I will conclude the research question: How do environmental narratives from home and (pre-) school shape children’s environmental knowledge at an early age in Nepal, and to what extent does the education system integrate local environmental knowledge in the teaching? The findings and analysis of this thesis reveal that environmental narratives shape children’s environmental knowledge at an early age by telling a story of a simple relationship between humans and nature. How nature and actors are framed teaches the children about the nature of nature, and also about what environmental knowledge is, and who has this knowledge. This is productive power – it contributes to shaping children’s identity formation, and also power relations in society. The narratives are produced and reproduced in productive practices, on a micro-level in everyday life, and they are supported by larger discourses. They make
preconditions for certain actions, which again support the narratives. However, the narratives are in flux and are challenged and changing. The education system’s teaching about the environment is based upon western science. Local people´s environmental knowledge may be a part of the local curriculum in social studies, but according to the interviewees it does not seem to play a central role. This may be due to practical knowledge being less valued than theoretical knowledge, and local environmental knowledge may not be so easily translated into the terminology of the schools.
Two narratives emerged from the collected data, a traditionalist narrative and a scientific narrative. The traditionalist narrative has the following premises: humans are dependent upon an environment that is inseparable from divine forces that cause fortune and misfortune; and there is a natural order to everything, which includes a social hierarchy in society – where some have stronger power to mediate between humans and gods. Environmental knowledge means to maintain consistent communication with the gods, such as worshiping and rituals.
The conclusion of the traditionalist narrative associates satisfied gods with a desired outcome – such as good crops, rain and absence of calamities. On the other hand, if the gods are not satisfied, they may cause calamities, crop failure and illness. The traditionalist narrative resembles the discourse on fatalism, where the circumstances in people’s lives are fated by divine forces. Humans’ main means of altering outcomes are to pray to these divine forces.
The scientific narrative has the following premises – Nepal is an undeveloped country, where population growth leads to increased pressure on nature. Agriculture and forestry is not
economically efficient or environmentally friendly, in urban areas people are not aware – which means their behaviour is not environmentally friendly. Environmental knowledge is understood in terms of western science, and the schools should teach the children scientific knowledge. The scientific narrative concludes that through scientific knowledge
environmental problems can be solved, and when children learn about this at school they will take more responsibility for the environment in the future.
The scientific narrative resembles three discourses. The Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation THED is a crisis narrative that describes a situation where population growth in the Himalayas leads to a downward spiral of environmental degradation. Ecological
modernisation sees environmental degradation as inefficient, and science and technology as solutions that solve this problem. The scientific narrative can be understood as a part of the Global Architecture of Education discourse, where western science has a hegemonic position in global education and is seen as the way to development. These findings show that two main narratives emerge from the collected data, and these fit into a larger picture of already
established discourses and narratives.
The narratives have productive power, and contribute to shape children’s perception of nature and actors. Nature is framed differently in the two narratives; a central point is that they represent different ontologies. Nature in the traditionalist narrative is based upon animist ontologies, while nature in the scientific narrative is based upon a naturalist ontology.
In the traditionalist narrative people´s relation to nature is based on communication, nature has both interior qualities and agency. In the scientific narrative people´s relation to nature is based upon a divide between mind and matter. Nature does not have interior qualities as humans do. This results in an instrumental rationality and opens up for utilisation of the environment. Nature is framed both as a valuable commodity, and as a victim that needs protection from environmental degradation caused by humans.
The two narratives frame actors differently. The traditionalist narrative empowers those who have high status in the social hierarchy based upon religious standards. Outcomes can be altered through sacrifices, and those most likely to have success in their communication with the divine are Brahmin priests. These are the heroes in the narrative. Further, the Buddhist Lama and Jhankri (Shaman) also have special positions. Local people that have a lower status in the social hierarchy are either victims of the god´s wrath, villains that disobey, or heroes as
heroes, and thus empowers experts, scientists, and educated people. These people have the means to make a change. Local people and farmers are framed as villains that contribute to environmental degradation, and at the same time they are also victims of their own
unsustainable practices. The scientific narrative disempowers local people and farmers, and the knowledge local people have about their environment is marginalised.
The productive power implies that narratives shape the children´s knowledge about “the nature of nature” – what nature is. The two narratives represent different ontologies, and thus children´s environmental knowledge is shaped in accordance with different rationalities.
The productive powers also relate to power relations in society by describing who has knowledge about nature and differentiating between people. The traditionalist narrative supports the traditional hierarchy in society, while the scientific narrative empowers people that have scientific knowledge. Farmers and local people are disempowered, neither of the two narratives value local people´s environmental knowledge. How the narratives frame nature and actors contributes to the children’s identity construction - their understanding of who they are and of their fundamental defining characteristics as a human being. When their parents and local community´s knowledge is not recognised in formal education, it creates a gap between school and home. This has negative effects on children´s learning, self esteem, and distances them from their reality. Thus, this marginalisation of local people´s
environmental knowledge undermines education for rural transformation.
In relation to power beyond the narratives, the collected data also indicates that power is dispersed rather than imposed by certain actors. Both narratives are produced and reproduced on a micro level when children interact with others in their family, local community or at school. However, some actors have more social and productive power than others. Actors that gain from the traditionalist narrative belong to the upper part of the social hierarchy. The interviewees do not recognise these actors as producing the narrative. Rather, it is the cultural embeddedness of the narrative that leads people to produce and reproduce statements that are in accordance with the traditionalist narrative. The actors who support the scientific narrative come from national and international education systems, and they are entangled with other actors on national and international levels with interests in environment and development discourses. The scientific narrative is supported by other discourses, especially the global architecture of education. As part of larger discourses, the narratives make preconditions for actions by enabling some actions and marginalising others.
In the traditionalist narrative the desired outcome is keeping the status quo. The required actions are ritual practices to keep gods satisfied. The traditionalist narrative explains social hierarchy as fated, thus changes in society as an approach to solving environmental problems is marginalised. Scientific knowledge is also excluded as an explanation factor on
environmental issues. The traditionalist narrative does not make preconditions for
development and modernisation. The scientific narrative makes preconditions for a different range of actions such as: modern education for rural development, a positivist position towards environmental knowledge through natural sciences, commercial utilisation of nature and conservation practices. Local people´s knowledge is marginalised in favour of external experts, and this opens up for external interventions in environmental issues. The scientific narrative distinguishes between educated and uneducated people, and between those who are developed and undeveloped, and thus lays preconditions for a social divide. Local people´s environmental knowledge about the environment is marginalised in both narratives, and neither of them put political questions on the agenda.
Discourse is always in flux, and the collected data provides examples on how the narratives are challenged and changed. One example is that teachers bridge local knowledge with science. They may include local practices in their teachings and give a scientific explanation for why they are beneficial. Another example is that the curriculum opens up to include local knowledge in the teaching as part of the subject social science. Even if interviewees told that few schools did, I found that Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) had seized this opportunity and made schoolbooks that included indigenous peoples
environmental knowledge. The findings indicate change on different levels – both on micro level and macro level. One challenge to including local environmental knowledge in formal education is that people do not associate education with their daily lives, and do not request inclusion. An inclusion of practical knowledge in formal education requires a change in what people value as good education for their children. Another challenge to including local knowledge is that it is based upon another worldview, and further neither the traditionalist narrative nor the scientific values what local people know. However, times are changing and since the peace agreement in 2006 social movements of marginalised groups have claimed recognition of their identity. Education has played a critical role in producing social and political change. This may lead to counter narratives to both existing narratives, and also result in local people´s knowledge about the environment being valued in the formal
These findings are relevant for the field of political ecology because it explains how a social factor affects environmental issues. Specifically they show that the way environmental knowledge is formed in early years strongly influence how people relate to nature, as it lays the foundation for people´s understanding of what nature is and people´s relation to nature.
Existing research within political ecology has investigated how narratives affect
environmental issues by influencing public opinion and policymaking, but the importance of environmental education during children´s formative years has been ignored. These narratives also have implications for power relations in societies by defining who have knowledge: those that have knowledge are included in decision making while those who do not are
marginalised.
When people become aware of how influential environmental narratives are the may
recognise a need to challenge and change these narratives. This is an important step in order to find alternatives to blueprint solutions. As narratives change and enables recognition of other knowledges of the environment. This change may influence power relations and lay preconditions for a different set of actions where marginalised people are included in environmental policies on more equal premises.
Bibliography
Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K., & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses. Development and Change, 32, 681-715.
Adhikari, B. B. (2005). Socio-cultural Life of Dura: A Sociological Case Study From Khaje Gaun, Lamjung. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 1, 220-237.
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge.
Development and Change, 26, 413-439.
Andersen, H. P., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2002). Lærerstudenters myter om befolkning og miljø. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 56(1), 41-43.
April 2015 Nepal earthquake. (2015). In Wikipedia. Retrieved 15.05.2015 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2015_Nepal_earthquake
Bantawa, K. R., Jha, A. K., & Timothy, C. (2012). Ekta Integrated Science: Healt & Physical Education Book 3. Kathmandu: Ekta Books Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
Benjaminsen, T. A., & Svarstad, H. (2008). Understanding traditionalist opposition to modernization: Narrative production in a Norwegian mountain conflict. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 90(1), 49-62.
Bennike, R. B. (2015). Textbook difference: Spatial history and national education in Panchayat and present-day Nepal. The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 52(1), 53-78.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
Bhandari, B. B., & Abe, O. (Eds.). (2003). Education for Sustainable Development in Nepal:
Views and Visions. Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
Bharucha, R. (2003). Rajasthan an oral history Conversations with Komal Kothari. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Bista, D. B. (1991). Fatalism and development : Nepal's struggle for modernization. London:
Sangam Books.
Blaikie, P. M. (1995). Changing Environments or Changing Views? A Political Ecology for Developing Countries. Geography, 80(3), 203-214.
Blaikie, P. M., & Muldavin, J. S. S. (2004). Upstream, Downstream, China, India: The Politics of Environment in the Himalayan Region. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(3), 520-548.
Blaser, M. (2013). Ontological Conflicts and the Stories of Peoples in Spite of Europe Towards a Conversation on Political Ontology. Current Anthropology, 54(5), 547-568.
Breidlid, A. (2013). Education, Indigenous Knowledges and Development in the Global South. New York: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Buttel, F. H. (2000). Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum, 31, 57-65.
Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2007). Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Competing Discourses of Green Governmentality, Ecological Modernization and Civic
Environmentalism. In M. E. Pettenger (Ed.), The social construction of climate change : power, knowledge, norms, discourses. . Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Campbell, B. (2004). Indigenous views on the terms of participation in the development of biodiversity conservation in Nepal. In A. Bicker, P. Sillitoe and J. Pottier (Eds.), Investigating local knowledge: new directions, new approaches (pp. 149-168).
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Campbell, B. (2013). Living between juniper and palm : nature, culture, and power in the Himalayas. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Carm, E. (2014). Inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) - A Precondition for Sustainable Development and an Integral Part of Environmental Studies. Journal of Education and Research, 4(1), 58-76.
Castree, N. (2013). Making sense of nature. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Chapple, C. K., & Tucker, M. E. (Eds.). (2000). Hinduism and Ecology The Intersection of Earth, Sky and Water. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. Chicago ; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Dumont, L. (1980). Homo Hierarchicus The Caste System and Its Implications (Complete rev. English ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Eckholm, E. P. (1976). Losing ground: Environmental stress and world food prospects. New
Escobar, A. (1999). After Nature Steps to an Antiessentialist Political Ecology. Current Anthropology, 40(1), 1-30.
Escobar, A. (2007). The 'ontological turn' in social theory. A commentary on 'Human
geography without scale' by Sallie Marston, John Paul Jones II and Keith Woodward.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(1), 106-111.
Escobar, A. (2010). Postconstructivist political ecologies. In M. R. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 91-105).
Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Escobar, A. (2012). Encountering development : the making and unmaking of the third world.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology : the politics of environmental science. London ; New York: Routledge.
Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1998). Reframing Deforestation. Global Analyses and Local Realities: Studies in West Africa. London: Routledge.
Fosshagen, K. (2014). Den ontologiske vending. Store Norske Leksikon. Retrieved from https://snl.no/den_ontologiske_vending
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge : selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (1st American ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Gellner, D. N. (Ed.) (2007). Resistance and the State: Nepalese Experiences. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Geography of Nepal. (2015). In Wikipedia. Retrieved 20.03.2015 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Nepal
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. (2015). Introduction.
Retrieved 15.03.2015 from http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/index.php/page/26
Guneratne, A. (Ed.) (2010). Culture and the Environment in the Himalaya. London and New York: Routledge.
Guthman, J. (1997). Representing Crisis: The Theory of Himalayan Environmental
Degradation and the Project of Development in Post-Rana Nepal. Development and Change, 28, 45-69.
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hongslo, E., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2002). Turning Landscapes into "Nothing": A Narrative on Land Reform in Namibia. Forum for Development Studies, 2, 321-347.
Hornborg, A. (2010). Myten om Maskinen Essäer om makt, modernitet och miljö. Göteborg:
Daidalos.
Ingold, T. (2004). Two Reflections on Ecological Knowledge. In G. Sanga & G. Ortalli (Eds.), Nature Knowledge, Ehtnoscience, Cognition, and Utility (pp. 301-311). New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Leach, M., & Mearns, R. (Eds.). (1996). The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment. Oxford: James Currey.
Lecomte-Tilouine, M. (Ed.). (2011). Nature, Culture, and Religion at the crossroads of Asia.
New Delhi: Social Science Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage Publications.
Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review, 47(S1).
Montessori, M. (1967). The discovery of the child (1st American ed.). Notre Dame, Ind.,:
Fides Publishers.
Montessori, M., & Carter, B. B. (1963). The secret of childhood. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Murphy, J. (2000). Ecological modernisation. Geoforum, 31, 1-8.
Murphy, J., & Gouldson, A. (2000). Environmental policy and industrial innovation:
integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. Geoforum, 33, 33-44.
National Curriculum Framework for School Education (Pre-primary-12) in Nepal. (2005).
Bhaktapur: Ministry of Education and Sports, Curriculum Development Centre.
National Population and Housing Census 2011. (2011). Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.
Nepal Human Development Report 2014 Beyond Geography, Unlocking Human Potential.
(2014). Kathmandu: Government of Nepal National Planning Commission.
Neumann, I. B. (2008). Discourse analysis. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in International Relations A Pluralist Guide (pp. 61-77). Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nightingale, A. (2011). Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum, 42, 153-162.
Pandey, R. (2013). The Facts, Myths, and Narratives in Development and Environment: An Assessment of Population Growth vis-a-vis Soil Erosion in Nepal. Dhaulagiri Journal
Parajuli, M. N. (2007). Local governance and education in Nepal. South Asian Journal, 17, 43-55.
Parajuli, M. N. (2014a). Goals of Education: Protecting and Promoting Divergence and Sustainability. Journal of Education and Research, 4(1), 1-5.
Parajuli, M. N. (2014b). Realizing the Existence of Multiple Forms of Knowledge: A Strategy Towards Seeing Education for Rural Transformation. Journal of Education and
Research, 4(2), 102-117.
Parajuli, M. N., Thapa, R., Dangal, M. R., Bhattarai, P. C., Jha, A., & Dahal, B. (2012).
Understanding School Processes in Nepal: A School Level Status Study of Policies and Practices of School Sector Reform Program. Kathmandu: Embassy of Finland.
Pedersen, M. A. (2001). Totemism, Animism and North Asian Indigenous Ontologies. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7(3), 411-427.
Pherali, T., & Garratt, D. (2014). Post-conflict identity crisis in Nepal: Implications for educational reforms. International Journal of Educational Development, 34, 42-50.
Phillips, L., & Jørgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Pigg, S. L. (1992). Inventing Social Categories through Place: Social Representations and Development in Nepal. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 34(3), 491-513.
Primary Education Curriculum Grade 1-3. (2008). Bhaktapur: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education and Sports, Curriculum Development Center.
Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology : a critical introduction (2nd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex ; Malden, MA: J. Wiley & Sons.
Roe, E. (1991). Development Narratives, Or Making the Best of Blueprint Development.
World Development, 19(4), 287-300.
Roe, E. (1995). Except-Africa: Postscript to a Special Section on Development Narratives.
World Development, 23(6), 1065-1069.
Roe, E. (1999). Except-Africa : remaking development, rethinking power. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as Qualitative Research - A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sherpa, P., Shrestha, I., & Botey, G. (2012). Jalvayu pariwartan, REDD ra adiwasi janajati (Climate change, REDD and indigenous peoples). Kathmandu: NEFIN.
Sherpa, P., Shrestha, I., & Botey, G. (2013). Jalvayu pariwartan (Climate change).
Kathmandu: NEFIN.
Sherpa, P. D., Sherpa, P., Ghale, K. P., & Rai, Y. (2010). Land, Forest and Indigenous Peoples´Rights in Relation to Climate Change and REDD. Kathmandu: NEFIN.
Sillitoe, P. (1998). What, know natives? Local knowledge in development. Social Anthropology, 6(2), 203-220.
Springate-Baginski, O., & Blaikie, P. M. (2007). Forests, people and power : the political ecology of reform in South Asia. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Standing, K., & Parker, S. (2011). The effect of the "People´s War" on schooling in Nepal, 1996-2006. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 6(2), 181-195.
Tamla, V. (2013). “COCK-A-DOODLE-DO!” A CLIMATE CHANGE ALARM. (Master of Education in Environment Education and Sustainable Development Master Thesis),
Tamla, V. (2013). “COCK-A-DOODLE-DO!” A CLIMATE CHANGE ALARM. (Master of Education in Environment Education and Sustainable Development Master Thesis),