ISSN: 1130-3743 - e-ISSN: 2386-5660
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14201/teri.31881

WILD PEDAGOGIES: NEW CONCEPTIONS FOR RELATIONAL ONTOLOGY IN EDUCATION

Pedagogías salvajes: nuevas concepciones para una ontología relacional en educación

Judit ALONSO DEL CASAR
University of Salamanca. Spain.
judit_alonso@usal.es
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0485-3196

Date received: 21/02/2024
Date accepted: 17/07/2024
Online publication date: 01/01/2025

ABSTRACT

At first glance, the concept of “Wild Pedagogies” seems to be an oxymoron. Perhaps because in pedagogy we have inherited a certain preference for the cultivated, the planned, the civilised and the domesticated, it is not surprising that our perceptions conflict with the untamed or even the spontaneous, some of the attributes used to define the “wild” as a simile of what is also lacking in education. However, by narrowing down a total of six databases (Education Research Information Center (ERIC), Dialnet, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Scielo and ProQuest), links between pedagogy and wilderness were found to have recently been updated in Environmental Education through the concept of “Wild Pedagogies”. A form that emerges among the Social Science literature in English and that seeks to give prominence to other more-than-human voices in order to break with the stereotypes promoted by Western cultures and the status quo regarding the instrumentalisation of nature in times of predominantly anthropocentric paradigms. In doing so, its relational foundations prioritise less human-centred approaches and claim to give way to new ontologies in education. This paper is situated within the educational-environmental context that gives shelter and theoretical significance to the original term, as well as being a proposal for reflection for Theory of education as a bibliographical analysis that converges with the niche of reflections extracted from what were its six cornerstones until 2022: (#1) Co-Teaching; (#2) Complexity, the Unknown and Spontaneity; (#3) Locating the Wild; (#4) Time and Practice; (#5) Socio-Cultural Change; (#6) Building Partnerships and Human Community; and until 2024: (#7) Learning to Love, Care and Be Compassionate; and (#8) Expanding the Imagination.

Keywords: wild pedagogies; pedagogy; environmental education; wild; anthropocene; social sciences.

RESUMEN

El concepto de ‘Pedagogías salvajes’ parece un oxímoron a primera vista. Quizás porque en Pedagogía hemos heredado cierta preferencia por lo cultivado, lo planificado, lo civilizado y lo domesticado, no es de extrañar que nuestras percepciones entren en conflicto con lo indómito o incluso con lo espontáneo, que son algunos de los atributos con que hemos definido a lo “salvaje” como un símil de lo que también yace falto de educación. Sin embargo, acotando entre un total de seis bases de datos (Education Resourcer Information Center (ERIC), Dialnet, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Scielo y ProQuest), se pudo comprobar que los vínculos entre la Pedagogía y lo salvaje se han actualizado recientemente en Educación Ambiental a partir del concepto de “Wild Pedagogies”. Una forma que emerge entre la literatura de Ciencias Sociales en inglés y que busca dar protagonismo a otras voces más-que-humanas para romper así con los estereotipos que han sido promovidos por las culturas occidentales y el statu quo en cuanto a la instrumentalización de la naturaleza en tiempos de paradigmas con predominancia antropocéntrica. Con ello, sus bases relacionales priorizan enfoques menos centrados en el ser humano y dicen dar paso a nuevas ontologías en educación. Este trabajo se sitúa dentro de la contextura educativo-ambiental que le da cobijo y significación teórica al término originario, además de ser una propuesta de reflexión para la Teoría de la educación como un análisis bibliográfico que converge con el nicho de reflexiones que se extraen de las que son sus seis piedras angulares hasta el año 2022: (#1) Co-profesor; (#2) La complejidad, lo desconocido y la espontaneidad; (#3) Localización de lo salvaje; (#4) Tiempo y práctica; (#5) Cambio socio-cultural; (#6) Construyendo alianzas y Comunidad Humana; y hasta el año 2024: (#7) Aprender a amar, cuidar y ser compasivo; y (#8) Ampliar la imaginación.

Palabras clave: pedagogías salvajes; pedagogía; educación ambiental; salvaje; antropoceno; ciencias sociales.

1. INTRODUCTION

Education, and more specifically Pedagogy, have been tamed in excess. Even so, the possibility of one occurring without the other is a matter of perspective. The concept comes from the Latin “domāre”, which has several definitions and contexts. It is well known that the animal is subdued, tamed and made docile with premediated efforts to exercise and teach it; that passions and disorderly conducts are also subdued and repressed; that some material objects are even tamed to give them flexibility; and that when seeking to domesticate that someone –a human–, the goal is to moderate the harshness of their character (Real Academia Española, 2022).

Many things could therefore be subjected to the demands of another’s will. However, it is worth looking in detail at the relationship between the characteristics of the other more-than-human and what is believed should be transformed or tamed. Attributes and logic associated with members of the biotic community –with flora, wildlife, the earth on which we now walk upright and, ultimately, the natural world in general– are perceived as strange. They are a danger to the dominant will. The human, who subjects other forms of being to their own, seeks to humanise and end what they consider contrary to the use of their distinguished reason. Wild is therefore: (i) of a plant, if it grows without being cultivated; (ii) of an animal, if it is not domesticated or is ferocious; (iii) of land, if it is mountainous, rugged and uncultivated; (iv) of an attitude or situation, if it is not controlled or dominated; (v) primitive and uncivilised; (vi) lacking education or even external to social norms; (vii) cruel or inhumane (Real Academia Española, 2022). These circumstances urge us to analyse fundamental aspects of the “wild” in relation to Pedagogy as well as the fact that the term has long since acquired a reputation that is contrary to anything to do with humanity. For example: could Pedagogy be wild? Let’s fit our purpose into this question, while attempting of course to forge a path through the ways of doing and thinking of the wildest and most frenzied side of this science, if possible, without running the risk of going back to its prelogical moments at least. All of this will hint at the topic we are about to present: “Wild Pedagogies” which, translated into Spanish (“Pedagogías salvajes”), has no identity in Hispanic Social Science literature. This is a stark contrast with the situation of the term in Social Science literature in English, where it has recently been developing in line with knowledge of Environmental Education¹.

A certain distrust in the face of the untamed is not strange, especially when we know that many parts of Pedagogy would perish without control or systematisation. These include: the end of pedagogical action or the groove of intentionality, which leads us to a presentation of “Wild Pedagogies” that is challenging for the Theory of Education to say the least.

Wild Pedagogies² is an approach and a project subversively inspired in the world of “the wild”, recognising it as a source of knowledge and experience, as if it were a process of self-organisation capable of generating smart systems and organisms that remain under the restrictions of –and are components of– other wild systems of greater magnitude (Jickling et al., 2018b). Therefore, its roots lie in the phenomenological current and in subjective experience; this means that the first steps to understanding the reality of education are geared towards why the natural world should be given a new role in teaching-learning processes. Suggestive nuances for assessing other forms of relational ontology in education although, in our opinion, whether they are somewhat harmful for the gnoseological foundations of Pedagogy remains to be seen.

Here lies the true systemic axis that we must highlight as “key”: education and nature, because minds –like culture– mature with the earth (Paulsen et al., 2022). For this analysis, it is therefore a good idea to “let things be done” to see what happens with this family of “wild” pedagogical concepts emerging in new postmodern literature and which each seem to have a strategic function within their characteristic order. Expressed in this way and, perhaps, with a little perspective, we will begin by presenting the word “wilderness”, which dates back to the Old English word “wildoerness”. This leads to what today we know as “Wild”, semantically analysed as follows: “wil” linked to wild or will, “doer” to beast or animal and “ness” to place or quality (Foreman, 2014, cited in Jickling et al., 2018b). This starting point reveals the meaning that devotion to nature brings to this narrativity, making it necessary to add that Wild Pedagogies seek to renegotiate an insufficient and obsolete ecological message. To achieve this, its literature is impregnated with a certain sense of romance that challenges conventions, inviting humankind to imagine what escaping the Anthropocene era would mean for education.

‘Wild’ is the participle past of ‘to will’; a ‘wild’ horse is a ‘willed’ or self-willed horse, one that has been never tamed or taught to submit its will to the will of another; and so with a man (Trench, 1853, cited in Blenkinsop & Ford, 2018a, p. 311).

So, what does Social Science literature have to say about Wild Pedagogies theory? This question obviously suggests a priority challenge to obtain innovative results in the field of Pedagogy and Environmental Education in Spain. The overall objective is therefore to analyse the pedagogical and philosophical foundations of Wild Pedagogies theory. A series of specific objectives (SO) have been defined to respond to the primary purpose: (SO1) differentiate between the role assigned to the educator and the student in Wild Pedagogies theory; (SO2) analyse the practical and ethical implications of Wild Pedagogies theory; (SO3) identify geographic and ecological factors used as a basis for Wild Pedagogies theory; (SO4) study the conceptions of the teaching-learning process proposed by Wild Pedagogies theory; (SO5) explore the educational objectives of Wild Pedagogies theory; and (SO6) identify the educational assessment conceptions that support Wild Pedagogies theory.

2. NARRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW WITH CERTAIN SYSTEMIC INFLUENCE

At the expense of a fuller understanding of what Wild Pedagogies means, the need to conduct a Narrative Literature Review to analyse a specific and representative sample of documents was diagnosed. Six potentially relevant Social Science databases were used to search for this output: Education Resourcer Information Center (ERIC), Dialnet, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Scielo and ProQuest. A total of 890 documents were initially obtained in 2022, later reduced to 310 after excluding duplicates. Preliminary mapping eligibility criteria were applied to these 310 documents³, thus leaving a total of 114 documents. A second eligibility criteria filter was added to these initial “pilot” results, the specific criteria of this narrative review. Continuing with the proposed structure, the aim was to perfect the selection strategy so as to identify documents that: i) included some or all of the following terms in the title, abstract and/or keywords referring to the conceptual unit of the object of study: “Wild Pedagogy”, “Wild Pedagogies”, “Pedagogía salvaje”, “Pedagogías salvajes”, “Wild” + “Pedagogy”, “Wild” + “Pedagogies”, “Pedagogía” + “salvaje”, “Pedagogías” + “salvajes”; ii) were accessible to the researcher; and, iii) had a sound theoretical framework based on Wild Pedagogies theory. Texts meeting these conditions up to 2022 amounted to a total of 38 results. However, the time eligibility criterion was later updated to 2024 and added to the previous batch, giving a total of 9 final results (see Figure 1).

3. WHAT WILD PEDAGOGIES SAYS AND ADDS

In order to identify possible emerging themes related with the core topic and meet the pre-established objectives, this section is sorted according to Wild Pedagogies cornerstones and/or touchstones⁴, which total eight up to 2024.

3.1. Stone #1 – Co-teacher (SO1)

The human teacher’s will has traditionally dominated the pedagogical scene, a conception that would not change until well into the 20th century (Quay & Jensen, 2018). An education model based on the student –also human– was first mentioned from this moment on and is still valid today (Ketlhoilwe & Velempini, 2021; Quay & Jensen, 2018; Quay, 2021). Based on these understandings, the answer to purpose number one is essential. Although various dualisms cloud our perception of the world, we are facing the conflict between the role of the subject and object, of humans and non-humans. Once the concept of “nature as Co-teacher” was proposed (Blenkinsop & Ford, 2018a; Green & Dyment, 2018; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020b; Jickling & Morse, 2022; Jickling et al., 2018b; Quay & Jensen, 2018; Winks & Warwick, 2021), the solution offered by Wild Pedagogies was discovered to end the androgenic trend to objectify or personify any being, entity or “matter” found behind the pedagogical process of “teaching”. In the field of anthropomorphism, Dewey explained that the child is the experimenter, “who” experiences education as the “subject”, while knowledge and curricular skills are the “what” [is learned or taught] as the “object” of that “subject” (Dewey, 1913, cited in Quay, 2021).

In view of our mission, the problem is that non-humans or, if preferred, more-than-humans, are objectified by education policy and practices in the curriculum (Matsagopane, 2024). It is even said that objects –mistakenly considered as natural– are introduced in the classroom as part of –and in part because of– Environmental Education in a dangerously reductionist way. This could be justified with the term referred to by Quay (2021) as “anthropomorphic reasoning” (p. 10). Conveying that the task of rethinking the role of all agents involved in the teaching-learning process will be in vain unless we endeavour to simultaneously and interconnectedly develop new ways of thinking Environmental Education Theory (Blenkinsop & Ford, 2018b); then will the relational, the critical and the existential dimension become forces that challenge and foster the revolution we so need. A change that will start to take shape when: (i) the human teacher actively takes a step back (Willis et al., 2024); and (ii) allows more-than-human beings to communicate with them and with the students. Something that, in the words of philosopher Nӕss (1989), would be an invitation to open up our “ecological self”.

Due to the line that marked the character of this point, we can confirm that when Wild Pedagogies conceives nature as a Co-teacher, what it is trying to say is that it takes centre stage in the teaching-learning process, leading not only to a decentralisation of roles and duties for the human teacher and students, but also abruptly introducing an ecocentric perspective (Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020b; Jickling et al., 2018b; Kuchta, 2022; Nerland & Aadland, 2022; Quay, 2021). From this viewpoint, students need the help of a guide (the human teacher) to imagine and pseudo-experience new ways of being in the natural world (with the more-than-human teacher), without forgetting that it is the human teacher who implements their own activism as an example of their Wild Pedagogy (Jickling et al., 2018b; Kuchta, 2022). These ideas will inevitably raise issues such as the question posed by Quay (2021) in relation to renegotiating roles: “How can decentering of humans occur in education, without at the same time denying humans?” (p. 8).

3.2. Stone #2 – Complexity, the Unknown and Spontaneity (SO2)

Ecological concerns raised by posthumanism and new materialisms are complex, affecting present and future generations. Likewise, the practical and ethical implications of Wild Pedagogies in childhood and even having already proven its effectiveness with this name at university levels (Krigstin et al., 2023) are in line with reflecting the post-human shift (Jickling et al., 2018b; Maistry et al., 2023; Paulsen et al., 2022; Pierce & Telford, 2023). Highlighting some critical points in the proposals by Paulsen et al. (2022) can respond to the second purpose of this analysis:

Within this post-humanist approach, scientific and environmental educators have adopted the concerns of Donna Haraway, among others, about when species meet or what happens with companion species (Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a; Morse et al., 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022).

In their conceptions of education, they incorporate agential realism ideas from the philosophy of Karen Barad and her diffractive methodology (Paulsen et al., 2022). A connection that becomes evident in the way Wild Pedagogies constantly allude to restructuring the image of nature as Co-teacher so as to create different relationships between us, and a world that is not independent of our experience (Smit & Veerbeek, 2023), such that Wild Pedagogies identifies with other ecocentric pedagogies like Friluftsliv⁵. While the environment is at the core of Friluftsliv pedagogy, it is striking that this pedagogy has recently been recognised as if it were part of Wild Pedagogies, or vice versa, that Wild Pedagogies is an integral part of Friluftsliv pedagogies. In fact, Friluftsliv has stated the following: “we believe we share this ecocentric perspective with Wild Pedagogies, among others through the ‘nature as a Co-teacher’ touchstone” (Nerland & Aadland, 2022, p. 121).

The influence of new materialism rhetoric about material aspects of the world is evident in literature on Wild Pedagogies, as we indirectly anticipated earlier. A Wild Pedagogies approach to poetic narrative also known as “prosopopoeia” (Quay, 2021); the human form of giving voice to the more-than-human; without forgetting that, even though we will never be able to convert, speak or think for the natural other, we can and must learn to speak and think about the problems we cause to all the living systems around us.

New “neoqualitative” educational research methods are emerging (Paulsen et al., 2022, p. 154) in the place of traditional “post-qualitative methods”. An important nuance attributed to Paulsen et al. (2022), who also mention that this phenomenological human experience is overdetermined by our intersystematicity with the more-than-human other. Our review can confirm that Wild Pedagogies seek a kind of “wilding of research” (Jickling & Morse, 2022, p. 32). With no evidence to contrast these forms of “neoqualitative” research, as well as the absence of a clear differentiation between the possible methods to which the concept refers and based on our review, we suggest that Lyrical Philosophy, Pinhole Photography and the delight of Poetry or Poetic Narrative, due to their divergence, be the reflection of the “neo” research methods they promote.

It is possible to attribute some affective theories of new materialism to Karin Hultman, Hillevi Lenz Taguchi and Simon Ceder since they have also influenced their narrative (Beeman, 2021; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a, 2020b; Morse et al., 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022). Likewise, various authors indirectly reinforce these ideas, linking them with childhood and the background of what is known in Wild Pedagogies as Aesthetic Learning Processes (ALP and/or ALPs) (Paulsen et al., 2022; Hughes, 2023). And taking as an example the concept of mimesis developed by Danish existential phenomenologist Mogens Pahuus (1988, cited in Paulsen et al., 2022), we highlight the way in which Edlev (2009, cited in Paulsen et al., 2022) refers to the imperfect imitation of material and sensitive things for the child’s environmental education.

This is therefore a complex project that invites us to an exercise of introspection towards the unknown, towards other states of Pedagogy with the natural world. This innovation refers to a specific level of alteration, i.e., to a “disruptive innovation” (Aikens, 2021; Ketlhoilwe & Velempini, 2021). Agential disorders that challenge our Western pedagogical thoughts. What’s more, some who follow Foucauldian themes have already tried to cite Wild Pedagogies to refer to somatic multiplicities and the neurobiologised educational subject (Reveley, 2024).

3.3. Stone #3 – Locating the Wild (SO3)

In 1997, American philosopher Edward S Cassey proposed that place is an immediate environment surrounding the body, which must in no way be confused with space. Thus, he reaffirmed that places are carriers of memories, narratives and emotions, which in some way warns that these places can greatly affect the psychological well-being of the Homo genus (Green & Dyment, 2018; Petersen, 2021). Some have also recently postulated that the environment is made up of two essential elements: natural, more-than-human places and built spaces, both urban and rural (Morse et al., 2021b). Quotes that are very close to the approaches that point towards the possibility of building an updated, “wild” Pedagogy among –and not only on– the natural space.

A clear example of these pedagogical adaptations to the place-world relationship is proposed by David Greenwood, promoter of place-based education, whose words are added to this analysis to shed truth on our presentation. “The placial and bodily aspects of memory invite a phenomenological description of ‘embodied implacement’, and phenomenology becomes an exploration of the body in built and wild places. Human experience, then, is the ongoing journey between places” (Cruz-Pieere & Landes, 2013, cited in Petersen, 2021, p. 50). In line with this particular aspect, Wild Pedagogies literature forges work where the place as an entity occupies a distinctive and even, one might say, central value. For this reason, many ideas by Cassey or Greenwood can be found between the lines (Aikens, 2021; Blenkinsop & Ford, 2018b; Green, 2022; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a, 2020b; Jickling et al., 2018b; Jickling, 2015; Morse et al., 2018a, 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022; Petersen, 2021).

In response to objective three, the epistemic hypothesis assumed by Wild Pedagogies about place and worlds shown as ecosystems makes its conception of the teaching-learning process somewhat more than purely experiential (Jickling et al., 2023b). This is where an important feature is reflected that separates this approach from others that are apparently similar, without denying how they may have been influenced by other alternative movements. In fact, the idea to be conveyed is that Wild Pedagogies present theses that challenge what to date has been an exclusive argument of community-based education, place-based education, ecological identity, Outdoor Education, Environmental Education and even Experiential Education. In this regard, and while still proposing something new and fascinating, it reminds us of familiar methodologies and approaches (Henderson, 2018; Winks, 2020). Something like: “The juncture between the old and the new – an intergenerational call to attentiveness, connection and action. A blending of philosophies, but a more urgent and decisive call” (Winks, 2020, p. 1). Its name evidently encompasses different renewed pedagogical formulas and it has a certain degree of common ground with other predecessor movements (Morse et al., 2021b). Some of them, which first emerged in the 1990s, suggested the importance of connecting education with the natural place, as maintained today by Wild Pedagogies.

However, to ascertain the difference brought by the nuance of the wild in this case, we must begin by travelling between these places “with a critical eye” (Jickling et al., 2018b, p. 43). Wild Pedagogies thus acknowledges that, despite not being what we might anticipate, wild places are present near our homes, in urban areas and even industrial areas (Hempsall, 2022; Jickling & Blekinsop, 2020a, 2020b; Jørgensen-Vittersø et al., 2022; Morse et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022). A statement that has been corroborated in multiple papers; among their most notable characteristics we find that they are neither distant (Morse et al., 2021b), uninhabited and/or deserted (Jickling et al., 2018b), nor are they intact/virgin or out of our reach (Richey, 2022). In fact, authors such as Morse et al. (2021b) suggest that, regardless of their form, they are all among us at all times. Based on such considerations, we can extrapolate to the case of places in ruins, recently recognised by Schmidt (2022) as a “type” of wild place. This last contribution proves how Wild Pedagogies embraces the beauty of wild nature in a realistic way, moving away from the stereotypical profile given to the aesthetics of the environment in the Anthropocene era (Petz, 2022).

This leads us to the underlying argument that traditional education prefers safe places, those that prioritise predictability even when this means limiting students’ pedagogical exploration. Something that often idealises and distorts learning processes as it aims to exclude wild places –more-than-human places– from education simply because they are wrongly associated with dangerous places (Beeman, 2021; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a; Jickling et al., 2018b; Medeiros, 2022; Morse et al., 2021a).

3.4. Stone #4 – Time and Practice (SO4)

In truth, pedagogical activity and nature are codependent (Nerland & Aadland, 2022). When analysed together or even separately, Pedagogy and nature are two complex realities (Green & Dyment, 2018), so much so that we seldom consider all possible manifestations of nature. Paulsen et al. (2022), point out that nature exists in its material form –that we inhabit– and in its ideal form –that inhabits our thoughts–, and that both deserve exploration. So, the following was assessed: if we are going to take a step towards wild learning in nature, where other more-than-humans have a place in our conversations, then where and how we have them is extremely important (Jickling et al., 2018b; Morse et al., 2018a, 2018b). Before progressing, it is vital to reflect on some ideas chosen as “key” to respond to purpose four. Firstly, everything flourishes happily and wildly in more-than-human places and worlds where “wild education” and “wild learning” can be set up as processes of natural growth and maturing. From then: