Power in action: Possibilities and restraints in ESD practice

Main Article Content

Marie Öhman
Johan Öhman


The debate concerning the pros and cons of ESD has mainly been conducted on the grounds of principle. The question is how, and to what extent, misgivings about ESD and its expectations are actually manifested. The purpose of this paper is to suggest an approach that can contribute empirical knowledge to this debate. The suggested approach is related to the research field of governmentality and Foucault’s ideas about power and knowledge. It focuses on the way students are governed in ESD practice and explores which understanding of future development is privileged in this practice.

Article Details

How to Cite
Öhman, M., & Öhman, J. (2008). Power in action: Possibilities and restraints in ESD practice. Envigogika, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.131
Author Biographies

Marie Öhman

Marie Öhman, Department of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden e-mail: marie.ohman@hi.oru.se

Johan Öhman

Johan ÖhmanDepartment of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden e-mail:  johan.ohman@hi.oru.se


Bonnet, M (1999). Education for Sustainable Development: a coherent philosophy for environmental education? Cambridge Journal of Education. 29 (3): 313-324.
Burchell, G; Gordon, C & Miller, P (1991). The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Elliott, J (1999). Sustainable society and environmental education: future perspectives and demands for the educational system. Cambridge Journal of Education. 29 (3): 325-341.
Foucault, M (1978/1991). Governmentality, in: Burchell, G, Gordon, C, & Miller, P, The Foucault effect; Studies in governmentality. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Foucault, M (1980). Power/knowledge: selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977.Pantheon, New York.
Foucault, M (1982). The subject and power, in: Faubion JD, Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, Volume 3: Power (pp 326-348).Penguin, London.
Jickling, B (2003). Environmental education and environmental advocacy. Revisited. Journal of Environmental Education. 34 (2): 20-27.
Jickling, B & Spork, H (1998). Education for the environment: a critique. Environmental Education Research. 4 (3): 309-328.
Rose, N (1998). Inventing our selves. Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rose, N (1999). Powers of freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sauvé, L (1999). Environmental education between modernity and postmodernity: searching for an integrating educational framework. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education. 4: 9-36.
Stables, A & Scott, W (2002). The quest for holism in education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research. 8 (1): 53-60.
UNESCO (2005). Report by the Director-General on the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: International Implementation Scheme and UNESCO’s Contribution to the Implementation of the Decade.Available on line at: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=36025&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed 7 September 2006).
Wals, AEJ & Jickling, B (2000). Process-based environmental education seeking standards without standardizing, in: BB Jensen, K Schnack & V Simovska (eds), Critical environmental and health education: research issues and challenges, pp. 127-149. The Danish University of Education, Research Centre for Environmental and Health Education, Copenhagen.
Öhman, M (forthcoming). Kropp och makt i rörelse (Body and power in motion). Örebro Studies in Sociology, Örebro University, Örebro.