Abstract Northern theories like “new materialism” and “posthumanism” are, increasingly, influential in the global productions of knowledge in environmental education (EE). In this latest discursive phase of textualising EE, the conceptual mash of “new/post” idea(lism)s is easily identified, but not critically examined, as is undertaken here via three interrelated critical case studies of key idea(l)s in the new/post. Criticism of the current normative, theoretical, methodological, and empirical mess of environmental education research (EER) must be understood within three historical and structural problems, namely; (i) the formative stages of modern EE in the 1970s, (ii) the escalating importance of theory in the 1990s transition from modern thought to postmodern thinking, (iii) the neo-liberalization of academic identity formations and post-intellectual relations in the audit culture of the corporate university of the 2000s. The first two closely related case studies of the new/post highlight the ahistorical and atheoretical mash of performatively-driven abstract theorizing in EE. Each demonstrates how earlier “founding” policy of EE, its implied pedagogical praxis, and commensurable methodological development in EER have been forgotten. The first critique focusses historically on the allegedly new idea of “agential relations” and its confused discursive claims about “action”. Forgotten is the vital matter of “ecology” and its relational “things”. The second rescues the ecofeminist notion of “embodied materialism”. Ecofeminist praxis has been deactivated by the new/post abstraction of feminist poststructural knowledge claims on “material-discursive practices”. Together, these interrelated critiques retrieve a much needed historical-critical-material frame from which new/post textualism can be conceptually reconstructed and empirically qualified in ways that reactivate the ecopolitical rationale for founding EE. If, indeed, theory is needed in ecopedagogical praxis, an alternative case exists for “bringing theory back in” via, for example, ecophenomenology, ecological anthropology, and ecohumanism. Ecopedagogical practices and their research might then (re)”turn” to a realist ontology via, for example, the “materialisms” of the “new” of “speculative realism” coupled with the “old” (sic) of “critical realism” in, strangely, “post post” claims on knowledge production. At issue in de-abstracting, re-materializing, repoliticizing, and decentering the hubristic authority of theory in new/post EER are numerous axiological commitments, epistemological issues, and methodological dilemmas concerning the onto ∼ ethics ∼ politics of (mis)representation in the global North. Underpinning the two case critiques is a third “criticism” of the postmodern means (mediums/modes) of knowledge production (forms) as they “intersectionally” perform a digitally platformed and instrumental colonization of the global North and South discourse of EER. “Other”wise, in the post-intellectual climate change of a universalizing new\post technics of “agentialism,”, we misrecognize who we are textually “becoming” and, in being so post-inscribed and newly-mediated, are distracted from what “really” practically matters in the field, and why it “materially” exists.

中文翻译：

---

环境教育中的“一时健忘症”

摘要 “新唯物主义”和“后人文主义”等北方理论在全球环境教育（EE）知识生产中的影响力越来越大。在这个文本化 EE 的最新话语阶段，“新/后”想法（列表）的概念混搭很容易识别，但没有经过严格审查，正如这里通过三个相互关联的关键想法（L）的关键案例研究进行的那样新的/帖子。对当前环境教育研究 (EER) 的规范、理论、方法和经验混乱的批评必须在三个历史和结构性问题中加以理解，即：(i) 1970 年代现代 EE 的形成阶段， (ii) 在 1990 年代从现代思想到后现代思想的转变中，理论的重要性不断上升，(iii) 2000 年代企业大学审计文化中学术身份形成和后知识分子关系的新自由化。新/后的前两个密切相关的案例研究突出了 EE 中执行驱动的抽象理论的非历史性和非理论性混搭。每个人都展示了早期的 EE 的“创始”政策、其隐含的教学实践以及 EER 中可衡量的方法论发展是如何被遗忘的。第一个批评在历史上侧重于所谓的“代理关系”的新观念及其关于“行动”的混乱的话语主张。被遗忘的是“生态”及其相关“事物”的重要问题。第二个拯救了生态女性主义的“具身唯物主义”概念。生态女性主义实践已被新的/后抽象的女权主义后结构知识主张“物质-话语实践”所停用。这些相互关联的批评共同检索了一个急需的历史-批判-材料框架，从中可以从概念上重建新/后文本主义，并以重新激活创建 EE 的生态政治原理的方式进行经验限定。如果在生态教学实践中确实需要理论，那么存在通过例如生态现象学、生态人类学和生态人文主义“带回理论”的替代案例。生态教学实践及其研究可能会（重新）“转向”现实主义本体论，例如，通过“思辨现实主义”的“新”与“批判现实主义”的“旧”（原文如此）相结合的“唯物主义”在，奇怪的是，关于知识生产的“post post”声明。在新的/后 EER 中去抽象、重新物化、重新政治化和去中心化理论的傲慢权威的问题是许多价值论承诺、认识论问题和方法论困境，这些问题涉及到全球北方。支持这两种案例批评的是对知识生产（形式）的后现代手段（媒介/模式）的第三次“批评”，因为它们“交叉地”对全球 EER 的南北话语进行数字化平台化和工具化殖民。“其他”方面，在普遍化的“代理主义”新\后技术的后知识分子气候变化中，我们错误地认识了我们在文本上“成为”的人，并且在如此后刻录和新媒介中，