Changing Horizons in Geography Education - HERODOT Network ...

“non-objectifiable reality” (Kalaora, 2004, p. 160), and yet it has acquired an ontologicalstatus by the “objectifiability,” and indeed objective nature of its opposite,i.e. the un-sustainability of the development model that we are perpetuating. Theopposite of sustainable development is not just business as usual, it is un-sustainabledevelopment. In other words, the opposition is not between utopia and reality,it is between survival and destruction. If no absolutely sustainable systems can beidentified, nonetheless the relative un-sustainability and perfectibility of a systemcan and must be assessed: since no stasis is possible in nature or history, we have tochoose what direction to take, and we can see sustainability as a “a series of stepsalong a pathway that never reaches a final goal” (anonymous quote in BocchiniVarani, 2001, p. 198). Today, our development model is a “wild-teleology system(Von Bertalanffy, 1968, pp. 124−130),” in that it continues its evolution withoutclear goals and strategies, or more precisely with vague, un-stated goals that claimtacit public agreement and a yet unconfirmed validity, but without seemingly havingthe capability to re-adjust, let alone radically transform its strategies to face patentchanges. It would be of great benefit if the scientific world took a clear stance andmade value assessments.Yet in Italy, with few exceptions (Cencini, Vallega), geographers are far frombeing at the forefront of the sustainability debate, and indeed they are reluctant tomake value judgements, based on the presumed “objectivity” and “impartiality” ofgeographical analysis. Apparently, being a geographer is different from being anecologist – a geographer objectively and impartially examines a situation from allpoints of view and all aspects of the human-land relationship without taking eitherposition or indulging in bias. Talking about occupational ethics and environmentaleducation, though, ethicist Alastair S. Gunn speaks of the “dangerous assumption of“neutrality„”(undated, p. 24). Even in the U.S.A., geographers are often overlookedby policy-makers, and they themselves seem to “have chosen not to wade into policydebates” (Wood, 2004, p. 53). Are geographers “abstaining from sustainability” inother countries, as well? If that is the case, why is it so?It is not just geographers but the whole of the Italian intelligentsia that seemsto have embraced the issue of sustainability with a remarkable delay comparedto the international agenda: this reflects the attitude of the Italian political worldand public opinion, which have long confined all environmental considerations topolitical fringes and niche associations, and considered those through the deforminglens of the ever exacerbated political polarisation. Having relegated the environmentto even more marginal positions than it had previously held for some time, themainstream political activity and theoretical production has long failed to incorporatethe sustainability discourse, only to realise recently, episodically and mainlylocally (LA21), its great exploitability in terms of public popularity and support (andaccess to European or other funding). During geographers’ and other intellectuals’absence, in fact, sustainability has become a fashionable word, and all efforts inthe direction of environmental protection risk to be labelled as “sustainable,” evenwhen little more than cosmetic or superficial measures. Being extremely vague, thevery concept of sustainability lends itself to manipulations of all sorts; as with its301