Planetary Pedagogies

Download full paper through this link: https://doi.org/10.25439/rmt.28477475.v3

 

This paper is a front piece to the larger Planetary Pedagogies Initiative through which RMIT academics are exploring the impacts of planetary thinking across the higher education sector. Growing out of critical dialogues between authors from the fields of design, education, philosophy, geography, art, literary studies, communication, and political science, the paper also maps an evolving conversation with RMIT’s Indigenous leadership and our wider communities of practice on unceded Wurundjeri Woiwurrung and Boonwurrung Country. The paper gathers the various perspectives of its authors and presents a synthesis. These perspectives do not necessarily reflect the views of every individual author or the institutions with which they are affiliated.

​​

​

The planetary is a concept still being defined. Its current emergence marks the radical encounter of rapidly shifting ground conditions which defy dominant politics and practices. Climate change alters seasons and ecosystems, with animals – human and non-human alike – changing migration patterns in response. Pollution disperses and accumulates. Global economies and multi-national corporations influence local and international policy. AI models built and trained across multiple countries pose new influence on thinking and imagining. Satellites transmit continuous streams of data around the world, though unevenly. Across continents, Indigenous communities work to sustain, repair, and care for living cultures and homelands as their lands are cleared and extracted to fuel global technologies. This custodianship is undertaken within socio-political environments which have been responsible for and benefited from Indigenous people’s dispossession. Established national borders struggle to contain these events from spilling over while maintaining colonial programs in which the claim of national territory organises the extraction and possession of land, sea, air, energy. 

This paper is a front piece to the larger Planetary Pedagogies Initiative through which RMIT academics are exploring the impacts of planetary thinking across the higher education sector. Growing out of critical dialogues between authors from the fields of design, education, philosophy, geography, art, literary studies, communication, and urban research and political science, the paper also maps an evolving conversation with RMIT’s Indigenous leadership and our wider communities of practice on unceded Wurundjeri Woiwurrung and Boonwurrung Country within the context of regenerative futures.

 

One or many worlds 

​

If life itself is the main referent of the planetary, then it is not subsumable under the place-less notion of global or World.

 

Gayatri Spivak¹ reminds us that the planet is not reducible to the globe, even though globalisation remains a dominant conception and image of planetary existence. The globalised world is one of the primary ways in which planetarity is given representation, but it’s not the only way. While globalisation has brought unimaginable wealth to the few, it has also brought incomprehensible suffering to the many. If a globalised world has been asserted largely for hegemonic purposes of control and domination, a planetary pedagogy realises such a program is futile—not to mention, unjust—and searches relentlessly for more partial and pluralistic concepts of worldmaking.² 

​

The concept of the planet as a single, all-encompassing World has radiated largely out of Europe since the Enlightenment era³. This idea forms the foundation for the colonial and capitalistic extraction of the Earth and its inhabitants as fungible resources⁴ and continues to be an assumed first principle for most Western models of science and governance despite disruptions from within the sciences themselves, most notably from quantum physics⁵ and epigenetics⁶. Alternatively, the concept of the planet as a multiplicity of worlds has a far longer genealogy which goes back tens of thousands of years through the living histories of Indigenous peoples⁷ ⁸. 

​

Pluralistic concepts of the planetary recognise that different cosmological accounts of the universe generate different living practices and that these living practices make very real differences to planetary life.  

​

Over the past decade, plural and divergent concepts of the planetary have been gathered and discussed through the concept of the pluriverse. As an onto-political call for ‘a world where many worlds fit’, the pluriverse was coined by First Nations peoples in Latin America and has since gained currency as a concept which refuses the universalising ambitions of Euro-western modernity and its claim to a single all-encompassing reality. Numerous educators, artists, designers, scientists, and activists have adopted the language of the pluriverse in recent years, giving rise to a new lexicon of practices which recognise diversely situated cosmologies and knowledges of the Earth⁹ ¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹² ¹³. The pluriverse bears the promise of an Earth where different worlds co-exist without being assimilated or annihilated by the universalising grasp of Euro-western constructs of ‘science’, ‘politics’, ‘nature’, and ‘nation’¹⁴. And while calls for the pluriverse have arisen from the onto-political struggles and resistance from across the Global South in particular, it now speaks to planetary struggles in all places where ethical negotiations and exchanges between worlds have become the very means of survival.   

One or many natures 

​

The pluriverse bears a special meaning and responsibility for us writing here in Naarm (Melbourne), Australia on unceded sovereign lands of Wurundjeri Woiwurrung and Boonwurrung Country. Naarm is a place where the incommensurability between settler colonial and First Nations relations with lands, skies, and waters is starkly present and unavoidable. Country is an Aboriginal English term used by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to describe lands, skies, and waterways along with cultural knowledges and living practices present in these locations across thousands of generations. The Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AITSIS) Map of Indigenous Australia shows more than 250 Indigenous Countries across the continent, each which have their own distinct cosmologies and associated systems of language, governance, science, education, and law. These understandings and articulations of Country do not claim universality. They differ depending on who you are, where you are, and where you come from.  

​

“Country has awareness, it is not just a backdrop. It knows and is part of us. Country is our homeland. It is home and land, but it is also more than that. It is the seas and waters, the rocks and soils, the animals and winds and people too. It is the connections between those beings, and their dreams and emotions, their languages and their Law” (Gay-Wu Group of Women)¹⁵.  

​

Country does not end at the terrestrial. As Wurundjeri cultural custodian and scholar Mandy Nicholson¹⁶ explains, Country has many layers that extend into the internal depths of language and subjectivity and out into the cosmic depths of Sky Country and outer space. In a recent defense of Indigenous sky rights from colonial exploitation, First Nations astronomers Karlie Noon and Krystal De Napoli write that “it is incorrect to think of Sky Country as lifeless, nor can it be regarded as sphaera nullius”¹⁷. 

​

The concept of Sky Country offers a perspective of the cosmos which pluralises nature rather than reducing it to a monolithic signifier. It provides a multiplicitous view of the cosmos which places Australia in and between the Southeast Asian and Pacific archipelagos, and thus many worlds away from imperial Europe and Commonwealth law which legitimates the ongoing colonial possession and occupation of sovereign Indigenous Country¹⁸.  

​

These insights from Indigenous cultural custodians and scholars are especially important for us living and working in settler colonial contexts. They help us responsibly encounter knowledges that (re-) imagine the planet as emplaced in locations and embodied by peoples, practices, and histories that are near to us, and importantly, also precede the systems of coloniality of which we are part. A curriculum and pedagogy focused on critically attuned readings of Indigenous and Global South literatures, whether as teachers or students, can restore a much-needed sense of planetary nearness and inseparability for us all. While there is no doubt that practices and ideas travel the Earth, it is always our nearest and closest neighbours with whom it would seem we are most directly and tangibly entangled. These most proximate links to planetary conditions connect us with every other part of the Earth: they are the roots and routes of our planetary relations. 

​

One or many complexities 

​

The pluriverse proposes that worlds are continuously being regenerated and degenerated through Earthly practices of life-living. New worlds do not emerge out of nowhere. Rather, they are born of ethical and political struggles between differently situated cosmologies and knowledges as they come into encounter, conflict, negotiation, and recognition.  

​

By conceptualising the planetary as a site of ongoing struggle for articulation and intelligibility, its claims are concretely grounded in how human and nonhuman creatures live and make visible the ontology of relatedness in shared places of encounter and exchange between worlds. Regenerative worldmaking is born of the differences generated and learned through the immediacy of these worldly encounters. This is why a planetary pedagogy can’t rely only on abstract systems or models to explain ‘nature’, ‘science’, or ‘reality’ in universal terms.  

​

Since the mid-20th century many different branches of Western science have sought to define the planetary as constituted by complex systems across scales – from the sub-atomic to the astronomical. Many proponents of complexity theory and systems thinking see a complexity-informed worldview as urging users against hubris and over-confidence, and towards inclusivity and an acknowledgement of plurality. However, our ambit here is significantly wider and more contingent. Complexity thinking is often evoked as a capacity to identify, describe, and represent patterns that resonate in systems across scales¹⁹. Yet, complexity and systems theories have now become key rubrics through which many global industries and governments design their systems and modes of operation, finding high levels of compatibility with automated decision-making and AI. This is not surprising given the historical links that have been made between general systems theory, statistics, and cybernetics emerging from corporate technology and military industries from the mid-20th century²⁰ ²¹ ²², a convergence that sought to model the complexity of nature (including the human mind) as a system with an explicable and exploitable order²³ ²⁴ ²⁵ ²⁶. Systems and complexity theories have been seen by some as following a line of European and Anglo-American thought which seeks to universalise the planetary as a system that can be secured, managed, governed, and known²⁷, despite many proponents of complexity theory overtly emphasising themes of the incompleteness of any knowledge and of unpredictability.  

​

Studies of pluriversality provide significant counterexamples to universal models by demonstrating how ontological politics often determines which worlds survive and which worlds are lost²⁸ ²⁹. For example, a recent collaboration between environmental artists, philosophers, choreographers, and musicians explored the impacts of climate change on rituals practiced by Indigenous peoples in Brazil, Trinidad, and Bali³⁰. Drawing on pluriversal thinking, the authors suggest that these rituals are pedagogies through which ‘memories, epistemology, ontology, sound and affect, multiple physical materials with earlier lives (in trees, in the earth) and lives yet to come … all become joined, metabolised, knotted together in entanglements of sinuous threads’. As a collaborator and guest of the Kuikuro people in the Central Amazon basin, choreographer Birgitte Bauer-Nilsen³¹ learned directly how the impacts of climate change, land clearing, and biodiversity loss have made their ritual dance practices increasingly hard to sustain as plants and animals become extinct in the forest. This loss of ritual has come to mark world-ending events in which complex threads of ecological balance and regeneration developed over millennia are now breaking down at the contested interface between Indigenous lifeways and capitalist logics of extraction. Pluriversal thinking helps to see how the loss of ritual in the Central Amazon is not simply an emergent property of a complex system, but a conflict between vastly different cosmologies and political ontologies which are irreconcilable by any single model of complexity or systematisation³² ³³.  

​

Federal court cases and laws in Bolivia, Peru, and Aotearoa (New Zealand) that recognise the entangled rights of nature and Indigenous sovereignties have now become contact zones where the logic of the pluriverse is being tested³⁴. However, these cases remain contained within the politico-legal systems of individual states making it difficult to influence timely action on climate justice at a planetary scale. In working towards a concept and practice of planetary justice, we are learning how to critically evaluate the historical locatedness of various theories and models of planetary complexity and build ‘contingent collaborations’ between them as an important pedagogical task³⁵. We need to remain wary of claims to any universal model or solution while attending to planetary perspectives which accommodate diverse cosmologies and living relationships with the Earth, even when they mutually contradict one another. The pluriverse and its commitment to planetary justice is a paradoxical proposition which seeks to work with (rather than dissolve) the differences that arise from onto-political struggles between worlds.  

​

Thinking beyond disaster 

​

Many of the global discourses around climate change and biodiversity loss have called for unification in response to imminent disasters and planetary crises. However, a planetary pedagogy that seeks to cultivate places of learning where multiple worlds are shared, cannot be solely driven by fear of disasters and crises to come.  

​

As teachers, we have struggled with the knowledge that our students often wear the burden of knowing that their future will be dramatically affected by the climate crisis and biodiversity loss. While climate change is unfolding before our eyes, worse is projected to come, and these students will need to be prepared to adapt to radically destablised planetary conditions. We recognise that climate distress amongst our students is real, especially when together we read texts that deal with climatological trauma and loss, prompting their own reflections on what it means to grow up in the so-called Anthropocene. Loss of hope, paralysis and nihilism are all understandable responses. How do we engage sensitively with these feelings? Could it be that this loss of hope is also a loss of faith in reductive and totalising concepts of humanity, science, and nature which have been inherited through Euro-western knowledge system 

​

As First Nations writers, scholars and activists have long pointed out, dystopian and apocalyptic conditions are not new but rather something their communities have endured, resisted and survived for centuries³⁶ ³⁷. To teach with and through the planetary is to teach against the universal narratives of disaster and saviourism, which in our context, are largely inherited through Euro-western structures of thought. We recognise the violence in this disaster thinking, where an event only becomes a crisis when it impacts dominant cultures.³⁸ Evoking the planetary through fear alone risks a one-dimensional conceptualisation and potentially reinforces the anthropocentric and individualising roots of coloniality that perpetuate Euro-western modernity's insistence on a singular, universal experience. 

​

Becoming Worlds: One or many times  

​

How do we begin to get a sense of the planetary as always more than a single nature or world?  

Given the centrality of time to cosmological accounts of worldmaking and complexity, the question of temporality is key to how a planetary pedagogy might be navigated. Although designed for the purposes of knowledge production and preservation (however problematic), the contract of learning within the Western University was founded on the ‘mean time’ of European modernity as the guarantee for certain prescriptions of value. Recent work in the environmental humanities has brought to bear the challenges that temporal models have upon distinctions between natural and human-made systems³⁹, while critical educational researchers have emphasised the radical impact of temporal frames on how problems are comprehended and addressed across scales⁴⁰ ⁴¹. This includes framings of deep cosmological and biological time, such as long-term geological and evolutionary processes, as well as anthropogenic time, which involves historical, cultural, and societal perspectives that shape time according to particular onto-political investments⁴².  

​

Thinking with a pluriversal frame has a way of multiplying and diffracting time. It incites us to explore the mutual enfolding of time and place by learning from Indigenous timescapes that rupture linear models of temporality⁴³. 

​

Imagining the timescapes of other species offers an important pedagogical opportunity. Bastian⁴⁴ argues that the Euro-Western separation of human concepts and measurements of time from the temporalities of nonhuman creatures has produced a fatal sense of confusion around action on climate change. He describes the endangered Leatherback turtle as an ecological clock with 100 million years of evolutionary history which is now registering the sudden and drastic temporal effects of a hyper-carbon-based economy. “Turtles not only tell us about the unstable time of an active Earth, they also tell the frustratingly slow time of human efforts to respond to recognised environmental threats”. 

To recognise and learn from multispecies timescapes can encourage ‘active and unfinished learners and makers of worlds’⁴⁵. This holds the potential for radically diversified and hybridised forms of planetary citizenship and environmental custodianship which recognises responsibilities between past, present, and future generations. The exploration of interconnectedness across different temporal scales, a planetary pedagogy and curricula could support ecological reparation within colonised landscapes through a critical appreciation for the slow, transformative forces that restore and regenerate the poly-temporal diversities of life.  

​

'At the heart of this political project lays an ethics that respects vulnerability, but re-works it affirmatively, while actively constructing social infrastructures of generosity and hope' 

​

Responsible practice  

​

For those of us writing from unceded Indigenous lands, a planetary pedagogy must firstly identify the extractive and possessive structures underlying contemporary higher education and principles of knowledge production.  

 

A key task of a planetary pedagogy is to confront institutional structures of supremacy and complicity both personally and collectively. This requires becoming alert to the slippage between thinking in solidarity with decolonial and Indigenous scholarship and co-opting these discourses and practices as ‘new’ innovations in thinking and practice. In our own institutional context, this work is framed and guided by the concept of Responsible Practice.   

 

Responsible Practice is a call to embody actions that support responsible ways of working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, knowledges, places, and communities. This involves a continuous interrogation and reconceptualisation of education and research practices through critical dialogues guided by Indigenous leadership. Responsible practice extends from our working lives into our everyday relations of care with local places, our multispecies communities, each other, and ourselves⁴⁶. By working to engage responsibly at the cultural interface of Indigenous, migrant-diasporic, and settler colonial relations with place⁴⁷, there is an opportunity to develop deeper understandings of living within more-than-human ecologies and diverse ways of knowing and caring for Country.   

​

Conclusion: Toward a planetary collectivity  

 

The remit of higher – and other tiers of – education needs urgently to be retrained on the formation of more-than-human planetary solidarities. This shift is political in the sense of rerouting populations and the individuals who comprise them as the necessary fulcrum to interrupt current arrangements of power and knowledge and set them on a vastly different course.  

 

To develop new approaches for managing human impact on the planet, institutions must reconsider the occupations they teach and how these fields perpetuate extractive practices and often shirk the consequences of extinction, disaster, and environmental degradation, or pass them on for others to cleanup.  

 

The pedagogical task that we face calls for a relational ethic of care and responsibility that is not yet achieved through a traditional University model. Rather than asserting a totalising model of the World and how it works as the answer, the pluriverse asks us to work from the incommensurable and unknowable differences between worlds. This includes nonhuman worlds which have their own ways of producing, communicating, regenerating, and exchanging knowledges.  

​

“Let’s listen. Do you hear the wind in the trees? The water on the beach? The splash of the fish? That is the wind, the trees, the water, the sand, the fish communicating. They have their own language, their own Law. Sometimes they are sending a message to humans. Sometimes they are sending a message to each other. Humans are not the centre of the universe, you see. Humans are only one part of it. Humans are part of Country along with the mullet, the tides, the moon, the songs and stories, along with the spirits, the plants and animals, the feelings and dreams”. (Bawaka Country)⁴⁸ 

​

The voice of Bawaka Country comes from a close-knit collective of Yolngu and non-Indigenous women and their nonhuman kin in Northeast Arnhem Land. They invite us to come and listen to Country with care, where everything teaches and learns, and there is no human authority to be separated from all the rest to judge its veracity from a distance. Such listening practices are crucial for a planetary pedagogy that is responsive to multiple cosmologies and knowledges that do or may exist, “but do not meet the requirements of modern knowledge and therefore cannot be proven in its terms”⁴⁹. 

 

Like a string of islands cast across the abyss of the sea, a planetary pedagogy is structured more like an archipelago than a monolithic nation state⁵⁰. It recognises the opaque and unfathomable depths between worlds, and that these depths do not need to be grasped or made transparent in order to practice our lives in responsible and regenerative ways.  

 

Just as Foucault gave a historical sense to ‘the individual’ as a new political identity formed through modern practices of individualisation, the task of a planetary pedagogy is to engender new forms of political solidarity predicated on deformalised practices of collectivisation, or what Harney and Moten term ‘the undercommons’⁵¹. This entails the improvisation of shared structures of feeling and sociality that are inclusive of radically diverse human and nonhuman worlds, an orientation that Denise Ferreira da Silva terms ‘difference without separability’⁵². As a pedagogy predicated on planetary proximity and responsibility rather than distancing and individualisation, it asks both educators and students to relinquish learned understanding of humans as self-contained subjects consuming education as chosen knowledge to acquire their necessary capital.  

 

Such ambitions and the possibility of remaking subjects with collective attributes and capacities is neither unprecedented nor only a very long-term project⁵³, a consideration given the urgency of our times. Nonetheless, the techniques and knowledges to be assembled and invented are considerable, and educators need to be given – or take – the organisational time and space to study and practice this work carefully and responsibly.   

 

A logic of extraction - with its linear, transactional, means-end relationships - is the logic by which the Earth’s material and subjective reserves have been so effectively plundered⁵⁴. What if we could find and practice a means without any specific end in mind? The ongoing invention of a means without end is key to the production of a planetary pedagogy as a collective endeavour that is openly creative and improvisational at heart.  

This is powerfully realised in educational settings which take up the continuous struggle to collectively dream and envision worlds which are otherwise.  

​​

¹ Spivak, G. C. (2003) Planetarity. In Death of a Discipline. Columbia University Press.

² Mbembe, A. (2023). Brutalism. Duke University Press.

³ Law, J. (2015). What’s Wrong with a One-World World? Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 16 (1), 126–139.

⁴ Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—An argument. CR: The new centennial review, 3(3), 257-337.

⁵ Barad, K. (2007). ‘Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning’. Duke University Press.

⁶ Meloni, M. (2016). Political biology: Science and social values in human heredity from eugenics to epigenetics. Palgrave Macmillan.

⁷ Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy,

and the making of worlds . Duke University Press

⁸ Nakata, M. (2007). The cultural interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education , 36(S1), 7-14.

⁹ Castillo, M. R. F. (2016). Dancing the Pluriverse: Indigenous Performance as Ontological Praxis. Dance Research Journal 48 (1): 55–73.

¹⁰ Leitão, R. M. (2022). From needs to desire: Pluriversal design as a desire-based design. Design and Culture , 14(3), 255-276.

¹¹ Perry, M. (2021). Pluriversal literacies: Affect and relationality in vulnerable times. Reading Research Quarterly , 56(2), 293-309.

¹² Rousell, D. (2023). Weaving the pluriverse: Childhood encounters with the underground worlds of Birrarung Marr. Children's Geographies , 1-17.

¹³ Vasudevan, R., & Novoa E, M. (2022). Pluriversal planning scholarship: Embracing multiplicity and situated knowledges in community-based approaches. Planning Theory , 21 (1), 77-100.

¹⁴ Escobar, A. (2020). Pluriversal politics: The real and the possible . Duke University Press.

¹⁵ Gay-Wu Group of Women, including Burarrwanga, L., Ganambarr, R., Ganambarr-Stubbs, M., Ganambarr, B., Maymuru, D., Wright, S., … & Lloyd, K. (2019). Songspirals: Sharing Women’s Wisdom of Country Through Songlines. Allen & Unwin

¹⁶ Nicholson, M. (2018). If Something is Asleep You Can Always Wake it Up: Mandy Nicholson in conversation with Danni Zuvela. Disclaimer . https://disclaimer.org.au/contents/if-something-is-asleep-you-can-always-wake-it-upmandy- nicholson-in-conversation-with-danni-zuvela

¹⁷ Noon, K., & De Napoli, K. (2022). First Knowledges Astronomy: Sky Country . Thames & Hudson Australia.

¹⁸ Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015). The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty . University of Minnesota Press.

¹⁹ Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence. Oxford University Press.

²⁰ Cogdell, C. (2019). Toward a living architecture? Complexism and biology in generative design. University of Minnesota Press.

²¹ Spoor, B., & de Werd, P. (2023). Complexity in Military Intelligence. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence , 36(4), 1122–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2023.2209493

²² Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203-213). Routledge.

²³ Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.

²⁴ Chun, W. H. K. (2021). Discriminating data: Correlation, neighborhoods, and the new politics of recognition. MIT press.

²⁵ McElroy, E. (2024). Silicon Valley Imperialism: Techno Fantasies and Frictions in Postsocialist Times . Duke University Press.

²⁶ McIlwain, C. D. (2020). Black Software: The Internet and Racial Justice, from the AfroNet to Black Lives Matter. Oxford University Press.

²⁷ Eckstein, L., & Reinfandt, C. (2016). Luhmann in da contact zone: Towards a postcolonial critique of sociological systems theory (pp. 151-166). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

²⁸ Gills, B. K., & Hosseini, S. H. (2022). Pluriversality and beyond: Consolidating radical alternatives to (mal-) development as a commonist project. Sustainability Science , 17 (4), 1183-1194.

²⁹ Paulson, S. (2018). Pluriversal learning: pathways toward a world of many worlds. Nordia Geographical Publications , 47 (5), 85-109.

³⁰ Rousell, D., Ryan, E., Bauer-Nilsen, B., & Lai, R. (2022). Animist pedagogies and the endings of worlds: Rituals for the pluriverse. In Doing Rebellious Research (pp. 263- 281). Brill.

³¹ Rousell, D., Ryan, E., Bauer-Nilsen, B., & Lai, R. (2022). Animist pedagogies and the endings of worlds: Rituals for the pluriverse. In Doing Rebellious Research (pp. 263- 281). Brill.

³² De La Cadena, M, & Blaser, M. (2018) A World of Many Worlds . Eds. Duke University

Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jpzq.

³³ Robinson, D. (2020). Hungry listening: Resonant theory for Indigenous sound studies . University of Minnesota Press.

³⁴ De La CADENA, M. (2010), INDIGENOUS COSMOPOLITICS IN THE ANDES: Conceptual Reflections beyond “Politics”. Cultural Anthropology, 25: 334- 370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01061.x

³⁵ Lobo, M., Mayes, E., & Bedford, L. (2024). Earth Unbound: Situating Climate Change, Solidarity and Planetary Justice. In Lobo, M., Mayes, E., & Bedford, L. (Eds). Planetary justice: stories and studies of action, resistance and solidarity (pp. 1-22). Bristol University Press.

³⁶ Whyte, K. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes , 55(1), 153-162.

³⁷ Walton, R., & Coleman, C. (2023). Beyond the Dystopia in Progress: Rehearsing an Indiginised Future ‘Australia’ through Public Art. In McQuilten, G., & Palmer, D. (Eds.), Dystopian and Utopian Impulses in Art Making: The World We Want . Intellect Books.

³⁸ Charnley, K. (2021). Sociopolitical aesthetics: Art, crisis and neoliberalism. Bloomsbury Publishing.

³⁹ Bastian, M., & Facer, K. (2023). Introduction: Teaching time. Time & Society , 32(3), 239-246.

⁴⁰ Cole, D. R. (2024). What happens next? Working the time dimension of educational research. In Educational Research and the Question (s) of Time (pp. 19-38). Springer Nature Singapore.

⁴¹ Facer, K. (2019). Storytelling in troubled times: what is the role for educators in the deep crises of the 21st century? Literacy , 53(1), 3-13.

⁴² Clayton, J. (2021). Time considered as a helix of infinite possibilities. Medical Humanities , 47:185-192.

⁴³ Bawaka Country, including Wright, S., S. Suchet-Pearson, K. Lloyd, L. Burarrwanga, R. Ganambarr, M. GanambarrStubbs, B. Ganambarr, and D. Maymuru. (2015). Working with and Learning from Country: Decentring Human Authority. Cultural Geographies 22 (2), 269–283.

⁴⁴ Bastian, M. (2012). Fatally Confused: Telling the Time in the Midst of Ecological Crises. Environmental Philosophy , 9 (1), 23-48.

⁴⁵ Amsler, S. & Facer, K. (2017). Contesting anticipatory regimes in education: exploring alternative educational orientations to the future. Futures , Volume 94, 6-14.

⁴⁶ Bishop, M. (2022). Indigenous education sovereignty: another way of 'doing' education. Critical studies in education , 63(1), 131-146.

⁴⁷ Nakata, M. (2007). The cultural interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education , 36(S1), 7-14.

⁴⁸ Bawaka Country, including Wright, S., S. Suchet-Pearson, K. Lloyd, L. Burarrwanga, R. Ganambarr, M. GanambarrStubbs, B. Ganambarr, and D. Maymuru. (2015). Working with and Learning from Country: Decentring Human Authority. Cultural Geographies 22 (2), 269–283.

⁴⁹ De La Cadena, M, & Blaser, M. (2018) A World of Many Worlds . Eds. Duke University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jpzq.

⁵⁰ Glissant, E. (1997). Poetics of Relation . University of Michigan Press.

⁵¹ Harney, S., & Moten, F. (2013). The undercommons: Fugitive planning and black study. Minor Compositions.

⁵² da Silva, D. F. (2014). Toward a black feminist poethics: The quest(ion) of blackness toward the end of the world. The Black Scholar , 44(2), 81-97.

⁵³ Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2013). Arts of the Political: New Openings for the Left. Duke University Press.

⁵⁴ Mbembe, A. (2021). Thoughts on the planetary: An interview with Achille Mbembe. In Decolonising the Neoliberal University (pp. 122-136). Birkbeck Law Press.