In the face of serious challenges such as the planetary and environmental crises, policymakers tend to identify schools and universities as key institutions. A typical response from institutions of higher education and schools has been to educate social or green “entrepreneurs” and “change agents” – individuals with “action competence” who can deliberate and hopefully solve complex problems related to sustainability. Although this approach seems suitable for certain topics and certain (academically inclined) groups of students, I argue that it cannot be a universal recipe for education in a rapidly changing world where all kinds of people need to live meaningful and arguably quite ordinary lives.

Similarly, current ambitions in Western educational theory and policy to “see” individual students and their needs is not always as liberating as one might expect. For while education is becoming more inclusive, more adapted to individual learning strategies, open to students’ active participation, personalised learning programmes etc., many students report a massive amount of stress related to schooling. Contemporary individualism is, in short, ambiguous, and its concept of freedom is abstract in the Hegelian sense (Honneth, 1996). On this background, framing questions related to the planetary crises in terms of individual actions, action competence, attitudes etc. could be a recipe for hopelessness, self-doubt and apathy.

Over the recent years a number of theorists have pointed out how meaningful connections to nature may ease the ailments of the overburdened subject (Fisher, 2013). Likewise, attention to and care for what we have in common, i.e., institutions and the social imaginaries they embody may provide meaning to social life. I am not referring here to common values, traditions, etc., but rather to practices and ways of being that primarily make sense as being-collective, including notions of society as a whole and institutions (Laval & Vergne, 2021). Attention to commonality, the paper argues, may be beneficial for individuals’ well-being and provide opportunities for political freedom. A trivial example is singing together as opposed to performing. Traditionally, not least in schools, singing together has foster community and identity, not as an instrument for something else (e.g., learning other skills), but enjoyable and valuable in and of itself.

In contemporary, non-sustainable societies collective arrangements and imaginaries arguably need to be elucidated theoretically and reorganized in practice. However, theorising commonality, institutions and social imaginaries may be difficult in contemporary educational theory. One example is how the individualist-psychological concept of learning has replaced terms such as study, knowledge, understanding, etc. Another example is theory that starkly opposes individuals and collectives, notably Gert Biesta’s opposition between socialisation (seen as rigid structures) and subjectification (breaking with or opposing those structures). ‘Subjectification’ as a non- or anti-social concept is unhelpful if we want to theorise different kinds of socialisation, including institutions and commonality.

Against individualist ontology, then, commonality does not mean that everyone should somehow be the same, i.e. elimination or disrespect for difference or individual freedom. Indeed, commonality can also be a form of instituted diversity, as when people are gathered around a table which at the same time unites and separates them, to use Arendt’s metaphor. What we have in common, as different individuals partaking in common practices, are institutions and the social meanings they embody. Elucidating these practices and institutions can open up more opportunities for common (political) action for young people. Indeed, commonality as discussed here is a potential resource for agency, reflexivity and freedom that is individual and collective at the same time (Author, 2023). This is a resource that will be much needed in the future (see, e.g., Orr, Stone & Barlow, 2005).

Theoretical work in the continental tradition of philosophy of education. The paper elucidates foundational questions in Environmental and Sustainability Education drawing mainly on critical theory and French sociology in the 'social imaginaries' tradition. Relevant examples for the discussion are drawn from Northern European environmental and sustainability education and more global trends.

A conceptual framework for analysing ontological individualism versus notions of commonality in ESE scholarship.

Fisher, Andy (2013). Radical Ecopsychology, Second Edition: Psychology in the Service of Life. SUNY Press Honneth, Axel (1996). The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. MIT Press Laval, Christian and Vergne, Francis (2021). Éducation Démocratique. La Révolution Scolaire à Venir. La Découverte. Orr, David, Stone, Michael & Barlow, Zenobia (2005). Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World. Sierra Club Books.