Lärande för långsiktig hållbarhet
jämförande diskursanalys av medborgarskap för "hållbar utveckling" i Piteå respektive Växjö kommun
Hållbar utvecklingPolicyanalysPiteå kommunVäxjö
kommunLärande för hållbar utvecklingHållbarhetDiskursanalysMedborgarskapLiberalismLivslångt lärande
Sustainable development has become the ideology of the twentieth first
century. As an important concept and as a framework of political action,
sustainable development can at this point be considered as the very symbol
of a paradigm in the international debate over environmental issues and the
threats of climate change. But what does the concept of sustainability
actually suggest?
This thesis uses discourse analysis in order to examine the Swedish
learning for sustainable development as to three different discourses on
the national arena: the government and the municipals of Piteå and Växjö
respectively. When the study foremost concerns official policy documents
that contain associations with the study area, the methodology used takes
into consideration both language, signs, metaphors and so called story
lines. The purpose with the thesis was to conclude whether or not a
specific view on the relationship between individual and society could be
established behind the rhetoric of the term sustainable development. This
may also be summarized with the following question: Can a specific
citizenship theory be distinguished behind the learning for sustainable
development?
The analysis eventually gives some interesting findings related to this
question. At first, it is concluded that the policy documents of the three
mentioned discourses, point towards primarily a civic republican or a
liberal citizenship model. There are also some references that can be
associated with an ecological post-cosmopolitan citizenship but these are
in most cases subordinated either the civic republican or the liberal
citizenship ideas. Given these results, what purpose do the ecological
references serve within this policy area? Is it to give legitimacy to
conservative ideas or is it rather to provide them with a progressive input
of revision and transformation? In both cases, the relationship between
individual and the state remains uncertain.
Knowledge has been found the most important aspect of this policy area as
it becomes both a purpose and a means of practice. The concept is linked
with sustainable development and democracy, gaining or providing with
legitimacy and content. It is therefore apparent that sustainable
development in these discourses achieves the place as a preferred value in
itself. The problem to conclude is whether the individual only is required
to have knowledge and understanding about sustainable development, or does
the individual rather have to know certain knowledge and understanding? Do
we have to choose between free thinking and long term ecological
sustainability?