Abstract
The Anthropocene denotes a socio-ecological crisis event marked by complex biogeochemical and socio-politico-cultural interactions. This paper investigates the distinctive aspects of the educationalization of the Anthropocene, perceived as a socio-ecological challenge, and examines how various pedagogical discourses reflect or perpetuate broader power dynamics. The study examines three distinct pedagogical discourses within the educationalization of the Anthropocene: the prevailing discourse of neoliberalism, the counter-discourse of ecopedagogy, and the hybrid discourse associated with UNESCO. Pedagogical discourses, crucial for implementing and supporting these reforms, are adaptable to specific socio-political contexts. The critical examination of pedagogical discourses related to the educationalization of the Anthropocene highlights various methods of integrating socio-ecological issues into educational frameworks. OECD’s discourse emphasizes global competencies and employability, while UNESCO’s hybrid approach combines educational humanism with postmodern and postcolonial critiques. Ecopedagogy adopts a critically and emancipatory perspective, rooted in political and postcolonial analysis. Navigating these competing discourses requires educators and policymakers to balance practical effectiveness with critical awareness, recognizing the Anthropocene crisis as a matter of justice, power, and values. The diversity of these discourses suggests that the future of Anthropocene education resides in the tensions and negotiations among these competing orientations, reflecting a profound reorientation of education as a field of political, ethical, and cultural struggle.
Introduction
The Anthropocene indicates a socio-ecological crisis event marked by complex biogeochemical and socio-politico-cultural interactions. Within this intricate network, education acts as a catalyst for the socio-political transformations necessary to manage life in the Anthropocene (Slimani et al., 2023). Therefore, educational policy, theory, and research have increasingly concentrated on advancing educationalization (Carusi and Szkudlarek, 2020) as a means to address the socio-ecological challenges associated with the Anthropocene. This educationalization process entails the integration of concepts and challenges related to the Anthropocene into curricula, teaching strategies, and educational frameworks. Pedagogical strategies for educating learners about life in the Anthropocene are continually advancing. These strategies encompass a diverse array of teaching and training disciplines, including science education, art and literature, and environmental education, while recontextualizing learning within the framework of the Anthropocene. In the realm of science education, the outdoor classroom modality represents an epistemological approach aimed at reviving the appreciation for the earth (Kuchta, 2022) by transcending the confines of traditional classroom environments. It seeks to foster a more profound connection between learners and the natural world, with a strong emphasis on experiential learning. By fostering a renewed appreciation for the earth through direct experiences, learners can develop a stronger sense of environmental stewardship and a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of ecosystems. Art and literary education are increasingly emphasizing the cultivation of planetary awareness, acknowledging the interconnectedness of global systems and the impact of human actions on the Earth as a whole (Jagodzinski, 2022; Oziewicz, 2022). Through exposure to diverse artistic expressions and literary works from various cultures and regions, learners gain insights into different worldviews and the environmental challenges faced globally. Environmental education, on the other hand, provides learners with the analytical tools and knowledge necessary to understand complex environmental issues, and to navigate the complexities of living in an era where human activities exert profound and extensive effects on the planet’s natural systems (Torjussen, 2022).
These pedagogical approaches, oriented toward developing curricula for the Anthropocene, provide the groundwork for international or even transnational educational reforms that are not impervious to socio-political influences (Kumar, 2019). These educational reforms recognize the interconnectedness of human activities and their significant impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Therefore, they endeavor to cultivate a deeper understanding of environmental issues, sustainability, and the role of human agency in shaping the planet’s future. Consequently, the development and adoption of Anthropocene-focused curricula can vary considerably across regions and educational systems, reflecting the diverse perspectives and priorities of the stakeholders engaged in the reform process.
Pedagogical discourse is integral to the implementation and support of educational reforms across various contexts. As Mathou (2018) highlights, this communicative system is crucial in shaping pedagogical approaches and modalities within education. Its adaptability enables pedagogical discourse to evolve and differentiate according to specific socio-political environments. Moreover, pedagogical discourse plays a pivotal role in recontextualizing and re-evaluating the concept of learning. As posited by Anderson-Levitt and Gardinier (2021), this recontextualization process enables educators and policymakers to adapt educational practices to align with evolving societal needs and technological advancements.
This paper aims to investigate the distinguishing features of the educationalization of the Anthropocene, perceived as a socio-ecological educational challenge, and how these divergent narratives reflect or perpetuate broader power dynamics. The analysis focuses on three distinct discourses within Anthropocene education: the prevailing discourse of neoliberalism, the discourse of ecopedagogy, and the hybrid discourse associated with UNESCO. Each discourse presents its own set of assumptions, values, and implications for understanding the Anthropocene. By examining these discourses, we can gain insights into the complex power dynamics that influence educational policy and pedagogical practice in relation to global environmental challenges.
Anthropocene and the educationalization of a biogeochemical and cultural event
Designating the Anthropocene as a geological epoch entails several conceptual and methodological challenges. The formalization of an epoch in geological time necessitates precise stratigraphic markers that are globally identifiable within Earth’s strata. However, evidence of human activity is typically heterogeneous, varying by region and context (Gibbard et al., 2022a; Gibbard et al., 2022b). Additionally, there is no consensus regarding the onset of the Anthropocene: some scholars suggest the Neolithic era, others the Industrial Revolution, or even the peak of radioactive fallout. These disagreements complicate the establishment of a stable chronostratigraphic foundation. As an event, the Anthropocene highlights the alteration of major biogeochemical cycles (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) and systemic disturbances affecting both physical environments and social structures. Consequently, it can only be understood as a complex phenomenon situated at the intersection of geological processes and anthropogenic social dynamics (Waters et al., 2022). In this context, the Anthropocene is conceptualized not as an epoch that can be formalized within a geological timescale, but rather as a significant biogeochemical and cultural event. This perspective facilitates the avoidance of stratigraphic nomenclature requirements while recognizing the rapid and profound transformations that human societies have effected on the functioning of terrestrial systems.
Social sciences and humanities have enriched the concept of the Anthropocene by extending it beyond its biogeochemical dimensions to include political, cultural, and ethical considerations (Zalasiewicz et al., 2021). These disciplines emphasize the role of cultural and economic systems, as well as power structures, in driving global transformation. They introduce alternative concepts, such as the Capitalocene, Plantationocene, or Urbanocene, which reveal a range of agents and dynamics central to the current socio-ecological crisis (Chwałczyk 2020). This convergence of perspectives from the humanities and social sciences enables a comprehension of the Anthropocene not merely as a geological event, but as a significant civilizational rupture. Therefore, the Anthropocene emerges as an integrative concept that articulates both the biophysical and symbolic dimensions of the relationship between human societies and Earth.
The integration of this biogeochemical and cultural phenomenon into educational frameworks is increasingly evident within school curricula, particularly through the transformation of educational objectives and content. Curricula are progressively emphasizing the incorporation of themes related to ecology and climate change, reflecting the pressing nature of the environmental crisis. This integration seeks to enhance learners’ awareness of global ecological issues and equip them with the necessary tools to comprehend and address the challenges of the Anthropocene. Curricula now extend beyond the mere transmission of scientific and technical knowledge to foster ethical and responsible attitudes and behaviors, particularly concerning socio-ecological interdependence. Transforming the curriculum also involves questioning human intentionality in the educational process. The traditional curriculum, which has been centered on human action and mastery of knowledge, has evolved to incorporate more fluid and relational approaches. The Anthropocene curriculum acknowledges that humans can no longer perceive themselves as separate agents of nature but must learn to coexist with other life forms in an ever-changing world (McKnight, 2021).
Another critical dimension of this curricular transformation, prompted by the educationalization of the Anthropocene, is the transition from a fossil-based curriculum to a post-carbon framework. Historically, educational systems have been predicated on the principles of progress and modernization, with a substantial dependence on the exploitation of fossil resources. This has endorsed a vision of human development that is primarily centered on energy consumption. The post-carbon curriculum of the Anthropocene aims to reorient this perspective, emphasizing the imperative to reassess energy consumption and advocate for sustainable lifestyles, with a focus on renewable energy and alternatives to the fossil model (Morgan, 2021).
Cultural and political contexts of the educationalization of socio-ecological issues
The anti-universalist ethic is a cultural and political context that critiques the rationalist theories associated with modernist socio-political life (Gunnell, 2021). Postmodern socio-political life arises in these so-called postmodern states through a complex interaction of economic globalization and political integration, as exemplified by a community of democratic and liberal states: the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The states within the OECD’s postmodern international system are politically characterized by notable sustainability, which appears to be the inevitable result of economic activities deeply embedded in cross-border networks, citizenship redefined by less exclusively national identities, and governance distributed across nested levels that are responsive to supranational, international, and transnational contexts (Sørensen, 2021).
The process of decolonization, which unfolded significantly in the international arena following the Second World War, identified colonialism as a crime and facilitated the emergence of postcolonial states. This development represents a distinct socio-political context. However, the political and social vulnerabilities of these states are attributable to the impact of colonial domination on precolonial structures and the inefficiency of established administrative systems, which often lack legitimacy. Central to the decolonization process is an ethic rooted in anti-colonial critique and resistance.
The Anthropocene event positions educational systems at the forefront of different cultural and political contexts: to develop citizens capable of understanding, discussing, and addressing socio-environmental crises. The process of integrating these emerging public issues into educational frameworks—by translating them into pedagogical, curricular, and training challenges—also raises complex political questions concerning power dynamics, divergent visions of the future, and the fundamental objectives of education.
Educationalization transposes societal concerns into educational institutions; it constitutes a political process wherein socio-environmental issues are redefined through educational and institutional frameworks. Socio-ecological topics such as climate justice, energy transition, and food sustainability are transformed into both educational content and behavioral standards for students and educators. In this context, schools are utilized as instruments for social and political change. When schools engage with socio-ecological issues, they inevitably cross into a domain of political conflict. Addressing the socio-ecological crisis in education extends beyond the dissemination of scientific facts; it necessitates adopting a normative stance on the human-nature relationship, production and consumption methods, global inequalities and social inclusion, and the cultivation of ecological and civic agency (Jickling and Sterling, 2017; Salonen et al., 2024). Therefore, educationalization becomes a site of political struggle, aiming to acknowledge socio-ecological disparities, amplify the voices of younger generations, and challenge the historical accountability of industrialized nations. The movements inspired by Greta Thunberg, among others, exemplify this politicization of education, underscoring that youth are not merely subjects of instruction but political actors in their own right (Jandrić et al., 2021).
Furthermore, the integration of ecological issues into educational frameworks is intricately linked to complex and interrelated discussions concerning curriculum and identity. In certain contexts, there is a pronounced emphasis on disseminating global scientific knowledge, which may inadvertently marginalize Indigenous or local knowledge systems that provide alternative insights into the natural world (Sund and Lysgaard 2013). This matter becomes highly politicized, as it creates tension regarding the balance between international requirements advocating for the educationalization of socio-ecological challenges and the cultural and educational autonomy of communities. This tension highlights the geopolitical dimension of educationalization: educational institutions become sites where divergent visions of humanity and its future are contested and negotiated.
In addressing these challenges, numerous scholars advocate for a critical pedagogy of the Anthropocene. This pedagogical approach rejects the reduction of socio-environmental issues to mere educational content, instead prioritizing the cultivation of political and ethical consciousness. Such consciousness facilitates educational engagement with the material, historical, and economic contexts of ecological crises, while simultaneously cultivating forms of planetary and intergenerational solidarity. It conceptualizes education as a political arena where modes of inhabiting the Earth are critically examined and renegotiated.
Even though, the concept of educationalization, which initially refers to the process by which social issues (such as unemployment, public health, inequalities, and citizenship) are transformed into educational concerns and assigned to school institutions, has encountered criticism within education policy research. Critics contend that it tends to instrumentalize schools for political or economic purposes (Carusi and Szkudlarek, 2020; Oliverio, 2020; Szkudlarek, 2020; Vlieghe and Zamojski, 2020). These critiques converge on the notion that educationalization risks reducing education to a mere tool for serving pre-existing social or political objectives. They also emphasize that education should not be perceived solely as a response to societal demands, given that society itself is perpetually evolving and marked by conflict. Education belongs to an ontological realm that transcends immediate social demands. This necessitates distinguishing between the ontology of education—its essence as a fundamental human practice—and its instrumentality—its practical applications. Confusing these two aspects contributes to the excesses of educationalization that should be avoided, underscoring the importance of preserving education’s autonomy from politics and preventing its subordination to political agendas, which would undermine its intrinsic logic of engaging with the world by transforming it into a tool for social management.
Within the framework of the socio-ecological crisis characterizing the Anthropocene, the concept of educationalization encompasses unique dimensions that distinguish it from broader social issues. Primarily, the ecological crisis is global in nature, impacting the essential conditions that sustain Earth’s habitability. It transcends being a mere sectoral or localized issue, representing a global and irreversible transformation. Furthermore, it involves intergenerational dynamics by imposing the responsibility of an uncertain future on younger generations. Additionally, this ecological crisis challenges anthropocentrism, which creates a dichotomy between humans and non-humans, thereby questioning the foundational principles of anthropocentric education.
The dimensions of the educationalization of the Anthropocene confer a character that is disruptive to traditional educational categories. The Anthropocene drives to examine the intertwining of ontology and instrumentalism. Education is not merely a tool for managing an external crisis; it is part of the problem itself, as the representations, values, and lifestyles it conveys contribute to the Anthropocene. This event challenges the division between politics and education, as issues of planetary survival cannot be considered external to education. The crisis necessitates a politicization of education, which, while threatening its autonomy, also exposes its inherently political nature. The Anthropocene calls for reimagining schools as spaces for collective experimentation with sustainable living. The educationalization of socio-ecological issues cannot be confined to mere knowledge transfer; it must transform educational institutions themselves. In the Anthropocene, the concept of symbiosis between education and society is heightened: if education is shaped by society, it also influences humanity’s relationship with the more-than-human world.
The concept of educationalization within the context of the Anthropocene extends critiques of education to include social issues, explicitly emphasizing the often-overlooked ecological dimension in discussions of social problems. It introduces a post-humanist perspective, shifting the focus from merely socializing human individuals to perceiving education as a mediation with hybrid human/non-human assemblages. This approach expands the temporal and spatial scale by addressing intergenerational and planetary responsibilities. Therefore, the Anthropocene compels us to reconceptualize educationalization as a multi-scalar phenomenon, involving the ontology of education alongside instrumentalism, autonomy, and politicization.
Pedagogical discourses on the educationalization of the Anthropocene: Sources and methods for critical reconstruction
The pedagogical discourse, when examined through a Bernsteinian framework within the sociology of education, is identified as a social construction of meaning influenced by recontextualization processes. This perspective emphasizes that education transcends mere knowledge transmission, serving as a domain where power and control dynamics are both cultivated and transformed. Therefore, the definition of pedagogical discourse diverges from the general understanding of discourse in the humanities, which is often perceived as a collection of symbolic practices, linguistic mediations, or regimes of truth. Pedagogical discourse is distinct in its specific function: it governs the interaction between knowledge and power within educational contexts. This distinctiveness is evident in three dimensions. First, the relations of domination and control that structure knowledge distribution are fundamental to its operation. Second, the nature of exchanges varies according to horizontal modalities (local, everyday knowledge) or vertical ones (specialized, disciplinary knowledge). Finally, the function of these exchanges is divided between an instructional discourse (centered on formal content learning) and a regulatory discourse (concerning behaviors, values, and norms). Thus, the Bernsteinian definition distinguishes pedagogical discourse from the broader notion of discourse in the humanities by emphasizing its structuring role in the production and legitimation of school knowledge (Frandji and Vitale, 2011).
The OECD document (2018), “Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework,” serves as a source of pedagogical discourse that educationalizes the socio-ecological issues specific to the Anthropocene. This document not only describes global challenges but also recontextualizes them within a normative educational framework by defining the competencies expected of young generations to address issues of sustainability, inclusion, and cultural diversity. In accordance with Bernsteinian sociology, this document articulates an instructional discourse (focused on acquiring cognitive and intercultural competencies) and a regulatory discourse (oriented toward values, attitudes, and behaviors deemed necessary for planetary citizenship).
The literature on ecopedagogy, inspired by Paulo Freire and further elaborated by scholars such as Misiaszek (2022a, 2022b, 2023), Morrow and Torres (2019), and Payne (2022), constitutes a significant body of alternative pedagogical discourse addressing the educationalization of socio-ecological issues in the Anthropocene. Ecopedagogy emphasizes the critical, dialogical, and political dimensions of education. From a Bernsteinean perspective, it differentiates itself by rejecting the reduction of pedagogical discourse to a mere instrument of normative control. Instead, it reconceptualizes it as a domain for emancipatory praxis, where instructional discourse (learning to comprehend the structural causes of the ecological crisis) and regulatory discourse (cultivating values of solidarity, environmental justice, and the decolonization of knowledge) are intricately interconnected. Rather than limiting itself to the top-down recontextualization of global knowledge in education, this movement underscores the importance of co-constructing knowledge with affected communities, prioritizing situated, sensitive, and relational pedagogies.
The UNESCO document (Rieckmann, 2017), entitled “Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives,” exemplifies an educational discourse that addresses the socio-ecological challenges of the Anthropocene through a pedagogical framework. This text explicitly translates the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into learning objectives for educational systems globally. In doing so, it reinterprets major global issues—such as climate change, biodiversity, inequalities, and consumption—as competencies, knowledge, attitudes, and values to be developed in learners. From a Bernsteinian perspective, the dual dimension of pedagogical discourse is evident: on one hand, an instructional discourse emphasizes the acquisition of key competencies such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and systemic understanding; on the other hand, a regulative discourse seeks to cultivate ethical dispositions, responsible behaviors, and a spirit of global citizenship grounded in solidarity.
The educationalization of socio-ecological issues in the Anthropocene, as reflected in the frameworks of the OECD, UNESCO, and critical ecopedagogy approaches, constitutes a discursive field shaped by political, ideological, and normative influences. To critically engage with this field, two methodologies can be integrated: discourse analysis (Matta 2024) and interpretive analysis (Rhodes 2018). Discourse analysis provides explanatory power by examining linguistic regularities and discursive formations, enabling the identification of how certain meanings become dominant, stabilized, and legitimized, while alternative perspectives are marginalized. The interpretive approach, emphasizing a “decentered” analysis, underscores practices, situated meanings, and the diversity of narratives produced by stakeholders. It illustrates that pedagogical discourses are not merely structural impositions but are reappropriated, translated, and sometimes contested within local contexts. These analytical tools facilitate a critical reconstruction of the discourses surrounding the educationalization of the Anthropocene by identifying structures of meaning and power asymmetries within these discourses or by mapping discursive positions, while also fostering a dynamic understanding of the relationships between knowledge, power, and emerging educational practices in the Anthropocene.
Critical reconstruction of pedagogical discourses on the educationalization of the Anthropocene
A postmodernist discourse driven by economic and cultural globalization
The OECD’s PISA program provides a comprehensive framework for examining the educationalization of Anthropocene event education within a postmodern socio-political context, aligning closely with the objective of cultivating global competencies. These competencies include analytical and critical thinking, intercultural understanding, openness, respect for cultural differences, and responsibility. They are primarily associated with cultural awareness, employability, and sustainable development goals, structured into four curricular domains: investigating the world, recognizing diverse perspectives, communicating effectively, and taking action (Mansilla et al., 2013; OECD, 2018; Robertson, 2021). Each domain reflects postmodernist influences, highlighting the significance of intercultural communication and collaboration in addressing global challenges such as climate change. Effective communication necessitates reflexivity, as well as linguistic and technological proficiency, while action-oriented competencies require creative ethical awareness grounded in reliable evidence.
The OECD’s pedagogical discourse, by associating these competencies with economic and cultural productivity, embodies a neoliberal perspective that positions education as a mechanism for cultivating human capital to support global capitalism (Vaccari and Gardinier, 2019). This discourse endorses a mode of governance that is global, symbolic, and fluid (Engel et al., 2019), constituting what Sorensen et al. (2021) characterize as a global governance complex. Its fluidity is manifested in its proliferation across cognitive, normative, epistemological, and pedagogical dimensions (Benoliel and Berkovich, 2021; Robertson and Sorensen, 2018; Sellar and Lingard, 2014), although this proliferation frequently hides Western-derived mechanisms of domination (Grotlüschen, 2018). The interconnection between neoliberalism and postmodernism reinforces this trend, as both emphasize economics and culture while sharing assumptions of privatization and skepticism toward universal validity (Susen, 2015).
Within this framework, the OECD advocates active pedagogical approaches, such as project-based and intercultural learning, to promote pro-environmental behaviors and social integration (Mansilla et al., 2013; Rieckmann, 2017). Project-based learning engages students with real-world challenges, thereby enhancing their interdisciplinary skills, problem-solving capabilities, and intercultural communication (Auld and Morris, 2019). In parallel, empathy and intercultural understanding are cultivated through exchanges and discussions on global issues. Nonetheless, critics contend that the OECD’s focus on measurable outcomes may marginalize inclusion and social justice (Cobb and Couch, 2022). Therefore, fostering global competence for the Anthropocene requires a synthesis of practical engagement and critical reflection, incorporating values of justice, respect, and inclusion into learners’ active participation (Auld and Morris, 2019).
The OECD’s discourse on global competencies in education is framed as a response to the Anthropocene, yet it frequently hides its own political ramifications. By emphasizing the preparation of learners for an interconnected world and promoting attitudes such as cultural openness, intercultural communication, and responsible action, it establishes a consensual normative framework that claims to transcend ideological divisions. This approach is consistent with a post-political logic (Swyngedouw, 2010). Essentially, the OECD’s narrative on global competencies reinterprets the challenges of the Anthropocene, including the climate crisis, as technical issues for educational regulation, rather than as topics for democratic debate.
The emphasis on the measurability and standardization of global competencies contributes to this neutralization. The OECD characterizes global competence as a set of attitudes and abilities that can be assessed through comparative tools, reflecting an inclination towards objectification and governance by indicators. Nevertheless, this approach corresponds with “the erasure of the moment of antagonism (Mouffe, 2011) corresponding to the reduction of social and environmental conflicts to mere issues of coordination and cooperation. As a result, the climate crisis is reinterpreted as a matter of adapting behaviors and acquiring transferable skills, rather than a contest over collective choices and power dynamics.
This framework poses a considerable risk: the potential depoliticization of the climate issue by subjecting it to a global governance paradigm that prioritizes efficiency, flexibility, and competitiveness (Swyngedouw, 2011). The OECD’s educational discourse, which emphasizes intercultural cooperation and local action with a global perspective, reinforces this post-political configuration. It normalizes the neoliberal framework that links education to the development of human capital—and, consequently, to the global economy—while circumventing the conflicts inherent in decisions regarding energy, industry, or agriculture. This logic is also apparent in the implicit alliance between neoliberalism and postmodernism. Both exhibit skepticism towards universals and fundamental principles, advocating for a pluralistic and fluid conception of the social. However, the OECD, by emphasizing intercultural cooperation and the acquisition of skills to address global issues, perpetuates a managerial reduction of the political (Mouffe, 2013).
The OECD’s educational discourse reconceptualizes the climate crisis as a matter of individual and collective adaptation through education, rather than as a forum for democratic deliberation on economic, social, and environmental decisions. This vision of seamless, global educational governance masks the power imbalances, ecological injustices, and conflicts of interest that characterize the Anthropocene.
A postcolonial discourse imbued with a critical culture
Emerging from postcolonial debates, ecopedagogy offers an alternative pedagogical discourse that provides critical educational approaches for the Anthropocene. This discourse critiques neoliberal ideologies that confine environmental education to technical literacy within the frameworks of ecological modernization, green growth, or the green economy. These frameworks often subordinate environmental citizenship to the logics of selection, competition, and individual performance, while decision-making is restricted to experts with technical authority. Therefore, collective action is frequently reduced to minimal gestures, such as recycling or purchasing eco-friendly products, rather than addressing systemic socio-environmental injustices (Slimani, 2021; Slimani et al., 2023). Ecopedagogy deconstructs these ideologies through a postcolonial ethic of critique and resistance. Misiaszek (2022a, 2022b) highlights its challenge to anthropocentrism, the separation of environmental from social violence, fatalism regarding ecological futures, developmentalism, and epistemological domination. In practice, ecopedagogy emphasizes dialogical learning and participatory methods—such as ethnographic analyses of generative themes and community action approaches—that connect learners to their own cultural and social realities (Morrow and Torres, 2019). In doing so, it seeks to cultivate a form of citizenship education rooted in socio-environmental utopias, cultivating the capacity to envision and act towards alternative futures (Fassbinder, 2020).
From a phenomenological perspective, Payne (2022) expands ecopedagogy into the realm of critical ecophenomenology, which investigates embodied intercorporeal experiences of ecological relationships. His work exemplifies this through memory-based and ethnographic methods, auto-phenomenographic reflections on walking in landscapes, and the exploration of eco-motricities, such as tree climbing or participating in climate strikes. These experiential approaches enhance the understanding of how ecological connections are materially and historically experienced. Ecopedagogy thus reconfigures power dynamics in education, particularly for communities whose epistemologies have been marginalized by global cultural dominance. It promotes both humanistic social relations and critical analyses of domination, often drawing on Southern epistemologies and North–South dynamics (Misiaszek, 2023; Morrow, 2019). As an educational initiative, it integrates ecological, political, and social dimensions within a radical critique of the structures driving environmental degradation. Central to this praxis is learning through activism—community projects, ecological initiatives, and democratic forums that cultivate solidarity and collective imagination about sustainable futures (Kahn, 2006). Critical environmental education remains at its core: learners are encouraged not only to acquire ecological knowledge but also to interrogate the political and economic systems underlying crises, while engaging with indigenous perspectives and marginalized knowledges to resist dominant development models (McLaren and Jandric, 2014). Thus, ecopedagogy merges activism, critical inquiry, and inclusiveness to reconceptualize educationalization of the Anthropocene. It positions learning as a dialectical process of critical consciousness and liberation, preparing learners to act as agents of humanization and epistemic justice.
The political potential of ecopedagogy resides in its rejection of the divide between education and broader structures of domination, as well as its capacity to conceptualize learning as a praxis of resistance. Unlike technocratic approaches to environmental education, ecopedagogy does not resign itself in modest behavioral changes like recycling or energy-saving initiatives. Instead, it situates environmental crises within the dynamics of power, exploitation, and inequality, thereby creating a space for radical critique. In this context, ecopedagogy challenges what Misiaszek (2022a) describes as the hegemonic domestication of environmental knowledge, which reduces ecological learning to neutral and apolitical forms of literacy. By exposing how neoliberal rationalities obscure socio-environmental conflicts through market-oriented solutions, ecopedagogy politicizes the Anthropocene and emphasizes the necessity of collective transformation.
A significant political contribution of ecopedagogy resides in its conceptualization of education as a domain of counter-hegemony. Misiaszek (2023) highlights that ecopedagogy promotes a postcolonial ethic of critique and resistance, which not only deconstructs prevailing ideologies—such as anthropocentrism or developmentalism—but also highlights subaltern knowledges suppressed by global cultural hegemony. This reorientation of epistemic authority challenges the dominance of Western scientific discourse, enabling marginalized epistemologies, including indigenous and Southern traditions, to actively participate in defining environmental knowledge. Thus, ecopedagogy serves as a radical pedagogical strategy that contests the epistemological domination underpinning ecological degradation.
From a phenomenological perspective, Payne (2022) emphasizes how ecopedagogy extends critique by anchoring it in embodied experience. His notion of “critical ecophenomenology” highlights the political significance of everyday ecological interactions, such as walking through a landscape, climbing a tree, or engaging in climate strikes. These seemingly mundane activities are not merely personal experiences but are situated within broader histories of dispossession, colonization, and environmental exploitation. Payne’s work suggests that political critique becomes radical when learners recognize their embodied ecological relations as historically mediated and materially conditioned. Through such recognition, ecopedagogy reclaims the body as a site of resistance against abstract technocratic rationalities, transforming ecological learning into lived political praxis.
Another essential political aspect of ecopedagogy is its insistence on linking ecological crises to social injustice. McLaren and Jandric (2014) argue that critical environmental education must analyze the political and economic systems that produce both ecological degradation and social inequality. This perspective prevents the depoliticization of the Anthropocene by refusing to treat climate change as merely a technical or scientific issue. Instead, ecopedagogy redefines environmental education as inseparable from struggles against capitalism, patriarchy, racism, and colonialism. In doing so, it positions ecological learning as part of a broader project of emancipation, where the pursuit of sustainability is interconnected with the quest for social justice and epistemic equality.
The radical potential of ecopedagogy is also evident in its emphasis on activism and collective action. Rather than confining education to the classroom, ecopedagogy extends learning into public and communal spaces, including protests, grassroots initiatives, and community projects. Misiaszek (2022b) emphasizes that dialogical and participatory pedagogies are not merely methods but political acts that challenge the monopolization of decision-making by elites. By valuing participatory forums, open discussions, and collective projects, ecopedagogy enacts a form of radical democracy that resists the reduction of citizens to consumers or passive recipients of policies. In this sense, education becomes a political laboratory for envisioning alternative futures and experimenting with modes of living beyond neoliberal paradigms.
Ecopedagogy’s radical critique is rooted in its ability to challenge fatalistic ideologies that normalize ecological collapse. By rejecting narratives that portray the Anthropocene as an unavoidable fate, ecopedagogy reintroduces hope as a political category. This is not a simplistic optimism but rather a form of what Misiaszek (2023) describes as utopian dreaming, where learners are encouraged to envision alternative worlds. Here, utopia serves as a pedagogical tool to disrupt the perceived inevitability of capitalist and developmentalist paths. It offers a critical framework against which current injustices can be contested, and alternative socio-environmental relationships can be imagined.
Furthermore, the political implications of ecopedagogy can be understood as a redefinition of citizenship. While neoliberal discourses frequently equate citizenship with employability and market adaptability, ecopedagogy advocates for a conception of citizenship that is critical, participatory, and oriented toward socio-environmental justice. Payne’s (2022) ecophenomenological perspective further posits that such citizenship is not abstract but embodied, lived, and situated in tangible relationships with both human and non-human entities. Similarly, McLaren and Jandric (2014) assert that environmental citizenship must be linked to structural struggles against domination, rather than being confined to individual lifestyle choices. By emphasizing these alternative visions of citizenship, ecopedagogy challenges neoliberal educational agendas and asserts education as a practice of freedom.
The political implications of ecopedagogy reside in its refusal to reduce the ecological crisis to technical problems or market opportunities. Instead, it utilizes education as a space for radical critique, grounded in postcolonial resistance, embodied praxis, and collective struggles for justice. In doing so, ecopedagogy creates opportunities for reimagining both the content and purpose of education in the Anthropocene. It asserts that learning should be directed not toward adaptation to neoliberal imperatives but toward the liberation of marginalized voices, the transformation of unjust systems, and the cultivation of emancipatory forms of citizenship.
A hybrid discourse recomposing humanist and postmodernist references
The learning objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) serve as an additional operational framework adopted by UNESCO, functioning as a pedagogical discourse for educationalizing the Anthropocene. At the heart of this framework are eight sustainable development competencies (Rieckmann, 2017), which expand upon the five competencies proposed by Wiek et al. (2011). While the latter focus on systemic analysis, anticipatory thinking, normative reasoning, strategic action, and collaboration, UNESCO further refines these by identifying collaboration, critical reflection, self-awareness, and integrated problem-solving as distinct competencies (Myren-Svelstad, 2020). Together, these competencies encompass the ability to engage with uncertainty, envision alternative futures, negotiate values, implement innovative actions, respect diverse perspectives, and critically reflect on one’s role in collective problem-solving. This framework embodies a hybrid discourse, merging modernist humanist traditions with postmodern and postcolonial perspectives. Such hybridity allows UNESCO to tackle global educational challenges while maintaining its commitment to democratic and emancipatory ideals. Its advocacy for lifelong learning exemplifies its humanist roots in personal growth and societal progress (Elfert, 2023). Simultaneously, the discourse has evolved to incorporate critiques of universalism and Western-centric approaches, recognizing the importance of cultural diversity and indigenous knowledge systems in policymaking. By blending these traditions, UNESCO aims to create an inclusive and adaptable framework for education across diverse contexts while upholding its principles of democracy and human empowerment. However, this hybridity has faced criticism. Bryan (2022), for instance, questions UNESCO’s emphasis on digitally supported socio-emotional learning within the SDG agenda, arguing that it reflects pressures to align with private and corporate interests, neoliberal policies, and funding structures. He asserts that prioritizing biological and neuropsychological frameworks depoliticizes global citizenship education, reducing it to individual capacities at the expense of political deliberation. Similarly, critiques point out that the very notion of competence is rooted in psychometrics, economics, and management, suggesting a shift from philosophical anthropology grounded in Enlightenment ideals of human formation toward an economic anthropology that emphasizes the allocation of social roles (Boufoy-Bastick, 2015).
UNESCO’s pedagogical discourse, characterized by its inherent hybridity, has significant implications for practice, especially in its efforts to reconcile divergent philosophical and political traditions within education for sustainable development. On one hand, this hybridity can be seen as a pragmatic reconciliation. By blending modernist humanist traditions, which emphasize continuous progress and emancipation, with postmodern and postcolonial critiques that challenge universality and Western-centrism, UNESCO offers a flexible framework that resonates with diverse stakeholders and contexts. This hybridity allows policymakers and educators to converge around shared goals such as sustainability and inclusion, while also permitting local adaptation. As Elfert (2023) notes, the focus on lifelong learning exemplifies UNESCO’s ability to uphold humanist ideals of individual development, even as it incorporates pluralist approaches. In practice, this reconciliation is evident in policies that can be implemented across varied cultural settings, fostering a common language for cooperation in global education without erasing local particularities. Conversely, hybridity also risks functioning as a form of depoliticization. By framing education in terms of competencies, UNESCO shifts the focus away from political deliberation and collective struggles toward the cultivation of individual capacities. Bryan (2022) highlights how the growing emphasis on socio-emotional learning, embedded within digital and neuropsychological frameworks, reflects pressures from private and corporate interests. This focus reconfigures education into a matter of personal adaptability and resilience rather than systemic transformation, thereby neutralizing political conflict. From this perspective, hybridity becomes a mechanism for absorbing critique while diffusing its radical edge: postcolonial demands for epistemic justice or systemic change are translated into skills of tolerance and intercultural communication, which align comfortably with a neoliberal governance model. The result is a reconciliation of competing visions of education at the expense of displacing the political dimensions of ecological and social crises into technical or behavioral registers.
However, hybridity does not exclusively result in depoliticization; it can also foster an environment conducive to resistance. By integrating postmodern and postcolonial critiques, UNESCO’s discourse creates opportunities for educators and learners to challenge prevailing epistemologies and development paradigms. The acknowledgment of cultural diversity, indigenous knowledge, and alternative worldviews within this framework enables pedagogical practices that resist the dominance of Western epistemologies. This potential for resistance is found in the gaps and ambiguities engendered by hybridity: while the discourse can be utilized to further neoliberal aims, it can also be appropriated by critical educators as a framework for interrogating the assumptions underpinning global governance. Boufoy-Bastick (2015) emphasizes that competence discourses originate from economic and managerial domains; yet, when these competencies are critically reframed within the contexts of sustainability and global citizenship, they may serve as tools for reimagining social roles in emancipatory ways. For instance, competencies in self-awareness and critical reflection can be harnessed not solely for employability but for questioning structural inequalities and envisioning alternative futures. Thus, hybridity in UNESCO’s pedagogical discourse is not unidimensional. It simultaneously reconciles divergent traditions, facilitates a technocratic depoliticization of education, and provides conditions for resistance. The pragmatic reconciliation enables global legitimacy and local adoption; the depoliticizing effects align education with neoliberal governance and corporate agendas; and the resistant potential emerges when educators and communities exploit the openings created by hybridity to advance more radical critiques. In this context, hybridity must be understood as a dynamic field of tension, where the struggle over the political meaning of education in the Anthropocene continues to unfold.
Critical synthesis of pedagogical discourses concerning the educationalization of the Anthropocene
The critical examination of pedagogical discourses concerning the educationalization of the Anthropocene highlights the diverse methods of incorporating socio-ecological issues into educational frameworks. The three discourses—those of the OECD, UNESCO, and ecopedagogy—offer distinct perspectives, differing not only in their explicit objectives but also in their underlying logics, the political imaginaries they invoke, and their conceptions of education’s role. The OECD’s discourse is characterized by an instrumental and managerial approach, emphasizing the development of global competencies as transferable resources designed to prepare learners for integration into a globalized and interconnected world. Recommended pedagogical methods, such as project-based learning and the explicit teaching of intercultural empathy, aim to connect socio-ecological concerns with the acquisition of measurable skills. Within this framework, the educationalization of the Anthropocene is primarily viewed through the lens of employability and individual adaptability to contemporary economic and social dynamics. This discourse is marked by a technocratic and standardized rationality, which tends to depoliticize the climate crisis by framing it as a problem of competencies to be developed, rather than as an issue of collective choices and value conflicts. UNESCO’s discourse adopts a hybrid form, oscillating between continuity with educational humanism and openness to postmodern and postcolonial critiques. The introduction of sustainable development competencies reflects an effort to articulate a systemic approach to socio-ecological issues while acknowledging cultural diversity and local knowledge. This hybridity enables a pragmatic reconciliation between universal goals, such as sustainability and social justice, and the plurality of educational contexts. However, this same hybridity can lead to depoliticization, as the emphasis on individual competencies—such as collaboration, critical thinking, or self-awareness—risks diverting attention from structural dynamics to personal development. Simultaneously, UNESCO’s discourse, by integrating critical dimensions and recognizing the importance of indigenous knowledge and local contexts, allows for resistance and reinterpretation by educational stakeholders. Its form is thus both conciliatory and ambivalent, aiming to maintain a delicate balance between global governance and local diversity.
The discourse of ecopedagogy embraces a critically radical and emancipatory viewpoint, grounded in a political and postcolonial analysis of socio-ecological issues. It underscores the necessity of dismantling prevailing ideologies that normalize the exploitation of nature and perpetuate social inequalities. Rather than limiting education to the mere transmission of technical skills, ecopedagogy stresses the significance of activism, democratic participation, and critical consciousness. The educationalization of the Anthropocene is envisioned as a dialectical process that merges learning and praxis, aiming to nurture individuals capable of resisting dominant logics and constructing collective alternatives. This discourse is marked by a militant, transformative, and utopian tone, viewing education as a realm for cultural and political struggle rather than merely a tool of governance.
Therefore, the variation in these pedagogical discourses illustrates three distinct orientations in the educationalization of the Anthropocene. The first, represented by the OECD, promotes a managerial rationality that tends to neutralize the political dimension of ecological crises. The second, embodied by UNESCO, develops a hybrid form that oscillates between conciliatory pragmatism, the risk of depoliticization, and the potential for resistance. The third, advanced by ecopedagogy, embraces critical radicalism and seeks profound social and ecological transformation. This comparison highlights that the educationalization of the Anthropocene is not a homogeneous process but rather a field of discursive struggles. Critically reconstructing these discourses reveals that educationalizing the Anthropocene can serve as an instrument for reproducing existing logics, a space for pragmatic conciliation, or a site of resistance and transformation.
Conclusion
Pedagogical discourse, often influenced by socio-political contexts, represents a recontextualization of learning aimed at addressing the educational dimensions of the Anthropocene epoch. The discourses surrounding global competencies and ecopedagogy offer two distinct pathways for this recontextualization, integrated within the UNESCO framework. Active and critical pedagogy serve as the primary channels for addressing the educationalization of the socio-ecological crisis characteristic of the Anthropocene. From the OECD’s neoliberal perspective, the active pedagogy of global competence situates learning within the competitive framework of the global economy. By emphasizing practical skills such as adaptability and innovation, this approach prioritizes employability and individual performance, often at the expense of social and ecological considerations. On the other hand, critical pedagogy contributes to the ecopedagogical approaches of educationalizing the Anthropocene by embedding learning within ideological debates and emphasizing the transformative potential of education in effecting social change (Bourn, 2018). This transformation aligns with the praxis of taking action to liberate oneself from the social structures imposed by oppressive forces.
Navigating between the competing pedagogical discourses of the educationalization of the Anthropocene requires educators and policymakers to embrace the complexity and tension between sometimes contradictory logics. On one hand, the OECD framework, by emphasizing global competencies, focuses on adaptability, innovation, and employability, responding to the imperatives of competitiveness in the global economy. On the other hand, ecopedagogy, driven by critical pedagogy, calls for an awareness of inequalities, the questioning of oppressive structures, and social transformation in response to socio-ecological crises. UNESCO, by integrating these two approaches, illustrates the challenge of designing a curriculum that falls neither into the neoliberal instrumentalization of education nor into critical idealism (Du Preez, Simmonds and Le Grange, 2022). For curriculum designers, the challenge is to balance the demands of practical effectiveness with critical awareness. Global competencies can be leveraged as operational resources, but they must be integrated into educational frameworks that stimulate reflexivity, democratic deliberation, and collective action. This means, for example, that adaptability and innovation should not be valued solely for professional integration, but also for inventing sustainable and supportive ways of life. Likewise, the critical thinking promoted by ecopedagogy can be translated into learning sequences that expose students to the real dilemmas of ecological transitions, while also enabling them to develop practical skills for taking action. Politically, this requires acknowledging that the crisis of the Anthropocene is not only a technical or cognitive issue, but also a matter of justice, power, and values. Policymakers should therefore design educational policies that connect the logic of economic performance with that of social transformation, ensuring that education is not reduced to a mere tool for reproducing market interests. By embracing this tension instead of concealing it, it becomes possible to create curricula that prepare learners to navigate the contradictions of the contemporary world, while also opening space for educational practices capable of reconciling employability and emancipation, innovation and critique, globalization and socio-ecological justice.
The coexistence of diverse educational discourses concerning the educationalization of the Anthropocene highlights both risks and opportunities for the future of education. On the risk side, the global competence framework promoted by the OECD tends to limit educational ambition to a tool for enhancing global economic competitiveness. By emphasizing adaptability, innovation, and individual performance, this discourse risks reinforcing a neoliberal logic that marginalizes the imperatives of social and ecological justice. UNESCO’s hybrid discourse, while integrating a range of educational traditions, also carries a risk of depoliticization: in its quest to balance universal norms with local contexts, it may dilute the critical scope of socio-ecological issues and become a technical mechanism for managing education. However, these discourses also present opportunities. Despite its economic orientation, the OECD framework equips learners with practical skills to navigate uncertainty and global interdependence. UNESCO’s hybrid approach emphasizes intercultural dialogue, lifelong learning, and the recognition of situated knowledge, offering a pragmatic way to reconcile globalization and diversity. Furthermore, ecopedagogy, rooted in critical pedagogy, provides a space for resistance and transformation. By deconstructing dominant ideologies, it places social and ecological justice at the core of the educational project and encourages learners to become agents of change in their communities and beyond. Nevertheless, this approach is not devoid of risk, as it may result in the formation of abstract categories such as “oppressor” and “oppressed,” which can obstruct the learning process by introducing abstract jargon.
The diversity of these discourses indicates that the future of the educationalization of the Anthropocene will not center around a single model but rather in the tensions and negotiations among these competing orientations. This plurality reflects a profound reorientation: education is no longer merely a mechanism for transmitting skills or values but a field of political, ethical, and cultural struggle where the conditions for sustainability and emancipation are forged. The central challenge, then, is to employ this diversity to design curricula that not only prepare learners to adapt to anthropocenic crises but also empower them to problematize and transform the structures that produce those crises.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.