Education is considered key in not only creating more sustainable communities (UN, 2015) but also in tackling climate change (UNESCO, 2010, 2020) through adaptation, mitigation (Anderson, 2012; Kagawa & Selby, 2012), and radical socio-economic change (e.g., Jickling, 2013; Selby & Kagawa, 2013, 2018; Tannock, 2021). In this paper, I discuss whether education is up to this task and the ways in which it can respond to climate change and other massive sustainability crises.

Addressing education as a response to climate change is interesting as theoretical developments, and especially the advent of new materialism challenge enlightenment thought that dominates much of Western education (Ricken & Masschelein, 2010). New materialist approaches emphasize the enmeshment of the human with the more-than-human. They highlight realism, embodiment, affectivity, relationality, non-anthropocentrism, and an ethics of solidarity and care.

Here, I draw on two approaches associated with new materialism: agential realism and object-oriented ontology. Despite their theoretical pitfalls, these two approaches offer two fruitful dimensions that can be used to think education with, especially in times of crisis: the agentic character of matter and humans’ limited accessibility to the world. These perspectives problematize ideas of knowing agents and skillful, deliberate actions; in doing so, they question the accounts of pro-environmental engagement that are commonly thought of along the lines of knowledge, hope, and action. 

I will present two arguments. First, agential realism and object-oriented ontology challenge the basic premises on which much of modern educational thinking rests. They open a rift between educational ambitions and the premises education rests on—between what we want education to do and what education can achieve—thereby shaking education’s obsession with light and, eventually, the idea of educating for a specific purpose, especially that of sustainability. The alternative these two theories offer, I suggest, is a Bildung-perspective: being and becoming human in a world rife with struggle and contingency.

The second argument concerns the role of care and solidarity. Framing climate change through the lenses of agential realism and object-oriented ontology, I will highlight, especially evoke dystopian images—and the need for education to deal with grief and changing lifeworlds. A crucial task for education, then, in times of crisis, is to foster an ethics of care and solidarity. Such a focus, however, has been criticized as being merely therapeutic, one that overlooks the structural challenges that produce distress (Amsler, 2011). My take here is different. As I will discuss in more detail, solidarity and care align with Kropotkin’s (1902) concept of ‘mutual aid’. In the face of hostile conditions, they can, as part of education, work as a means of entering into new relations and can develop into ontological and political forces.

To frame this discussion, I develop the metaphor of ‘shades of blue’ for education in times of crisis. This metaphor is inspired by and advances Levitas’ (2007, 2013) work, which acknowledges the strong association of utopia with blue. Blue is perceived as an existential color and can be further related to dystopian images, to issues of power and force, and to solidarity and care. Framing education within ‘shades of blue’ offers an alternative to the predominant conception of education as the light that illuminates the dark—an idea that builds on the modern ideals of insight, growth, and progression (Stock, 2021).

Agential realism and object-oriented ontology are theories that are suitable for little rational, little predictable, and only slightly conceivable worlds. Hence, these theories may be useful in times of crisis and upheaval, times when structures and regularities dissolve and the world undergoes profound changes (see also Cockburn, 2016; Peim & Stock, 2022). Karen Barad’s (2007) agential realism builds on insights from quantum physics and assumes that they are relevant beyond the microscopic level. Supported by post-structural, feminist, and post-Marxist perspectives, Barad presents a range of epistemological, ontological, and ethical claims. Object-oriented ontology, with Graham Harman and Timothy Morton as two of its main representatives, seeks inspiration from continental philosophy and is grounded in Kant’s notion of the thing-in-itself—the idea that objects can only perceive the surface aspects of other objects, while the real objects remain ultimately hidden and withdraw. In contrast to much of new materialist theory, object-oriented ontology is more inclined to form, emphasizing stability over process, autonomy over relationality, and essence over fluidity. It is thus more correctly understood as a form of immaterialism (Harman, 2016). Still, there is a tendency to treat it along the same line as new materialist approaches (see e.g., Boysen, 2018; Gamble et al., 2019). Despite fundamental ontological and epistemological differences, agential realism and object-oriented ontology also share commonalities. Crucially, they offer an alternative take on what has been addressed as the knowledge–action gap: the debate on existing knowledge and its ability to trigger respective pro-environmental action and behavior (e.g., Courtenay-Hall & Rogers, 2002; Jurek et al., 2022; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). They both defy the rational premises underlying the gap—that of skillful navigation based on sufficiently functional knowledge: agential realism because of the agentic capacity of matter; object-oriented ontology because it regards access to reality as confined and possible only indirectly. The position they offer is situated between enlightened images and total ignorance—a ‘twilight zone,’ as dark pedagogy puts it; a zone that is ‘dunkel’ or dark (Lysgaard & Bengtsson, 2020; Lysgaard et al., 2019).

What agential realism and object-oriented ontology highlight is not quite a pathway to sustainability or brighter futures. Rather, they challenge the modern paradigm inherent in the concept of sustainability—overall optimistic and exclusive ideas of human agency, governance, and progress—and related educational agendas. They encourage a rethinking of education, especially in times of crisis. Accordingly, what is commonly referred to as climate change education cannot be a mere add-on to existing educational accounts but demands a reexamination of them, including their underlying arguments. The argument raises an awareness of taken-for-granted perspectives in the field, such as the overall optimistic expectations of education, its potential in dealing with climate change, and the predominant focus on hope. One alternative offered in the argument is a Bildung approach grounded in solidarity and care. With solidarity and care, the focus is redirected from promises of a better future and having faith in human agency to coping with present issues through means that resemble desired ends and that pave the way to a different—and possibly more just, yet unknown—future. The argument sustains a concern for ethical, ontological, and epistemological matters in environmental and sustainability education. It highlights that sustainability issues cannot be reduced to matters of capitalism and neo-liberalism (Morton, 2018; Stables, 2020)—not least because these concepts themselves rest on a modern worldview. Looking for new ways of living together in a changing world and educating for it, thus, needs to involve exploring new (and old) ways of understanding human being and how such understandings affect societal and educational approaches.

Amsler, S. S. (2011). From ‘therapeutic’ to political education: the centrality of affective sensibility in critical pedagogy. Critical Studies in Education, 52(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.536512 Anderson, A. (2012). Climate Change Education for Mitigation and Adaptation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(2), 191-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408212475199 Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press. Boysen, B. (2018). The embarrassment of being human. Orbis Litterarum, 73(3), 225-242. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/oli.12174 Cockburn, L. M. (2016). Accepting Uncertainty: The Role of Nonhuman Agency in Shaping Responses to Climate Change. In L. Heininen & H. Nicol (Eds.), Climate Change and Human Security - From a Northern Point of View (pp. 39-50). Centre on Foreign Policy and Federalism. Courtenay-Hall, P., & Rogers, L. (2002). Gaps in Mind: Problems in environmental knowledge-behaviour modelling research. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145438 Harman, G. (2016). Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory. Polity Press. Jickling, B. (2013). Normalizing catastrophe: an educational response. Environmental Education Research, 19(2), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.721114 Kagawa, F., & Selby, D. (2012). Ready for the Storm: Education for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(2), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408212475200 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid. A Factor in Evolution. McClure, Philips & Company. Levitas, R. (2013). Utopia as Method. The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314253 Lysgaard, J. A., Bengtsson, S., & Hauberg-Lund Laugesen, M. (2019). Dark Pedagogy. Education, Horror and the Anthropocene. Palgrave Pivot. Morton, T. (2018). Dark Ecology. Columbia University Press. Peim, N., & Stock, N. (2022). Education after the end of the world. How can education be viewed as a hyperobject? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(3), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1882999 Selby, D., & Kagawa, F. (2013). Unleashing Blessed Unrest As the Heating Happens. 2013, 3-15. Selby, D., & Kagawa, F. (2018). Teetering on the Brink:Subversive and Restorative Learning in Times of Climate Turmoil and Disaster. Journal of Transformative Education, 16(4), 302-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618782441 Stock, N. (2021). Darkness and light. The archetypal metaphor for education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(2), 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1750363 UNESCO. (2010). Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development: the UNESCO Climate Change Initiative. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000190101 UNESCO. (2020). Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802