Małgorzata Dereniowska

The article examines the reduction of architecture to the dimension of utility which results in placelessness. The modern redefinition of science as “knowing-making” is essential to this reduction, although it has fundamental and forgotten importance. Drawing upon Martin Heidegger’s and George Grant’s critique of technology, and the ideas of Alberto Pérez-Gómez and Charles-Francois Viel, the significance of the complex relations between theory and practice in architecture will be explored in the context of Kimberly Dovey’s notion of the cycle of lived-space. A re-definition of modern “knowing-making” reveals a semioticlevel which contains new possibilities for meaningful and environmentally attuned architecture within the technological framework. I suggest “designing-building” as an alternative, understood as a process of poetic recreation of meaningful spaces.

This article argues that sustainability is essentially a contested concept that not only cannot be sufficiently defined in a one-forall blueprint, but requires a new mode of self-actualization of human potential in dialogical, cooperative learning processes. Inherent aporias and their ethical implications are illustrated by an analysis of the mainstream interpretation of the sustainability concept in the context of the relationship between the logic of accumulation and improvement and insatiable human desires as off-springs of a deeper ontological transformation of modernity. A philosophical account of technology and modern sciencewill be introduced in order to investigate overconsumption driven by mimetic desires and the transformative and dialectic dynamics of desire. A contemplative learning model is suggested as a useful basis for a reasonable interpretation of the sustainability concept.

Mainstream environmental groups have long been criticized by more radical activists as being too willing to compromise with industry and development interests. Radical groups such as Earth First! and Earth Liberation Front were formed as a reaction explicitly against perceived failures of mainstream groups. Although the radical activism employed varied from direct action in the form of aggressive civil disobedience coupled with eco sabotage, the tactics of the radical groups suggest two strands of movement. For example, the actions and demands of Earth First! seemingly fit their conviction that compromise is a betrayal of their moral convictions and results only in further deterioration of environmental protection, and the radical activism of this group can be seen to fit well within historically accepted norms of protest movements within constitutional democracies. In contrast, Earth Liberation Front does engage in what might be called ecoterrorism, a form of political violence. This article addresses the following emerging questions: Is an uncompromising approach an effective strategy for radical environmental activism in fostering positive environmental change? What is required of constructive democratic action? Can radical environmental activism be a resource for cooperative practices and coalition building? These questions relate to ecological justice, which is growing in importance as a paradigm that combines social concerns about the environment with issues of nature protection, thereby underlying the need for coordination of strategies and cooperation in order to bring about a positive change In this paper, we examine the positions and arguments of some radical environmental activists and their detractors, and analyse their moral beliefs and political attitudes. We claim that “No Compromise” is not an acceptable strategy for environmental activism. In the analysis that follows, we are not suggesting naively that only warm fellow-feelings, congeniality, and an overt willingness to compromise are reasonable responses to powerful contravening force. We argue instead that when used, strong - and even perhaps sometimes illegal - direct action can be conceptualized and carried out in a way that does not hinder all opportunities for effective compromise, coalition building, and the like, that are ultimately essential elements of most successful protest movements. We build on Martin Benjamin’s claim that compromise need not always involve moral capitulation or failure, but can be integrity-preserving. It can, we believe, be an effective means of moving a pro-environmental agenda forward. Key to our argument are the distinctions between moral and political compromise, and the interrelations between moral and political community. Seeing oneself as a part of a larger community in which decisions must be made, and recognizing responsibility towards the members of a moral community is essential to a full appreciation and effective use of compromise. These considerations are anchored in an approach that constructively links participatory democracy and radical activism.

Understanding the epistemological dimension of the subject–object dichotomy is crucial for environmental learning. Contrasting the epistemologies of separation and love, Arthur Zajonc argues that learning is seriously limited unless we focus more attention on fostering deep connections of respect, love, and participation with the objects we study. Although an attitude of detachment and objectivity is sometimes appropriate, understanding such things as social justice and the environment demand an approach that softens the sharp dichotomy between knower and thing–to–be–known. While largely agreeing with Zajonc, we emphasize that the epistemologies of separation and love should not be seen as wholly distinct or unrelated. A deep understanding of ourselves and the world around us depends upon a shifting back and forth between these approaches, though this will, admittedly, not be susceptible to any strict set of methodological rules. Learning depends upon not only understanding how to use these two epistemologies, but, importantly, learning how to shift between them with ease. Furthermore, we suggest that Zajonc’s use of the dual concepts of the logic of discovery and of justification to illustrate his two epistemologies can be made more descriptively accurate and prescriptively useful by noticing that in the process of learning—of discovering—investigators can and do move fluidly between seeking detached objectivity and connectedness. We embrace a broad pedagogical approach to environmental education consistent with Zajonc’s view and that is place–based and multi– and trans– disciplinary. This includes a rejection of the priority of science over the humanities, a narrowing of the gap between knower and thing–to–be–known, and a move away from attempts to excessively abstract from particulars to generalities and laws.