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