Within environmental communication, the purpose or the meaning of communication is often discussed from an educational or pedagogical point of view, as if communication had a purpose. Communication has no purpose, I argue, communication is a flow and a movement that enables relations and connections to appear, to emerge. Within education and pedagogy, communication connects with the ideas of learning and knowledge production or conceptualizing understandings. In this essay, I will take on the discussions of two democratic arguments, the pluralistic agonistic and the deliberative consensus. Both of these approaches have arguments that point out one of them to enable the most, are most likely, or even to be the best approach when environmental issues, environmental problems or environmental education, discusses, from an educational or pedagogical point of view. My argument is that every ´nomadic subject´ (this concept is taken from Rosi Braidottis text, the Posthuman, 2013, and transferred to environmental communication within an essay elaborating environmental communication within posthuman “theory”(Börebäck & Schwieler, accepted 2017)) simultaneously is a learning and communicating the nomadic understandings. A human being is a nomadic subject that in every situation is changing in the flow of learning. The ideas of ´Learning from the Other (Sharon Todd, 2011) explain the movement of understanding as an ethical issue, which is congruent with the idea of environmental communication. Simultaneously this flow of communication become an assemblage with nomadic subjects that learn. I myself as a nomadic subject within an assemblage of learning nomadic subject will learn within a machinery of listening, acknowledging, evaluating, valuing and discharging. The assemblage of understandings that emerge within each situation demarcates by the willingness to communicate understandings and experiences. The willingness to communicate to share is an event that embrace a collective enunciation of knowing. This is a pluralistic agonistic approach to communication and this is a way to understand learning as communication from a pedagogical or educational point of view, I argue. Knowing is a way to define how each singularity understand and conceptualize the environmental issues that is communicated in a certain situation (where situation is an event, distinct in time and space). Knowing is also the subject to education where it become communicated trough teaching as knowledge, where specific knowing is defined and scientifically communicated as the content of concepts often referred as “facts”. These concepts emerge within a scientific argumentation based on multiple studies of certain actualities. These “facts” can be taken for granted in an educational or teaching situation. One of the arguments in this essay is the need to think critically. Still, each nomadic knower prefer to be “taken seriously” and for this reason desire to understand environmental issue in a way accepted in the situation of communication. This means that, everyone likes to have taken the best choices in previous learning action of communication and have the arguments that will win a discussion. To have the winning argument is desirable. This means that certain knowledge accepts in the solution for environmental problems. Two different communicative events enables one is a common goal within a communion of environmental communication, the other is the ratification of knowledge within education (which is an example of environmental communication). This essay will connect deleuzian thinking (as Börebäck & Schwieler, 2017) with political ideas of Chantal Mouffe and Seyla Benhabib with the environmental communicational approaches of for example Tarla Rai Petersen contra Robert Cox.

A combination of an etnographic study and alternative writing. Working with a posthuman approach and deleuzian thinking to open up for critical and elaborative thinking.

There is a need for a critical discussion when it comes to the opposing approaches within environmental communication; agonistic pluralism and deliberative consensus. A turn from dichotomy to ideas of relations and focus on education and pedagogy in an alternative way. A deleuzian and posthuman approach will turn contradictions to opportunities

Benhabib, S. (1992). Autonomi och Gemenskap - Kommunikativ etik feminism och postmodernism. (A. Persson, Trans.) Göteborg: Daidalos. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge UK: Polity Press. Börebäck, M. K. (2013). UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserves – The significance of communication Processes in the formation of Model-areas for Sustainability, to Case-studies. The International Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 8(4), 55-69. doi:ISSN: 2325-1077 Börebäck, M. K., & Schwieler, E. (accepted June 2017). Elaborating Environmental Communication within "Posthuman" Theory. Journal for the Philosophical Study of Education, x-21. Clarke, T., & Peterson, T. R. (2016). Environmental Conflict Management. Singapore, : Sage Publications Inc. Cox, R. (2007). Nature´s "Crisis Disciplines": Does Environmental Communication Have an Ethical duty? Environmental Communication, 1(1), 5-20. Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (1977). Dialogues. (H. Tomlinson, & B. Habberjam, Trans.) New York: Columbia University Press. Hansen, A., Cox, R., Depoe, S., Peeples, J., Cantrill, J., Dunwoody, S., . . . Moser, S. C. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. (A. Hansen, & R. Cox, Eds.) London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Mouffe, C. (1992). Democratic Citizenship and the Political Community. In C. Mouffe, Dimension of Radical Democracy (pp. 225-239). London, New York: Verso. Mouffe, C. (2000 (2009)). The Democratic Paradox. London, New York: Verso Books. Mouffe, C. (2000, December). Deliberative Democracy or Agnoistic Pluralism. (C. Neuhold, Ed.) Reihe Politikwissenschaft / Political Science Series 72, 1-17. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. London: Verso. Peterson, M. J., Hall, D. M., FeldPauscher-Parker, A. M., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Obscuring Ecosystem Function with Application of the Ecosystem Services Concept. Conservation Biology, 24(1), pp. 113-119. Peterson, N. M., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2005). Conservation and the myth of Consensus. Conservational Biology, 19(no 3), 762-757. Peterson, N. M., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (May 2007). Response to Cox - Environmental Communication: Why This Crisis Discipline Should Facilitate Environmental Democracy. Environmental Communication, 1(1), 74-86. Peterson, T. R., Peterson, N. M., Peterson, M. J., Allison, S. A., & Gore, D. (2006). To Play the Fool: Can Environmental Conservation and Democracy Survive Social Capital? Communication and Critical/Cutural Studies, 3(2), 116-140.