This page was created by Collin Hardwick.
Bowers, Revitalizing the Commons
Discipline/Field: Environmental studies, Education
Year: 2006
Main Arguments & Concepts
There are two main take-aways that I have from this book: 1) Ecological concerns should be framed as concerns of “the commons,” which should be given more attention in society in general, education in particular; and 2) Misusing or ignoring the commons is based on individualist ideologies, particularly capitalism/neoliberalism, which permeate the culture.“Conservative” vs. “Liberal”
Bowers criticizes the use of the term “conservative” to describe right-wing political movements(114). He well illustrates how powerful this term is. By using the term “conservative,” right-wing groups are really laying a strong claim on history -- suddenly their values are the “traditional values” that must be conserved. But, Bowers points out, there is no reason we accept that pillaging the environment is “tradition.”
Quotes
“The language processes of a culture can also be understood as conserving the culture’s approach the the built environment” (113).“In the West the computer has become one of the most ubiquitous features of formal and informal approaches to education ... Indeed, they are viewed by many educational reformers as more essential than libraries, as well as a way of compensating for the teacher’s often poor grasp of factual knowledge” (140).
Notes
Personally, I agree with essential argument of the book: that educators need to engage with environmental concerns, and that ecological crises are born out of individualist/capitalist ideologies. However, I generally do not agree with how Bowers supports his argument:In general, Bowers paints too broad/simplistic a brush on tools/theories that rely on “individualist” assumptions, like critical pedagogy and digital technologies. Of course, these things do come out of Western knowledge traditions and carry those assumptions. But his criticisms of critical pedagogues are to broad. For example, he paints Paulo Freire as contributing to some ‘tragedy of the commons’ because he had “liberal assumptions about progress” (118). He makes no mention of Freire’s explicit Marxist orientation. This criticism, to me, conflates Friedman-eque liberalism with a Platonic/ Marxist sense of upward progression.
I had similar disagreements about his portrayal of technology (aka “the Trojan Horse”). Again, I totally agree that digital technologies are built of problematic, Western-ist assumptions (see McPherson’s “Why are the Digital Humanities So White?”). However, taking his critique at face value today (to be fair to Bowers, the book was written 12 years ago) would erase the ways that digital technologies are used for resistance / re-emergence efforts in colonized communities, for example.
I am probably just a little bit prickly about this book because apparently one of Bowers’ favorite rhetorical moves is to point out how dumb college students / college graduates are: “If the reader thinks [something different than what he is saying], I suggest that he or she survey how university graduates understand ...” (121)-- just one example. The answer, of course, is that no university students understand what he wants them to understand. Again, my issues with this book are generally not what he says, but how he says it.
Related
Gruenewald, “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place.”Herndl and Brown, Green Culture
