Build critical thinking, not resentment

The urgency of the ecological crisis is spurring more teachers to integrate environmental content into their lessons. In upper elementary and middle school, resource depletion a common topic given that concepts of renewable- and non-renewable resources likely appear in standards. To make these ideas concrete and relevant, teachers may frame learning around the topic of consumption: where our “stuff” comes from, who made it, and the social/ecological impacts.

The truth around consumption is often dire: pollution, child labor . . . the list goes on. But how do we present this to children as young as ten? Do we hit them over the head with the data in the hopes they will be outraged into action? The shock value will certainly grab students’ attention, but a litany of negativity can leave them feeling hopeless and even resentful since many of their favorite things (e.g., electronics, clothing, and toys) may be produced in unsustainability and unethical ways.

So what’s the solution? How can you be honest with students while also strengthening hope and agency? Let me share two strategies I’ve used with hundreds of teachers through my courses: 1) systems thinking and 2) critical analysis.

What is systems thinking?

Broadly defined, systems thinking is the ability to analyze issues in terms of connections and interdependencies. It’s about seeing wholeness and relationships, i.e., cause-effect; and connections across time, place, and scale. For example, students should be able to identify the source of a product’s components and identify what happens to it when it’s discarded (recycling? reuse?). By understanding these connections, students are better able to assess their choices and why they matter—the critical analysis piece. Then, by knowing what’s at stake, students are motivated to uncover more connections. (This positive feedback loop is it itself an example of systems thinking.)

Here are some basic approaches (which also serve as reflection opportunities for ourselves):

1. Have students consider what influences their consumption decisions. Are the shoes a real need, or a want? Do they provide status? Were they on sale? Becoming aware of why acquire items is the first step in considering alternatives.

2. Encourage students to evaluate the trade-offs made by their choices: Is the money and time spent to acquire and maintain an item as valuable as the satisfaction gained from it?

3. Introduce the concept of costs and benefits by having students consider both the pleasure derived from an item and the potential problems caused by its manufacture and disposal.

Avoiding simplistic explanations

In discussing impacts, avoid simplistic statements that paint businesses, workers, or consumers as “bad.” Intead, turn to a systems approach: Help students understand that companies and individuals are actors in a larger economic system. Multipe factors—many beyond our control—influence our choices, policies, and the possibilities for change. As appropriate, introduce the idea that adequate laws to protect workers and the environment may not always exist, or aren’t enforced. This moves students beyond individual blaming to considering the constellation of larger forces.

To illustrate this, here are a few examples of contrasting explanations for three topics: resource use, extractive industries, and inappropriate/illegal child labor.

Resource use:

• Simplisitc thinking: People should stop using resources. (Note that this is not only simplistic, it’s also impossible because every being is interdependent with the natural world. To suggest otherwise reinforces the message of human-environmental separateness.)

• Systems thinking: We are all part of the environment and are interdependent with the environment. Like all beings, humans use natural materials. However, we need to do so in a way that ensures sustainability/regeneration.

Extractive industries (e.g., mining and logging):

• Simplistic thinking: Miners and loggers are bad people ruining the environment. We should stop all logging and mining. All corporations are greedy. Money is bad; the environment is good.

• Systems thinking: Miners and loggers are people who work hard to support their families and provide us with things we need. These industries have historically defined communities, with jobs passed on for generactions. Workers often can’t control how their work is done. Typically, the company they work for makes the decisions.

Companies go into business to make a profit, and competing to make the most is basic “rule” of the economy. The logic of this system rewards companies that find ways to save money—perhaps by cutting corners on safety or environmental concerns.

While regulations and laws are in place to avoid problems, inadequate rules or lack of enforcement contributes to environmental- and health problems.

Child labor:

• Simplistic thinking: Child slaves took your computer apart. The parents of child workers are bad and must not love their children. Foreign countries with child labor are backwards, unlike Western cultures

• Systems thinking: Used electronics are often shipped to other countries, where they are taken apart by people who may not have proper safety equipment. These workers may not have the right to speak up or demand better conditions. These workers can include children.

Children work to help support the family, often because there are few schools, school is too expensive, and/or because companies will not hire adults. Laws to protect children and workers may not be in place and if laws exist, they may not be followed or enforced.

Abusive child labor was practiced in the US and other places in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The labor movement and collective civic action ended this practice.

Then what?

Through the systems perspective, students come to understand multiple dimensions of consumption. They also learn that all of us—workers, businesses, consumers, and citizens—have a role in shaping sound policies and practices. The is the platform for effective and age-appropriate action projects. Here are a few examples of changes students can make:

• Research and contact companies to learn more about production methods and asking for changes as appropriate.

• Change procurement within the school, such as getting Fair Trade coffee for the teachers’ lounge.

• Call out the pressure to gain status through certain clothes and shoes; change the school culture to respect students’ individuality and the choices they want or need to make.

Want more ideas? Check out my book, which offers a thorough approach to teaching through a sustainability lens.