Search

This paper aims the viability of building an ecological citizenship, understood as a response to the environmental crisis, a product of the advance of symbols of the instrumental rationality of modernity. The confluence of diverse theoretical, cultural, educational, philosophical and social movements gave rise to the emergence of a political ecology, which was built on the utilitarian foundations established by Western logos, while allowing a holistic, complex and heterogeneous understanding of relationality man/naturalness. However, the environmental problem was not resolved with the political emergence of ecology; it required entering into sustainable development, with the presence of an ecological citizenry, whose fines are placed on the responsibility and active role of the citizen in favor of the environment, to the communities in the processes of transformation of society. However, to consolidate this proposal, it cannot be achieved without environmental education, thought, in the bureaucratic terms of the academy, as a life training, which must be carried out from birth to death, promoting axiological training and a culture sustained, fair and sustainable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This papers aims to analyze the discourse of sustainable development as opposed to that proposed by Eurocentric modernity. For this, the work is based on four fundamental aspects: 1. It presents the most relevant characteristics of Western modernity, which have clear imperial, colonial, xenophobic and exclusive connotations, which manifest the intention of erecting a monolithic, monocultural civilization based on in the omnipotence of reason. 2. It points out how capitalism and anthropocentrism to the expansion of the western civilizing model, having serious consequences in the deterioration of life on the planet. 3. It shows that, given the accelerated advance of westernization and planetary deterioration, the discourse of sustainable development is given rise, supported by the documents of the World Conservation Union (1980), the Brundtland Report (CMMAD, 1987), the Summit of the Earth in Rio de Janeiro (1992), the World Summit in Johannesburg (2002), among others, which have clear biocentric and ecological connotations, giving recognition to the intrinsic value of nature, denied by modern anthropocentrism. 4. Finally, it raises the need to decolonize sustainable development, recognize the voices silenced and forgotten by modernity, and open the dialogue of knowledge, the recognition of spirituality and ancestral memory, as necessary paths to advance towards the construction of a different world and different imaginary. The article is developed through documentary research; it does not pretend to be conclusive, but to serve as a reflection on this already broad discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]