Ecofeminism ↔ Intraconnectivism: working beyond binaries in environmental education

ABSTRACT

Over the last decades, ecofeminist thought has moved into a ‘fourth stage critical ecofeminism’ (Gaard 2017, xvi), based on an understanding that humans are unavoidably part of a multifaceted and interconnected global ecosystem. This paper suggests that ecofeminist theory and practice can now grow further into a fifth stage: an era of expanded intersectionality that moves beyond the dualisms and hegemonies of neo-liberal patriarchal and colonial capitalist structures that can limit ecofeminist theorizing and material practice. This fifth stage must be based on an amalgamation of engaged theory, education, and activism, grounded in ancient wisdom and with the understanding that all material-discursive phenomena are interconnected. For this next era of ecofeminism, the terms intraconnectivism and intraconnective education (Siegel 2022) are proposed. Intraconnectivism offers a bridge that connects past theoretical frameworks with ecofeminist presents. It can build a helpful theoretical pathway through and amongst the non-dualistic educational pedagogies that are needed at this time, as well as expand understanding of the role that gender and other identities can play in education.

KEYWORDS:

• Ecofeminism
• education
• environmental education
• intraconnectivism
• interaconnective education

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 I include time as the fourth dimension.

2 For an explanation of the term minority/majority world, see Akpovo, Nganga, and Acharya (2018) who explain that the term minority-world is used to describe ‘wealthier regions of the globe, which constitutes a small percentage of the world population, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. The term majority-world can replace the term third world, as this term constructs a discourse about third-world countries being less developed’ (202).

3 Some important discussion around teacher education in relation to environmental education was had during the design and initial implementation stages of the Australian Curriculum (see Cutter-Mackenzie, Clarke, and Smith 2008; Smith, Collier, and Storey 2011; Wilson 2012; Mills and Tomas 2013), and the issue has been addressed subsequently by a number of researchers (see especially Dyment and Hill 2015; Evans et al. 2017; Ferreira et al. 2019; Gough and Gough 2022); however, this discussion needs to be foregrounded more strongly in the current milieu.

4 Since this book chapter was written, it has been brought to my attention that not ALL humans have invented the idea of ‘empty’ and ‘waste’; rather these inventions should be attributed to colonizing and extractive human cultures throughout history and in the present.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Lisa Siegel

Lisa teaches environmental education, interdisciplinary education, and philosophies of education at Southern Cross University, where she is also a researcher in the Sustainability, Environmental, and Arts Education (SEAE) Research Centre. She is a passionate environmental educator with over 30 years of experience in developing and facilitating educational experiences for children, young people, and adults. She is a founder and board member of the not-for-profit Centre for Ecological Learning on Gumbaynggirr Country in Bellingen, NSW, Australia, and has recently been elected as national president of the Australian Association for Environmental Education (AAEE).