Radical democracy theories have inspired educational scholars to conceptualise conflict as an integral part of education (e.g. Biesta 2011; Todd 2010; Säfström 2011; Ruitenberg 2009). They emphasise the importance of creating a space to express a plurality of views and to connect these to larger political articulations. Also ESE researchers argue that being mindful of dissonant and conflicting voices is crucial since controversy is inevitably embedded in sustainability issues (e.g. Lundegård and Wickman 2007; Van Poeck et al. 2014; Sund and Öhman 2014). This paper presents diverse ways of introducing, experiencing and dealing with the political – i.e. having to make a decision in situations where fundamentally conflicting values and commitments are at stake – in ESE. Garrision et al (2015) use the notion of ‘educative moment’ to identify situations where critical and creative reflection can result in imagining or creating desirable possibilities for the future. Through an empirical analysis of formal and non-formal educational practices in Sweden and Belgium we examine situations that could be such educative moments, depending on how the educator acts. Connecting our case studies to Mouffe’s theory of the political and Dewey’s pragmatist theory, we further conceptualise how educative moments can emerge when a political dimension is introduced in pluralistic ESE practices. We focus on how different value dimensions (epistemological-cognitive and aesthetical-emotional) influence each other and bring about varied ways to experience and deal with the political in ESE. Exploring these different ways of experiencing and dealing with decisions, conflicts and inclusions/exclusion in educational settings; we distinguish situations that can be labelled ‘political reflection’, ‘political deliberation’, ‘political norms’ and ‘political moment’. Whereas the ‘political moment’ is simultaneously cognitive and aesthetical as it involves the learners’ fundamental values and ‘deeper’ concerns, the other situations allow to remain solely cognitive and, thus, to preserve distance to the conflicting alternatives.

Biesta, G. 2011. Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning and the politics of citizenship. Rotterdam: Sense. Caiman, C. and Lundegård, I. 2014. Pre-school children’s agency in learning for sustainable development, Environmental Education Research 20(4): 437-459. Garrison, J., Östman, L. & Håkansson, M. 2015. The creative use of companion values in environmental education and education for sustainable development: exploring the educative moment, Environmental Education Research 21(2): 183-204. Lundegård, I., and P.-O. Wickman. 2007. Conflicts of Interest: An Indispensable Element of Education for Sustainability. Environmental Education Research 13(1): 1–15. Ruitenberg, C. 2009. Educating Political Adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and Radical Democratic Citizenship Education, Studies in Philosophy and Education 28(3): 269-281. Säfström, C.A. 2011. Rethinking emancipation, rethinking education. Studies in Philosophy & Education 30(2): 199–209. Sund, L. and Öhman, J. 2014. On the need to repoliticise environmental and sustainability education: rethinking the postpolitical consensus, Environmental Education Research 20(5): 639-659. Todd, S. 2010. Living in a dissonant world: Toward an agonistic cosmopolitics for education. Studies in Philosophy & Education 29(2): 213–28. Van Poeck, K., Goeminne, G., Vandenabeele, J. 2014. Revisiting the democratic paradox of environmental and sustainability education: sustainability issues as matters of concern. Environmental Education Research, pre-published online.