‘Why learn without a future’ was written on the front banner of a ‘Fridays for Future’ (FFF) demonstration in Germany in 2019. In addition to climate policy, such expressions call pedagogy into question. For when future-oriented educational promises are fundamentally uncertain, they must be justified, especially if a ‘climate crisis’ is assumed – a circumstance that was recently discussed in the field of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Germany (see Holfelder et al., 2021, Kminek et al. 2022). Given this line of argumentation, I am interested in what is stated in the FFF context about what to do with this diagnosis. The commitment of those involved with FFF could be understood as giving priority to fighting climate change over their participation in educational institutions such as schools (regarding the history of school strikes see Teune, 2020). At the same time, FFF actors themselves perform pedagogical practices, e.g. in Germany as part of a Public Climate School. Conceptually, these actions are linked to the promise of transforming feelings of power- and helplessness in the struggle against a ‘climate crisis’ into experiences of self-efficacy (SFF, 2021). Pedagogical positions are thus simultaneously criticised and actualised in the FFF context, which constitutes an inherent tension, which suggests the question: should attending educational programs be deferred in favor of the fight for climate justice, or is the former a prerequisite of the latter? To reconstruct how this question is answered in the FFF context, I examine statements using the Sociology of Knowledge approach to discourse by Keller (2011). One way of condensing his central concern is to ask: who can or may say what, where and with what consequences (see Keller, 2011, p. 206)? I considered this question in relation to a wide range of material from the FFF context. Based on a comparative analysis, which focuses on the (re)production of ‘subject positions’ (see Keller, 2011, p. 235) in ‘discourse fragments’ (see Keller, 2011, p. 234), I illustrate in my contribution how positioning in what I call ‘demonstrative engagement’ conveys pedagogicalisation of political problems and politicisation of pedagogical ideas. I then discuss this interpretation with regard to its implications for ESD and come to the conclusion that 'demonstrative engagement' may well represent an adequate orientation for pedagogical practice based on the contemporary diagnosis of a ‘climate crises’ and at the same time, from a more systematic point of view, cannot escape its inherent contradiction.

Holfelder, A.-K., Singer-Brodowski, M., Holz, V., & Kminek, H. (2021). Erziehungswissenschaftliche Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der Bewegung Fridays for Future. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 67(1), 120–139. Keller, R. (2011). Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse: Grundlegung eines Forschungsprogramms (3rd ed.). Interdisziplinäre Diskursforschung. VS; Springer Fachmedien. Kminek, H., Holfelder, A.-K. & Singer-Brodowski, M. (2022). Zukunft war gestern – Zur Legitimität der Pädagogik in Zeiten der sozial-ökologischen Krise. In Bünger, C., Czejkowska, A., Lohmann, I. & Steffens, G. (Eds.), Jahrbuch für Pädagogik 2021. Zukunft – Stand jetzt (pp. 265–276). Beltz Juventa. SFF. (2021). Public Climate School: Konzeptpapier [Students for Future (SFF)]. https://publicclimateschool.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PCS-Konzeptpapier_Oktober-2021.pdf Teune, S. (2020). Schulstreik. Geschichte einer Aktionsform und die Debatte über zivilen Ungehorsam. In S. Haunss & M. Sommer (Eds.), Fridays for Future – die Jugend gegen den Klimawandel: Konturen der weltweiten Protestbewegung (pp. 131–146). transcript.