136
V. R. Vargas et al.
ecology of ideas in their relationship, and part of the larger ecological system
within which that relationship exists.” (Bateson 2000: 512).
(c) Eco-pedagogy as the base for resilient network stakeholders
Let us then consider what an ecopedagogical network for sustainable living might
look like, how such a network or system might operate and who the stakeholders
might be. Well, who could possibly be left out of such a network and why? For the
purposes of practicality, let us consider including just the representatives of organisations, that way we may create a network of networks, enabling direct and meaningful communication to many more people; a social ecosystem, as opposed to PR
and advertising that lack personal interconnectivity and the potential for criticality.
Favouring no stakeholders, the form could be rhizomatic (Deluze and Guttari 2013:
3). Like bamboo or ginger, the pattern of growth is on a horizontal plane, with subgroups (nodes) that send out rootstalks. It is the mass of roots that are the network, the
ecology, or ‘the pattern that connects’ (Bateson 2000: 7). There is no hierarchy and
just one aim; to promote sustainable living through ecological literacy. This is the
modus operandi—structure, pattern, process and intention as one entity. HEIs would
simply be an integral, interconnected, interdependent stakeholder of stakeholders.
Some may recognise the potential for the emergent system of Transdisciplinary
Knowledge, a process or method that goes ‘… at once between the disciplines,
across the different disciplines, and beyond all disciplines’ (Nicolescu 2008: 2).
Here the potential for creative regeneration (Wahl 2016) may be able to design
sustainable living futures that incorporate social, cultural, environmental and political
conservation, regeneration and reinvention in a non-deterministic fashion. This path
to self-determination and self-reliance through ecopedagogy has the potential to cast
aside fatalistic attitudes of ‘that’s how things are’, or ‘that’s human nature’ (Freire
2016: 79). Indeed, seen as a self-supporting system of sustainable living, this network
of stakeholders would become ecologically resilient (Gunderson and Holling 2002:
28), by virtue of its flexible capacity to withstand impacts and adaptive capabilities
to emerge from a state of collapse to another state of becoming.
Finally, as we become increasingly cognisant of the global ecological crisis, we
may reflect on the etymological root of the word, crisis. From the Greek verb krinein,
it means “to decide”; however in Chinese, the equivalent ideogram for crisis—weiji—is formed of the two characters for ‘danger’ and ‘opportunity’ (Kahn 2010: 4),
While sustainability paradoxes persist and corporate interests dominate our society,
opportunities emerge for transformation, or organisational change at a greater scale of
magnitude. ‘It means the necessity of the introduction of a new order of conceptions
leading to new modes of practice’ (Dewey 2015: 5). The efficacy, efficiency and
effectiveness of stakeholder networks then shifts to a different set of values, as the
cultivation of an ecopedagogical stakeholder network could become the primary role
for universities intent on sustainable living. Again, as Paulo Freire wrote; ‘changing
is difficult, but it is always possible’.
V. R. Vargas et al.
ecology of ideas in their relationship, and part of the larger ecological system
within which that relationship exists.” (Bateson 2000: 512).
(c) Eco-pedagogy as the base for resilient network stakeholders
Let us then consider what an ecopedagogical network for sustainable living might
look like, how such a network or system might operate and who the stakeholders
might be. Well, who could possibly be left out of such a network and why? For the
purposes of practicality, let us consider including just the representatives of organisations, that way we may create a network of networks, enabling direct and meaningful communication to many more people; a social ecosystem, as opposed to PR
and advertising that lack personal interconnectivity and the potential for criticality.
Favouring no stakeholders, the form could be rhizomatic (Deluze and Guttari 2013:
3). Like bamboo or ginger, the pattern of growth is on a horizontal plane, with subgroups (nodes) that send out rootstalks. It is the mass of roots that are the network, the
ecology, or ‘the pattern that connects’ (Bateson 2000: 7). There is no hierarchy and
just one aim; to promote sustainable living through ecological literacy. This is the
modus operandi—structure, pattern, process and intention as one entity. HEIs would
simply be an integral, interconnected, interdependent stakeholder of stakeholders.
Some may recognise the potential for the emergent system of Transdisciplinary
Knowledge, a process or method that goes ‘… at once between the disciplines,
across the different disciplines, and beyond all disciplines’ (Nicolescu 2008: 2).
Here the potential for creative regeneration (Wahl 2016) may be able to design
sustainable living futures that incorporate social, cultural, environmental and political
conservation, regeneration and reinvention in a non-deterministic fashion. This path
to self-determination and self-reliance through ecopedagogy has the potential to cast
aside fatalistic attitudes of ‘that’s how things are’, or ‘that’s human nature’ (Freire
2016: 79). Indeed, seen as a self-supporting system of sustainable living, this network
of stakeholders would become ecologically resilient (Gunderson and Holling 2002:
28), by virtue of its flexible capacity to withstand impacts and adaptive capabilities
to emerge from a state of collapse to another state of becoming.
Finally, as we become increasingly cognisant of the global ecological crisis, we
may reflect on the etymological root of the word, crisis. From the Greek verb krinein,
it means “to decide”; however in Chinese, the equivalent ideogram for crisis—weiji—is formed of the two characters for ‘danger’ and ‘opportunity’ (Kahn 2010: 4),
While sustainability paradoxes persist and corporate interests dominate our society,
opportunities emerge for transformation, or organisational change at a greater scale of
magnitude. ‘It means the necessity of the introduction of a new order of conceptions
leading to new modes of practice’ (Dewey 2015: 5). The efficacy, efficiency and
effectiveness of stakeholder networks then shifts to a different set of values, as the
cultivation of an ecopedagogical stakeholder network could become the primary role
for universities intent on sustainable living. Again, as Paulo Freire wrote; ‘changing
is difficult, but it is always possible’.