Given this need to deconstruct imaginaries and paradigms toward sustainability transitions, the role of education to enable people to live together in a sustainable way has been widely recognized. For instance, Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992) referred to education as “critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behavior consistent with sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision‐making” (UNCED 1992, ch. 36.3). In the same vein UNESCO (2005), emphasizes that the fundamental aim of education from sustainability principles is to teach students “how to make decisions that consider the long‐term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities” (p. 17).
However, education is arguably contributing to unsustainable living. Education is not providing learners with enough opportunities to question their own lifestyles and the structures that allow and promote unsustainable living, since educational institutions form part of those structures (Tilbury 2011; UNECE 2012). In particular, higher education institutions are failing to provide the forum for reflection, discussion, and action that enables learners to handle sustainability challenges (Foster 2001). As Wals and Jickling (2002) argue, higher education institutions hold the “responsibility to continuously challenge and critique value and knowledge claims that have prescriptive tendencies” (p. 221). Nevertheless, the dominant paradigm of education, embedded in a neoliberal ideology, encourages a type of knowledge that allows neoliberal1 tenets to be internalized into the self‐concept of students (Mitchell 2003; Foucault 2008). Therefore, little room is left for more critical, transgressive, and imaginative learning approaches capable of embracing alternative ways to define and organize social reproduction. This is the case of assumptions underlying the prevailing economic paradigm (e.g. the faith in infinite growth; the dominance of market mechanisms; the subservience to private capital) (Kothari et al. 2014; Feola 2020). As Orr (1990, p. 238) claims, more education of the same type, that “emphasizes theories, not values; abstraction rather than consciousness; neat answers instead of questions; and technical efficiency over conscience,” will aggravate our socioecological problems.
Thus, shifting educational paradigms is paramount and yet challenging, given the dynamic and complex nature of systemic socioecological problems. These problems are poorly defined and typically involve conflicting framings on their causes and solutions; consequently, there is no innovative and permanent response to solve them (Blok et al. 2016). A clear illustration of such complexity is the controversial meanings associated with the idea of “sustainability.” Hopwood et al. (2005) mapped the existing approaches to the sustainability debate, with very different worldviews and perceptions of the changes that are necessary to “achieve the goal” of sustainability. Some (dominant) views consider that a few adjustments within the present structures are sufficient; instead, others assume that those structures are at the very roots of the current socioecological crisis and, therefore, a substantial mind shift is required to deal with them (Göpel 2016).
Ultimately, the variety of worldviews coexisting in societies enlightens the fact that education is neither political nor morally neutral, and that it can serve different purposes, as stressed by critical pedagogists. From their perspective, education is always situated in a cultural context and it should integrate theory, reflection, and action to work toward social change (Gruenewald 2003). In this sense, they consider that a flexible and critical spirit would be a skill especially needed by societies in transition to highlight the contradictions between the ways of being, understanding, and behaving (see a seminal work on critical pedagogy by Freire 1974). Barnett (2004, p. 252) is adamant in this respect: “If there are no stable descriptions of the world, then there are no stable descriptions of ‘me’. The ‘I’ is liable to be destabilized.” Therefore, education as learning to live together in a sustainable way would involve questioning the assumed categories to describe our world. This exercise includes our understanding of who we are, how we relate to everything around us, and what we should do about it (Barnett 2004; Ehrenfeld and Hoffman 2013).
In sum, education for sustainability is both a moral and a political or civic endeavor, which implies opening spaces for learning to transform ourselves and to transform our society (i.e. spaces for free participation, consensus and disagreement, pluralism and self‐determination [Wals 2010]). It is noteworthy that this transformative approach underlines the educational pillars of “learning for being” and “learning to live together,” traditionally less prominent than those of (individually) “learning to know” and “learning to do.” These components define the well‐known framework of education developed by Delors (1998). An additional one was included afterwards by UNESCO (2008): “learning to transform oneself and society.” This pillar integrates and provides direction to the others, as it emphasizes knowledge, values, and skills for self‐reflection as well as for imagining futures, responsible lifestyles, adaptability, and active citizenship. In this sense, what Mustakova‐Possardt (2004) describes as mature moral consciousness becomes key to addressing the present socioecological challenges: “a way of being, an optimal path of human development, which exhibits a wholesome engagement with meaning and positive change in one's social world” (p. 246).
From this rationale, we argue that we propose virtue ethics, as a fruitful approach to ground the development of moral and political dimensions of socioecological problems from a social transformative paradigm of education. Virtue ethics promotes the acquisition of virtuous ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. Ultimately, it helps to develop a virtuous way of seeing the world in so much as it is not primarily focused on individual duty and utility, but rather on excellence of character for the common good (MacIntyre 2007; De Ruyter and Steutel 2013; Carr et al. 2017). Inspired by the Aristotelian approach to virtues, we contend that virtue tradition provides a particularly appropriate framework to learn to be in the world when dealing with the systemic complexity and changing nature of current socioecological challenges.
In what follows, we first provide a brief background for a paradigm shift in (higher) education focused on transforming our beings to live together in a sustainable way. Second, we offer arguments to uphold our view that the Aristotelian approach to virtue ethics may help to nurture both the moral and political dimension of achieving that transformative purpose. Then, we provide some illustrations of how training the virtue of practical wisdom in the classroom might look like. We conclude this chapter with some final remarks on the challenges that we might face when educating from virtues on sustainability.
4.2 A Call for a Different Paradigm of Education: From Reproducing Systems to Transforming Ourselves and Society
Education for sustainability (ES hereafter) aims at bringing innovative responses for a long‐term future of the economy, ecology, and equity of all communities, as mentioned in Section 4.1. Nevertheless, how to develop that goal is controversial. The debate can be structured around two main paradigms: the dominant transmissive and instrumental view of education; and the transformative and emancipatory paradigm (Foster 2001; Wals and Jickling 2002).
The transmissive and instrumental approach of education is focused on changing learners' behaviors; hence it implies a predetermined direction. Oriented to the promotion of certain ways of thinking and acting, it is built over a specific assumption: that learning occurs by mainly accumulating knowledge that is coherent with predetermined behavioral outcomes shaped by the requirements of market economies (Foster 2001; Vare and Scott 2007; Wals 2011). However, the complex, systemic and dynamic nature of sustainability challenges is marked by the diversity of views about the definition of the problems, which are intermingled with the definition of solutions, as clearly illustrated by the case of the climate crisis. Thus, the critical view of this approach resists an articulation of education that depicts sustainability as an “undisputed product” (Wals and Jickling 2002, p. 222), a linear mechanism that can be specified in advance by inducing the appropriate cognitive, conative, and affective skills (Gough and Scott 2003; Sipos et al. 2008).
