homage to myopic knowledge systems, rigid state education directives, and
academic-professional communities intent on reproducing the same practices,
knowledges, and relationships that have endangered our shared world and
shared presents/presence is not where educators should be investing their
energy. For example, the forces and flows of science education render the
Anthropocene an epistemological object to be learnt about rather than with
or through such that it might implicate the learner (Gilbert, 2016). Science
education does not (and cannot not in its current forms) meet the needs of
the post/human moment(s) in which we find ourselves.
This work continues the transdisciplinary project of transforming the ways
communities inherit science education. Specifically, authors were invited not
to fit questions of the Anthropocene into science (or) education but rather
attend to their cross product(ion). In other words, authors attended to
the proliferation of possibilities and (re)orientations made possible through
reading these dialogically rather than dialectically. Not unlike de Freitas et al.
(2017), "we hope this cross product... amplifies the philosophical insights
from each, stretching scholarship in new directions and across disciplines"
(p. 551). Throughout the book, authors nurture productive relationships
between science education and fields such as science studies, environmental
studies, philosophy, political science, the natural sciences, Indigenous studies,
feminist studies, critical race studies, and critical theory in order to provoke
a science education that actively seeks to remake our shared ecological and
social spaces in the coming decades and centuries. After Stengers (2018), we
exclaim that "another science [education] is possible!"-but also necessary in
rethinking and regenerating our world yet-to-come.
