A “Strong” Approach to Sustainability Literacy: Embodied Ecology and Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an effectively written and well-researched paper which marshals detailed evidence and argumentation to present a plausible model of sustainability literacy. Without quarrelling with either the premises or the conclusions of the argument, I would, though, like the authors to consider three issues. 1) The conclusion that the cognitive faculties are ineluctably embodied is, of course, self-evident, But to say that an organism’s cognitive possibilities “stem from its body” (l 32) has the potential to simplify what Arthur C. Danto famously called “the body-body problem”, I e. that, even if the body always underlies our conceptualization of it, our conceptualizations of the body lace the actuality of the body; even if, as we all know, one can’t ‘have’ a mind without the body, equally one cannot ‘posit’ the body without a mind. Also there is the entire idea of the cyborgian and the increasing role played in society by artificial intelligence. A corollary issue here is that the authors urge us to have a strong idea of sustainability literacy by embracing our embodiment, yet the argument is very cerebral, formal, and even at times quantitively and analytical in mien. This is an inescapable paradox, but if the essay reflected on this slightly more—perhaps at the beginning, perhaps at the ending—it would be stronger. 2) 2) the authors are right to quote Olteanu and Stables that what Sebeok was originally probing in the idea of biosemiotics was a modeling system, and warranted in stating that one can thus use the idea of literacy as a frame and infuse it with a more body-oriented content; but, equally, this could apply to the entire idea of the authors' argument, that it relies not so much on embodiment but on a construct of embodiment. With Sebeok and the Estonian scholars cited it is all about the modeling and not really about the content within the model. This become an issue because the article assumes that a strong idea of literacy is better because stronger, but those terms are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I would place less stress on arguing that am embodied model is preferable but argue that is t is possible while preserving the idea of semiosis and modeling systems—in order words, that presuming embodiment does not reduce or either the modeling to a concrete idea of the body, but can stretch the body to the point where modelling can occur within an embodied Umwelt. I think this would be in the spirit of Uexkull as well. (I am by the way delighted to see the authors taking the often-derided Uexkull seriously, and appreciate the way biosemiotics has brought him back into the circle of high-philosophical discourse) 3) The diagram in figure 2, above line 825—why does the semiotic relationality have to encircle everything? And why is the small circle with the concrete interaction of signs so much smaller and so ‘inside’ the semiotic relationality? If (line 811) sustainability literacy can be both an inter-disciplinary or (emphasis mine) trans-disciplinary field, why not leave the circles about more overlapping, more permeable? As elsewhere in the essay, I feel a polemical desire to elevate a particular mode of relationality above all other practices is getting in the wat of a more mundane but also more applicable idea of the possibilities of modeling to accommodate an emphasis where environmental embodiment of cognitive and sign-making practices is paramount. Again, I would just lie the authors to consider these issues—the argumentation, architecture, and framework is satisfactory and, I would even say, outstanding.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the careful engagement with our text and for the useful recommendations. We appreciate this, overall positive review, which was enlightening to read.

 

To begin with, we changed and further explained the graphic figures, in light of the reviewer’s recommendations.

 

Regarding the reviewer’s observation on our acceptance of embodiment, we hope that we supported our position more convincingly by having added new references and citations, among which, addressing embodiment in particular, the citations to Kress (2010: 77), Sweetser (2013: 2) and Martinelli (2010: 91) on page 3.

 

Nevertheless, with due consideration, notwithstanding the relevance of this debate in general, we arrived at the conclusion that, for the specific focus of this article, we do not need to defend the claim that the “the possibilities of an organism to organize its experience into meaningful knowledge stem from its body” in front of the type of criticism coming from Arthur Danto. Our text sides with the well-established schools of cognitive linguistics and cognitive semiotics, where this claim is not only justified, but indispensable. Danto’s work has mainly the scope of art history and aesthetic criticism, which is aside the scope of our paper. Discussing embodiment vis-à-vis Danto’s argument is a very interesting endeavour but, we consider, it goes aside the scope of our paper. To address this matter, however interesting, would mean writing a different paper, about something else.

Also, it can be said about embodiment philosophy in general, not only about this paper, “that it relies not so much on embodiment but on a construct of embodiment”. The reviewer’s justified argument is not with our paper, but with Lakoff, Johnson, Varela and the other pillars of embodiment philosophy.

 

Also, we agree with the reviewer that (in her/his words) “With Sebeok and the Estonian scholars cited it is all about the modeling and not really about the content within the model”, which is why we rely on more than just biosemiotics to inform a literacy theory. In this regard, in particular, notions from cognitive linguistics and semiotics have been employed to bridge biosemiotics with social semiotics. We hope that this is explained throughout the paper and that the added references help, as well. In this regard, too, we added more explanations throughout the paper (see, for example, page 15).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors start from figure 1 in which the meaning shown for the embodiment of the two directions, towards sustainability literacy is a double one, but without arguing why it is so? Please analyze whether Table 1 can be correlated with Figure 1 in the sense that the strong column in the table requires the distinction of strong result in the diagram in Figure 1, an aspect that can be mentioned in the content and in conclusions.

We observe a rather brief presentation of point 4, but it becomes one of the  active participant in the solution proposed by the authors, to generate the diagram in Figure 2, which brings together the two directions, highlighting the role of the concept of biosemiotics, as a common element in both.

More explains are required on the realization of the diagram from figure 2, with the explanation of the included elements and the choice of the type of the figure,  leads to the realization of the embodiment of the two directions in the broad framework of sustainability literacy, according to the presented diagram.

We recommend to reanalyze once again the two figures used to reunite the two directions, in the sense of using a unitary representation (the same template), in accordance with the idea of the paper, avoiding any interpretation of similarities or differences between them, on the idea expressed.

The paper gives the impression of returning to two directions of work, carried out by authors in distinct teams, and which meet here from two directions of research, a fact highlighted in the personal references indicated by the authors, in which they are partners in other previous works. In this context, we recommend reviewing your own citations, which can conduct  to the conclusion to using the  excessive citations by the authors.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and recommendations.

 

The reviewer is correct to observe that we rely significantly on our previous work. This was intentional and we hope that in this amended version we justified our choice of building upon our existing work. By developing this specific framework for sustainability literacy, with this paper we also aim to define our position in the broader academic debates on the matter. We consider that this special issue on “New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education” is the adequate platform for this team’s position paper. It is for this reason that we cite our previously co-authored work. We have now explained this motivation in the paper. The reason for doing so is addressing an existing audience, in light of ongoing conversations and issues that we have been asked to further clarify by interested colleagues.

In general, to support some aspects of our argument that we understand the reviewer to question, we included some more references and further amendments and explanations, throughout the paper.

As the reviewer recommended, we both changed and further explained the graphic figures.

The reviewer asks us, in her/his words, to “analyze whether Table 1 can be correlated with Figure 1 in the sense that the strong column in the table requires the distinction of strong result in the diagram in Figure 1.” We are not entirely sure if we understand this request fully, but Figure 1 is a schematic depiction that visually summarizes our argument that sustainability literacy depends both on environmental and media literacy while Table 1 is a brief comparison between strong and weak environmental literacy notions, being adapted from Stables & Bishop (2001: 94). Figure 1 and Table 1 contribute to our different aspects of our argument. Both of these, however, are explicative repetitions of points that we explained in detail in the text. We are confident that the reviewer agrees, these matters are explained in detail in the text.

The reviewer seems to focus her/his comments on the figures and the tables that we included in the paper. Figures and tables are meant only to facilitate the reading of the paper by schematically summarizing our arguments. We hope that our arguments are satisfactorily developed in the text, in a manner that answers to the reviewers’ observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

We agree with the new version of the paper, through the corrections and clarifications of the authors, which bring clarifications on the aspects observed, including the all figures used, which we consider important by being correlated with the content of the paper, in the sense of to be able to schematically express the idea desired by the authors, and the text to bring only some necessary clarifications. Let's remember the English adage "A picture is worth a thousand words" paraphrasing to Ibsen.