, awareness stays on the surface. There is no understanding of root problems nor a commitment to more than a superficial understanding of reality. If this superficial consciousness becomes collective and passionate, it very easily becomes what Freire calls fanatic consciousness. This level of consciousness irrationally accepts only one side of an issue (for example, it rejects the old or the new, because it is old or new, not because one may be more valid than the other). If facilitated through a liberating educational process, however, naive consciousness can evolve into critical consciousness, one that expresses a commitment to the real world. This means that while facing the new, the actor does not reject the old because it is old, or accept the new because it is new, but rather accepts what she considers a valid and a rational discourse, after critical self-reflection.

The disposition to ask 'what then ...?' also implies a concern with the consequences of one's actions, expressing a way of thinking that is embedded in traits and dispositions--our essence of being--that are in accord with the standards of ecological stewardship (Barry 2002). The ethic of care is the capacity to look beyond the self, developing an attitude of compromise and stewardship (Orr 1992). This implies a broad understanding of how people relate to each other and to their biophysical setting (Day 2000), as well as a comprehension of the human place in history, by understanding how humanity has become so destructive (Orr 1992). Furthermore, it requires individuals to take responsibility for their actions (Lee and Brown 1994; Day 2000), which includes being aware that the consequences of one's actions can reach space and time beyond the here and now.

Environmental extension

The ability to ask 'what then ...?' is not a spontaneous outcome of a sudden shift in consciousness, but the result of a learning process. The internalization of concepts such as complexity, feedback loops or uncertainty, might result in new information, which will, according to Freire, rationally develop a new epistemology--the application of a new critical paradigm. The development of this knowledge will be popularized through environmental extension, allowing the enhancement of social and environmental resilience, through reflection upon our interactions with the environment.

Environmental extension is a process that triggers the learning process that might enable us to reflect on 'what then ...?', considering our interactions in the ecosystem. It involves communal work, where the different stakeholders involved in re-shaping ecosystems discuss and raise questions regarding what is being done and what might be the possible consequences, both in their immediate surroundings and in farther-off areas. It is a process that involves different sources of knowledge, but essentially a fundamental knowledge of the ecosystem elements and dynamics. Because the nature of the stakeholders is diverse, as are their interests, dialogue and respect of each others' perspectives is pivotal. It is a process that does not persuade the other of a "goodness" that is not his/her own, and that considers the legitimacy of human productive use and interests in the natural world (Barry 2002). Further, it is a long-lasting process, which involves the constant monitoring of the consequences of alternatives for our interactions with the environment. When aware of consequences, experimenting with new possibilities is an important practice for creating options and enhancing the resilience of our ecosystems.

To illustrate the way that environmental extension contributes to ecological citizenship, I will present two initiatives from the south of Brazil that are aiming at the improvement of environmental quality in agricultural areas. The first example involves the activity of an environmental NGO, called Apremavi, very active in the central region of the state of Santa Catarina (Southern Brazil), the 'Alto Vale do Itajai' (the Valley of the Itajai river). This region was settled by German and Italian immigrants in the late 19th century, who were distributed in small farms along the rivers. The small plots, the uneven terrain and the dominant economic process lead to an unsustainable exploitation of the forests. The consequences of this exploitation included loss of soil productive capacity, loss of biodiversity, and increased frequency of floods, among other things, leading also to increasingly insecure livelihoods for those families. The central focus of Apremavi is the reforestation of the region with native trees, mainly along the rivers and around water sources. It also promotes organic vegetable production, adopting a combination of organic and biodynamic farming techniques. Its activities seem to promote a healthy ecosystem, and therefore create possibilities for a more encompassing ecological citizenship.

Unfortunately, Apremavi took a top-down approach to reforming human-environment relationships in Alto Vale do Itajai. It did not consider the experiences and expectations informing the decisions these farmers had about their productive endeavours. In particular, it did not consider the risks experienced by the small farmers when adapting to a new production system, where any setbacks can put their limited capital resources--and family livelihoods--in jeopardy. Apremavi came with a preset agenda, not with tools for building a process of reflection, where each farmer would feel the owner of his/her own knowledge and decisions. While it is true that there is an increase of reforested areas as a consequence of Apremavi's influence, it seems clear that most farmers did not participate of their own volition. In many cases they would cut down trees to exploit the soil, if they could get away with it.

The second example comes from the State of Parana, another region in southern Brazil, where a state-wide soil and water conservation project has taken place. The landscape, soil quality, and evenness of the terrain, was more suitable for farming than in Alto Vale do Itajai. These same features, however, led to intensification of production in the 70's, as the region was drawn into the Green Revolution. This resulted in a loss of soil and high contamination of rivers and underground water. The conservation project aims to address these problems by considering the watershed as a working unit, where hydrological, rather than municipal and farm boundaries, are fundamental. The first step to recover and preserve underground and surface water is to avoid soil erosion, through the adoption of different soil conservation techniques adapted to the region, such as no-till practices and terraces. Besides these techniques, however, the process followed to convey them is crucial: because of the unity of the ecosystem, all farmers had to be involved. The non-participation of one might have hindered the conservation work of the others. The farmers were aware that they were co-dependent for the health of their ecosystem. Further, the process involved not only the farmers, but also the non-farming population living in town, as well as social institutions, including the church. The whole population was aware of its interdependency, and therefore participated. The process led to a rich learning experience, and pride in the results. One farmer proudly said: "today, we can fish again in the river. Fish had disappeared due to the high contamination of the water by the runoff coming from the fields. That does not exist anymore."

Although the farming systems of the area could become even more sustainable by using less monoculture, and fewer external inputs, the process followed by the extension agents allowed the farmers to engage in a learning process, becoming aware of their active participation and taking ownership of their decisions. They are proud of their personal contribution to the environmental health of their region, and of the neighbouring areas as well. In this case, ecological citizenship has put down deeper roots in the form of knowledge and skills that will lead the inhabitants of the region to continue to reflect on the broader environmental implications of their way of life.

Conclusion

We do need--and science is working on it--information regarding environmental dynamics, which will inform us about what happens when we interact with the environment. The knowledge we develop and the benefits of the actions we decide upon, however, are defined by a reflection process within the environment, which is mediated through culture. This reflection process only happens if we are aware of our capacity to perceive. Further, we need to be aware of our freedom to choose alternatives, of the changes that inevitably come out of our actions, of our responsibility for these changes. This freedom and responsibility must be conditioned by an understanding that humans are part of the environment, which in turn informs concern about how we are acting towards it. This last statement is directly related to the idea of care. This virtue is only possible when we fully understand ourselves as humans:

[A]lmost every variant of environmental philosophy envisions a world

of lower consumption, more modest aspirations, and greater care and

attention to the impact of economic and technological choices on the

natural world. If humanism is about freedom, the capacity of our

species, by self-reflection and political deliberation, to liberate

us from reification and blind, fate-like processes, then the

environmentalist project is perhaps the most humanistic ever

conceived. To cease doing what we have done for so long, and resist

the economic, technological and moral momentum or our accustomed

existence will require remarkable acts of self-reflection and self-

determining freedom as well as sustained political interaction and

power-generating, none of which is remotely comprehensible on the

assumption that human beings are merely organic machines. To succeed

in this project of world-remaking, environmentalism will have to be

a humanism (Hinchman 2004: 25).

The educational process that we have to go through should promote this humanness, by provoking critical reflection upon our choices and upon the values that underpin these choices--not acting by default, but acting as human. While we are aware that we are all trying to do the 'right' thing, but are still learning, we need to be more sensitive to what is happening around us.

References

Barry, John 2002. Vulnerability and Virtue: Democracy, dependency and ecological stewardship. In Democracy and the Claims of Nature: Critical perspectives for a new century, B.A. Minteer and B. Pepperman Taylor, eds. London: Rowman and Littlefield: 133-153.

Bauer, Sarah and Tammy Lewis. 2000. Problems in Communicating Sustainability: Using Action Projects to Teach Environmental Studies. In Communicating Sustainability. Walter Leal Filho, ed. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. (Environmental Education, Communication and Sustainability, v.8): 419-437.

Beckman, Ludvig 2001. Virtue, Sustainability and Liberal Values. In Sustaining Liberal Democracy: Ecological Challenges and Opportunities, J. Barry and M. Wissenburg, eds. Houndmills: Palgrave: 179-191.

Day, Kristen 2000. The Ethic of Care and Women's Experiences of Public Space. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 20:103-124.

Dean, Hartley 2001. Green Citizenship. Social Policy and Administration 35(5): 490-505.

Dobson, Andrew 2003. Citizenship and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Freire, Paulo 1979. Educacao e Mudanca. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Freire, Paulo 1982. Comunicacao ou Extensao? Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Gallopin, Gilberto C., Silvio Funtowicz, Martin O'Connor and Jerome Ravetz. 2001. Science for the Twenty-First Century: from Social Contract to the Scientific Score. International Social Science Journal 53 (168): 219-230.

Hinchman, Lewis P. 2004. Is Environmentalism a Humanism? Environmental Values 13: 3-29.

Lee, Nick and Steve Brown. 1994. Otherness and the Actor Network. American Behavioral Scientist 37 (6): 772-790.

Maturana, Humberto R. and Francisco J. Varela. 1987. The Tree of Knowledge--The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: New Science Library.

Nassauer, Joan I. 1988. The Aesthetics of Horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortScience 23(6): 973-977.

Nassauer, Joan I. 1995. Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames. Landscape Journal 14: 161-170.

Nassauer, Joan I. 1997a. Culture and Landscape Ecology: insights for action. In Placing Nature: culture and landscape ecology, ed. J.I. Nassauer, 1-11. Washington: Island Press.

Nassauer, Joan I. 1997b. Cultural Sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In Placing Nature: culture and landscape ecology, ed. J.I. Nassauer, 65-83. Washington: Island Press.

Orr, David. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Parker, K.A. 1996. Pragmatism and Environmental Thought. In Environmental pragmatism. A. Light and E. Katz, eds., 21-37. New York; Routledge.

Poerksen, B. 2003. "At Each and Every Moment, I Can Decide Who I am"--Heinz von Foerster on the observer, dialogic life and a constructivist philosophy of distinctions. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 10(3-4): 9-26.

Pollan, M., D.B. Botkin, D. Foreman, J. Lovelock, F. Turner and R.D. Yaro. 1990. Beyond the Wilderness. Harper's Magazine April 1990: 37-48.

Robert, Jason S. 2000. Wild Ontology: elaborating environmental pragmatism. Ethics and the Environment, 5(2): 191-209.

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Stone, C.D. 2003. Moral Pluralism and the Course of Environmental Ethics. In Environmental Ethics--an anthology, ed. A. Light and H. Rolston III, 193-202. Malden, US: Blackwell.

van Steenbergen, B. 1994. Towards a Global Ecological Citizen. In The Condition of Citizenship, ed. B. van Steenbergen, 142-152. London: Sage.

Katia Marzall is an agricultural engineer, who recently defended her PhD in the Rural Studies Program at the University of Guelph. Her thesis observed the interactions between farmers and their natural environment. Her work experience involves development programs with small farmers in Brazil and Ethiopia. In Canada, she contributed to research about the adaptive capacity of rural communities in response to Climate Change. She can be reached at SHIN--QL14--conjunto 3--casa 01, Brasilia DF, 71530-035, Brazil or by email at kmarzall@uoguelph.ca

(1) I am aware of the important role institutions play in framing our actions, often constraining our freedom to choose. Without denying the need for an institutional involvement, I prefer to focus on the role each individual plays. The approach that many governmental and non-governmental development agencies take is to strengthen the community, to allow for its emancipation, hence its capacity for developing independently from higher levels of decision. The awareness of our freedom plays an important role in our search towards a sustainable life.

(2) Environmental extension is an outcome of a reflection within the disciplinary realm of rural (agricultural) extension. Although the starting point was agricultural extension, the reflection opened up to all societal realities. The focal point is the educational process that allows for the sharing of environmental concerns and reflections in the search for a more conscious and environmentally aware behaviour as citizens, leaving behind the specificity and temporality of techniques or actions.