Course

Introduction

Learning outcomes

1 Framing nature matters: from language to systems thinking

 1.1 Framing nature using language tools

 1.2 A framing paradox: experiencing nature with cognitive tools

 1.3 Framing nature matters as systems

 1.4 Nature matters in terms of a critical systems literacy

2 Supporting Environmental Conversation : policy and action

 2.1 Dealing with change in what matters: ethics, policy and action

 2.2 Environmental pragmatism: positioning expert support

 2.3 Citizens in conversation with nature and experts

Conclusion

Keep on Learning

References

Acknowledgements

This unit covers conceptual tools for assisting our thinking and deliberation on what matters. In Section 1, a reading by Ronald Moore acquaint with the notion of ‘framing’ nature, raising the perceived paradox of inevitably devaluing an aesthetically pleasing unframed entity. Two readings by Fritjof Capra and one by Werner Ulrick provide an understanding of systems thinking for explicitly framing issues of environmental responsibility. The development of systems literacy is explored to counter the sometimes debilitating dualistic positioning on environmental matters by Talbott, Light, and Higgs.

 In Section 2, a reading by Robyn Exkersley explores the importance and limitations of environmental pragmatism for informing policy. It focuses on the concept of helping tools to inform better policy and action regarding environmental matters. Last of all, a reading by Shiv Visvanathan suggests that ideas of cognitive justices are the need for continually developing constructive space between scientific experts and lay experts in order to inform policy and action on what matters that reflects a wider constituency, and that is more specific to eco-cultural circumstances.

By learning this course, the students could understand the useful reason of the systems thinking and the application of environmental responsibility. The students could define how import is environmental pragmatism and cognitive justice as tools for supporting environmental policy and action.

1.1  Framing nature using language tools

Intentionally or not, it has the structures and pre-assumptions that we apply to a situation in order to make sense of it. They are different in accountability and responsibility of caring. Ronald Moore (a framing paradox) has asked about something intrinsic in nature that matters separately from human perception through framing informed by human values. 

Box 1 ‘O sweet spontaneous’ poem brings out the perennial conflict between significant human attempts to engage with nature in a caring, co-respondent kind of way, and the humility required in attempts to appreciate, understand, predict, be accountable to or even have control over nature.

Activity 1 Poetic ideas on climate change

Box 2 Framing reality and the study of semiotics

The learning of semiotics and semantics, and later philosophical pragmatism, provided an important departure from ideas in mainstream science. It challenges the notion that our framing devices are direct representations of reality.

1.2  A framing paradox: experiencing nature with cognitive tools

Launching what matters in ‘conversation’ between human and non-human nature, or amongst non-human living entities requires different cognitive tools whilst language tools are helpful in conveying meaning in ‘conversation’ among humans. Cognition could be defined as the way in which external information from the environment is processed. The ideology could be a constructive or destructive means of facilitating environmental responsibility. Ronald Moore frames that being ideological might be a mandatory trait of human and cultural activity. The real challenge is to mobilize techniques of framing to improve support for environmental responsibility.

Activity 2 The framing paradox

Like the previous poem, it hints at the sort of ways in which we appoint with environmental responsibility.

Every single framing explains in its own way indicating the importance of understanding the frameworks to use in raising issues of what matters.

Figure 1 Paying attention to nature: members of the public look at exhibits in a natural history museum

Box 3 Framing as a biological cognitive device

Ideological constructs offer a further level of purpose in framing, moving from being visually attentive towards being more intentional.

Box 4 Framing as an ideological device.

The notion of framing as a proactive exercise relates also to the development of ideologies, and particularly to the understanding and practice around green ideology.

Activity 3 Dogmatism

This activity drives to think of an example where you have experienced someone’s argument on an environmental issue either personally or more indirectly through the media.

1.3  Framing nature matters as systems

Nature is commonly codified as ‘systems’ – natural systems, ecosystems, ecological systems and environmental systems. Systems thinking is an active cognitive endeavor to conceptually frame reality. The key is the appreciation given to the multiple interrelationships and interdependencies that exist in the natural world.

The significant development in the twentieth century that yielded a framing of interdependencies in the tradition of thinking about systems was chaos theory and complexity science. Edward N. Lorenz (1917-2008), the MIT meteorologist whose efforts to pioneer ‘butterfly effect’ in his 1972 ‘butterfly talk’ at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is now an obituary.

Box 5 Chaos theory and interdependencies

Activity 4 Climate modelling and chaos theory

Activity 5 Systems thinking for environmental responsibility (1)

Figure 2 The call for ‘joined-up thinking’

Activity 6 Systems thinking for environmental responsibility (2)

Activity 7 Thinking about systems and responsibility

1.4  Nature matters in terms of a critical systems literacy

The systems philosopher and social planner Werner Ulrich has long argued for a more ethically informed idea of systems. His three imperatives of systems thinking are (1) dealing meaningfully with holism, (2) engaging with multiple perspective and (3) framing reality from a critical perspective.

1.4.1        Dealing meaningfully with holism

Figure 3 Understanding the complexity of climate change

1.4.2        Engaging with multiple perspectives

Figure 4 Multiple perspectives on climate change

1.4.3        Framing reality from a critical perspective

Figure 5 ‘The’ approach to climate change

Figure 6 Framing nature matters through systems thinking (adapted from Reynolds, 2008b, p. 387)

Box 6 Framing issues of climate change through critical systems thinking

Example 1: Biofuel controversy

Example 2: A cool look at global warming

Activity 9 Testing frameworks for responsibility

2        Supporting environmental conversation: policy and action

2.1  Dealing with change in what matters: ethics, policy and action

This unit covers the individual human capacity to frame nature as a means for enabling environmental responsibility. The aim is to try and recognize different points of professional expert support and citizen support for environmental concern in terms of contributing perspectives on what matters.

Activity 10 Making judgements on climate change

2.2  Environmental pragmatism: positioning expert support

The suggestion of the example of environmental pragmatism focuses on policy design.  It is wanting to move beyond the four philosophical debates that have dominated environmental ethics – anthropocentrism versus egocentrism, individual versus holistic egocentrism, subjective versus objective holism, and moral monism versus moral pluralism. Science might be regarded as the dominating ‘mediator’ of environmental issues, particularly in terms of framing issues of risk. Whereas amateur citizens represent an enduring, sustained source of advocacy in the changes to the way in which the natural world is framed.

Activity 11 Mediators and advocates

Question 1 Mediators and advocates amongst systems thinkers

Activity 12 Mediators and advocates in the studio discussion?

2.3  Citizens in conversation with nature and experts

The code comprises three traits of scientific endeavor: rigor, representation and responsibility provides an extract from a leaflet produced by the Government Office for Science. Scientific ‘conversation’ with Nature is vital. They focus on the quality of wider conversation amongst experts and between experts and citizens in different cultural backgrounds.

Figure 7 Three attributes of scientific endeavor

Box 7 Science and responsibility

Box 8 Expertise: birth of the technocrat

Figure 8 ‘Climate Camp’ at Drax power station in 2006

Box 9 Challenging the technocrats

Activity 13 The studio discussion and scientific support

Activity 14 Cognitive justice: legitimizing what matters

This free course provided an introduction to studying Environment & Development. It took you through a series of exercises designed to develop your approach to study and learning at a distance, and helped to improve your confidence as an independent learner.