Ideologies and discourses in texts

An important function of texts is to inculcate, sustain or change ideologies that establish, maintain or change social relations of power, domination and exploitation (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2003). Ecological sustainability education is reflected in children’s literature, although often through its absence in any storyline considerations or through unsustainable practices portrayed by characters. In a metaanalysis of literary theory, Fairclough (Reference Fairclough2003) argues that ‘texts have causal effects upon, and contribute to changes in, people (beliefs, attitudes, etc.), actions, social relations, and the material world’ (p. 8). The nonneutrality of texts is widely recognised. Meanings in texts are constructed by cultural, social, historical and political practices (Knobel, Reference Knobel, Knobel and Healy1998). There are ‘implicit and explicit meanings mediated by texts and therefore what is said in a text always rests upon unsaid assumptions, so part of the analysis of texts is trying to identify what is assumed’ (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2003, p. 11).

The relatively recent changes in representations of race and gender in Children’s literature reflect social change, indicating that there is a need for ecological sustainability to be taken up as in important issue, now we are of the Anthropocene (Angus, Reference Angus2015; Purey, Reference Purey2015). In the past, children’s literature has been used to disrupt narratives of gendered and racist practices that threatened participation in education (Bradford, Reference Bradford2007). The nonneutrality of texts is easy to see with reference to gender and race. Increased sexist belief and gendered practices have been linked to the exclusion or trivialisation of girls or women in the media (Diekman & Murnen, Reference Diekman and Murnen2004). Similarly, Welch (Reference Welch2016) argues that the normality of whiteness in children’s literature contributes to representations of racial bias. While inclusiveness has been a focus of critique in children’s literature, attention to issues of ecological sustainability has not been as adequately addressed. Some texts such as Uno’s Garden (Base, Reference Base2006), The Lorax (Geisel, Reference Geisel1972) and Circle (Baker, Reference Baker2016) have an overt organisation of social values of ecological sustainability. In this paper, we are exploring narratives that are not overtly organised around ideologies of ecological sustainability but uphold these values in the representations in the texts. One might have expected award-winning texts to incorporate issues of racial and gender inclusiveness and ecological sustainability without an explicit focus on these discourses.

Ecological sustainability

In the 1980s, the term ‘sustainability’ was applied to human systems and the Brundtland Commission (Reference Brundtland1987) defined sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs’ (n. p.). More recently the term ecological sustainability has removed references to development with the focus now on the capacity of the biosphere which appropriately positions humans within the ecosystem.

Moving forward from the decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), a reorientation was realised towards environmental integrity, economic validity and just society for present and future generations (UNESCO, 2016). We apply the discourse of ecological sustainability to evoke considerations of the pillars of sustainability, within a context of the need for socioecological change. If shared reading between adults and children provides important opportunities for learning about the world (Nicholas & Paatsch, Reference Nicholas and Paatsch2018), then sustainable representations in texts in the Anthropocene are important.

In 2009, the Australian Government chose the term ‘Education for Sustainability’ to bring clarity to the need for change through education (Australian Government, 2009). The challenges and problems arising from unsustainable lifestyle choices require a shared commitment to education that leads and empowers people to make changes (UNESCO, 2009). Ecologically sustainable ideology relating to all aspects of our lives, like that of inclusivity and diversity, can be infused throughout children’s literature in subtle ways using ‘unsaid assumptions’ (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2003, p. 11). This teaching approach may generate greater awareness of and action towards ecological sustainability compared to overt messaging through the subtle and holistic infusion of sustainable ideologies into everyday practices. The inclusion of sustainable practices in narratives of children’s lives normalises these practices at the same time as allowing consumers (teachers, parents and students) to recognise and draw attention to the importance of these practices. Thus, the inclusion of culturally appropriate ecological sustainable practices becomes a socially just act (Bigger & Webb, Reference Bigger and Webb2010). The framework presented in this paper supports a transition to social justice through a focus on children’s literature and sustainable practices.

Children’s literature and ecological sustainability

Young children think about ecological sustainability and the environment (Madden & Liang, Reference Madden and Liang2016; Melson, Reference Melson2013). There are many environmentally focused school-based programmes that scaffold and support students to engage in sustainability practices to reduce consumption and waste generation (such as nude food https://www.nudefoodmovers.com.au/). Although teaching for sustainability is mandated as a cross-curriculum priority in the Australian National Curriculum (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016), reporting on this priority is not taken up in many schools (Barnes, Moore, & Almeida, Reference Barnes, Moore and Almeida2019; Nicholls & Thorne, Reference Nicholls and Thorne2017).

It seems that striving for social justice representations in children’s literature regarding sustainability is worthy. Bradbery (Reference Bradbery2013) outlines the important position children’s literature can play in making children responsible for creating and enjoying an ecological sustainability ethic. Payne (Reference Payne2014) argued that there was (still) a lack of consideration about children in environmental education research. In line with a change to how children are involved with research, should come to a change in how children have nature–culture interactions reflected them, especially through literature mediated by adults. Malone (Reference Malone2016) offers three propositions that require addressing: Children are viewed as outside of nature; Nature is viewed and described as an inanimate object and Childhood is idealised as white middle-class America. The framework presented in this paper offers scaffolding to promote ecological sustainability in/through children’s literature in the hope that authors, illustrators and editors will take up these propositions in meaningful ways.

A framework for ecological sustainability of children’s literature

The framework for an ecological sustainability of Children’s literature required some careful consideration as to what would be privileged and included in ways that allowed enough flexibility and breadth to remain useful (dynamic and complex as well as implicit and explicit). The framework for the ecological sustainability of Children’s literature (Table 1) was developed after dialogue between authors around the two existing guiding frameworks in ecological sustainability. The three pillars of sustainability (World Conservation Union United Nations Environment Programme and World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 1991) were considered integral and consequently were used as the foundational pillars for the framework. Positioning the pillars alongside the seven Education for Sustainability principles (Australian Government, 2009) exemplifies how to bring into education the actions and ideologies that allow sustainability to be enacted and unsaid assumptions revealed. Questions that prompt sustainable thinking and action specifically related to the production of children’s literature are integral to the framework. The questions suggest ways to think about addressing the principles through the lens of the specific pillar of sustainability.

The three pillars of sustainability have been critiqued and redesigned as their introduction. For example, the ‘Circles of Sustainability’ (James, Reference James2015) (https://www.circlesofsustainability.org/) added the fourth dimension of culture and reframed the relationships between the elements. However, the three pillars were maintained in this framework because of their recognisability and simplistic structure. All representations are partial and it is anticipated that future users of the framework will recognise that the pillars and principals have implicit and explicit complexities and will consider the implications (the gaps and the simplifications), compensating for real-world complexity.

While the framework might appear a reductionist way of teasing out interrelated concepts of economics, environment and societal dimensions of ecological sustainability, we have purposely used these three pillars and seven principles to ask specific questions about representations in children’s literature. One would expect the award-winning children’s literature to combine these pillars and principles in ways that showcase how ecological sustainability can reimagine a world-view where these ideas are interrelated throughout the text. For the purposes of this paper, we are analysing where there might be gaps in ecological sustainable representations using each pillar and principle separately.

The selection of children’s literature

Each year the CBCA provides awards for children’s literature for various reading ages. They award a winner in each category of Early Childhood, Younger Readers, Older Readers, Picture Books and Information Books. In each of these categories, the CBCA begins by identifying ‘Notable texts’ that are shortlisted. In 2015, there were 59 entries in the Early Childhood books of which 15 were listed as Notables and 6 of these were shortlisted. The judging of the books ‘concentrates on the appeal of the story and illustrations, and especially the suitability for early childhood, pre-reading development’ (Children’s Book Council Australia, 2016, para 23). With the development of the framework (Table 1) and illustrations of its application through CDA, it is anticipated that the social discourses represented within the narrative, especially those around ecological sustainability, will come to form part of the judging criteria in future years.

We reviewed the 15 Early Childhood Notables listed on the CBCA web site for 2015, looking for examples of nonsustainable practices. Publishers of six books that included nonsustainable practices were contacted requesting permission to use the texts in this paper. Of these six, four gave permission and we selected three to present in this analysis. It was felt that three different narratives provided adequate variety to exemplify the framework’s application.

The analysis of children’s literature

The framework (Table 1) provides questions to interrogate children’s literature regarding the limited representations of ecological sustainability. For each text, we located the main principle (from the seven) and then explored the questions across economics, environment and society pillars. Insights into the sociopolitical discourses represented in each text are presented in the following findings.

Scary Night by Gibbes and King (Reference Gibbes and King2014)

The narrative explores the events leading up to a birthday celebration (situated in western society). The story is bound by characters travelling through various landscapes at night to celebrate with their friend. The story ends with the giving of a present and the associated celebrations (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The second last double page from the book Scary Night. Text copyright Lesley Gibbes and illustrations copyright © Stephen Michael King, 2014. First published by Working Title Press, 2014. Reproduced by permission of Working Title Press.

We used the framework to locate the most appropriate critique for this image (as it illustrates the story) and the principle of participation and the environmental pillar were selected. The question of the text asks if the characters are appropriately interacting with the environment or elements of the environment (in meaningful ways)? The theme of participation also covers how the characters interact with the environment. In this story, the environment is framed as scary and frightening as the characters move through the landscapes at night to get to the party. While the scary environment may provide useful dramatic props, the implications of rendering the environment scary because of the time of the day highlights many cultural implications that will ‘shadow’ children’s experience.

The final celebration scene in Scary Night is ideologically problematic. While the image identifies the individuals working together to celebrate a birthday, the excesses of food and drink, and decorations including hats, streamers and balloons that are all one-use items normalise the representations of nonsustainable celebrations common in our present time. Although these decorations might be recycled, the representations of these artefacts are clean and crisp normalising a one-use practice, supported also with the image of a balloon filled with a gas lighter than air. The image of celebration does not challenge alternative actions that can provide children with a deeper understanding of the economics of participating in celebrations and associated or alternative sustainable practices. Although this practice of a party might be normalised for many teachers, it would take an astute teacher to tease out the violation of the principles and the pillars of sustainability in this image.

Go to Sleep Jessie by Gleeson and Blackwood (Reference Gleeson and Blackwood2014)

The story focuses on a young child who will not go to sleep and her older sibling complaining about it. Although the older sibling eventually finds a sustainable solution, to sleep next to her younger restless sister, she goes through various scenarios to try to get her to sleep before finding an acceptable solution. One of these proposed solutions is outlined in Figure 2, where the father suggests that he will drive the younger sister around in the car until she goes to sleep.

Figure 2.

A double page depicting a text about putting a crying baby in a car and driving around until the baby goes to sleep, from the book Go To Sleep Jessie by Libby Gleeson. Text and illustrations copyright © Libby Gleeson, 2014. First published by Hardie Grant Egmont, 2014. Reproduced by permission of Hardie Grant Egmont.

The principle of critical thinking challenges the practice of driving a baby around in the car. The text provides a noncritical analysis of the ideological implications of wasting nonrenewable resources to put a baby to sleep. The readers are not provided with an explicit opportunity to critique the practice of driving the baby around. Another nonsustainable proposal is to find or make a space in the house so the siblings are separate. Both these proposals mediate the ‘careless’ use of resources that do not adhere to the principle of transformation and change needed for a sustainable future (Bigger & Webb, Reference Bigger and Webb2010). The economic pillar of sustainability is not explored in these proposals that are based on overusing resources. While the outcome of siblings looking after each other is an example of an ecologically sustainable practice, teachers would need to be conscious of the explicit teaching about resource use and needs versus want within this text to disrupt the nonsustainable ideologies that might be overlooked by students.

Snail and Turtle are Friends by King (Reference King2014)

This story is about how Snail and Turtle engage in a range of experiences while building a friendship. The text explores the relationship they have that includes negotiating each other’s different preferences. The story associated with Figure 3 is about the different preferences of the snail and the turtle when they are painting what appears to be living leaves.

Figure 3.

A double page near the end of the narrative with leaves that had been painted by the Snail and the Turtle. From the book Snail and Turtle are Friends by Stephen Michel King. Text and illustrations copyright © Stephen Michael King, 2014. First published by Scholastic Press, a division of Scholastic Australia Pty Limited, 2014. Reproduced by permission of Scholastic Australia Pty Limited. Peta White is a Senior Lecturer in Science and Environmental Education at Deakin University. Her passion for initial teacher education, activist environmental education and action-orientated research methodologies drives her current teaching/research scholarship.

The image challenges the principle of systems thinking outlined in the framework. First, the painting of the plants with paint implies the natural world is not beautiful enough without the touch of some anthropomorphised painting from the snail and the turtle. Second, the act of painting hinders the respiration and photosynthesis of the plants, something not considered in this representation overlooking the importance of the environmental pillar. Other organisms could be affected by the toxicity of the paint and as the paint then enters the ecosystem as the painted leaves fall off the tree the toxicity could continue to have a deleterious effect. The act of painting a few leaves on the tree could be a wonderful metaphor for pollution or carbon emissions for savvy teachers. However, in this representation, it is as if the painting a few leaves on the tree would not cause damage in any way, just like releasing a few carbon atoms in the atmosphere will not cause global warming. The ethics of individually polluting is a tacit part of this story that is not challenged or disrupted through the text. If teachers were to replicate this practice of painting leaves with their early childhood students as modelled in the book, they would be indoctrinating young children into nonsustainable practices in subtle ways.