What’s In a Name? The Signifiers and Empty Signifiers of Environmental Sustainability Education: Implications for Teacher Education

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Bulrr

This article examines how signifiers and empty signifiers shape the mainstreaming of environmental and sustainability education (ESE) in teacher education. The authors argue that ESE’s common label functions as an empty signifier because it does not clearly convey meaning. Through a modified semiotic analysis and philosophical inquiry tracing presustainability, sustainability, and post-sustainability terminology, the paper evaluates limits and benefits of empty signification and links them to challenges in teacher education mainstreaming, concluding that a core ESE course should be mandated.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages22

Reading Time55 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Purpose and Research Focus

Organization and Methodology

Part I: Statement of the Research Problem and Methodology

Concepts: Signifiers and Mainstreaming

Field Background and Signifier Diversity

What’s In a Name? The Signifiers and Empty Signifiers of Environmental Sustainability Education: Implications for Teacher Education A journal of educational research and practice 2022 Vol. 31 (2) 109−130 [https://journals.library.brocku.ca/brocked](https://journals.library.brocku.ca/brocked) Douglas D. Karrow 1* , Xavier Fazio 1 , David Zandvliet2 1 Brock University 2 Simon Fraser University Abstract The purpose of this article is to examine how signifiers and empty signifiers may contribute to the mainstreaming of environmental and sustainability education in teacher education. We argue that the moniker of environmental and sustainability education is an empty signifier in that it fails to convey meaning about what it signifies. Tracing the history of the presustainability, sustainability, and post-sustainability field signifiers, and their respective subfield signifiers (e.g. , environmental education and education for sustainable development) , we conduct a philosophical inquiry, augmented by a modified form of semiotic analysis, to expose the degree to which these signifiers are empty. The limitations and benefits of empty signification are explored through philosophical interpretation. Implications of empty signifier limitations are considered in teacher education and the manner in which they may contribute to the unsuccessful mainstreaming of environmental and sustainability education in teacher education. We conclude that a core or compulsory environmental and sustainability education course should be mandated in teacher education to ensure that all teacher candidates receive the education they require to educate future generations of children to live well on Earth. Keywords: environmental and sustainability education, teacher education, signifiers, empty signifiers, philosophic inquiry, semiotic analysis, programming approaches * [doug.karrow@brocku.ca](doug.karrow@brocku.ca) The purpose of this conceptual paper is to examine why environmental and sustainability education (ESE) 1 employs a diversity of names (signifiers) when referring to itself (e.g. , environmental education, education for sustainable development , education for sustainability , etc.) , in contrast to other fields of study such as science education that employs a singular name to describe its field (i.e. , science education) . Whereas singular names remain relatively stable over time, the names for ESE change and diversify with time, reflecting current worldviews as orientations toward nature, political ideology, ethics, and aims of education. Acceptance for diversity of names in a given field is referred to as pluralism. The answer to the leading question in our title “What’s In a Name?” and its significance to ESE is deceivingly complex. What’s more, it has received little to no critical attention or analysis in teacher education. Furthermore, its effect on mainstreaming in teacher education is unknown. In response to this question , our paper is organized as follows. In Part I , we provide a statement of the research problem , identifying the problem and the objective of this inquiry. We then problematize it in relation to the larger challenge of mainstreaming 2 ESE in Canadian teacher education.3 We conclude by summarizing our inquiry questions and outlining our methodology: philosophical inquiry augmented by semiotic analysis. In Part II , we provide a brief historical overview of the field of ESE, identifying major signifying fields and sub-fields and portray how these developed as expressions of distinct worldviews. This sets the stage in Part III , to conduct a semiotic analysis of ESE signifiers exposing their limitations and benefits. Lastly, in Part IV , we examine the balance sheet of the limitations and benefits of empty signifiers, and their implications for mainstreaming in teacher education , highlighting several conclusions. Part I: Statement of the Research Problem and Methodology Purpose There are

FAQs

Why do the authors call the moniker of environmental and sustainability education an empty signifier?

They argue the label fails to convey clear meaning about what it signifies, so it functions as an empty signifier in the context of teacher education mainstreaming.

How does the paper trace signifiers in the ESE field?

It traces the history of presustainability, sustainability, and post-sustainability signifiers and their subfield signifiers, such as environmental education and education for sustainable development.

What implications does the article draw for teacher education?

It considers how the limitations and benefits of empty signification affect mainstreaming, concluding that teacher education should include a core or compulsory ESE course for all teacher candidates.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Bulrr