La formación por competencias en el contexto educativo

There is a great significance in considering the dimensions of people- plant interactions in the context of social-technical transitions. An over- emphasis on anthropocentric “prior calculation” has been a defining fea- ture of capitalist industrial development, and this emphasis often ignores interactional dynamics in space, including how inner life shapes the social world. This is to say that the reorganization of society might need to be prefigured by or in tandem with a “reorganization of self” (Macy and Molly 1998) – not as a technical achievement, but as part of an experien- tial process or “ecology of participation” (Chilvers and Longhurst 2016) in which people need to actively engage.

Policies and architecture can change to promote some vision of sus- tainability, but how do people actually experience the built and unbuilt environment? When practitioners transform constrained institutions or neglected spaces into intentional sites of repeated people-plant interac- tions, they are creating conditions for the reorganization of self and socie- ty. It is in this sense that the design of people-plant interactions may be a case of how people may re-write given social or spatial scripts (cf., Akrich and Latour 1992) to reflect more ecologically attuned social relations and organization from the practice level.

It is important to note that promising possibilities of people-plant in- teractions are not a universal outcome of practice-based transition toward a more sustainable life and society. In many ways, plants have historically been part of urbanized societies—for example in the top-down planning of urban parks and recreational spaces. What is new is the intention of practitioners to cultivate healing or therapeutic spaces that are meant to lead to personal, organizational, or community change in settings such as schools, prisons, hospitals, or neighborhoods. In an era where concerns about planetary and human health are increasingly connected, analysis here suggests that it will be increasingly important to consider how inter- actional dynamics of people-plant interactions can be facilitated in ways that create lasting impacts for personal, institutional and societal trans- formations.

Overall, an attention towards people-plant interaction ritual chains shifts the focus of people-plant interactions from top-down technical management to presence, which is simultaneously oriented towards an attentive mindfulness of micro-level needs and relaxed awareness of mac-

ro-level conditions. Such an orientation seeks to value the variation and difference that might emerge in situations. Healing garden spaces, with their boundless variety of people-plant interactions, are therefore poten- tially well-suited to be oriented towards an “interdependence of mutual (non-dominant) difference” (Lordre 1983). This difference can be initially recognized, acknowledged, and welcomed through the senses.

Overall, this paper has explored the ways that, the dynamics of peo- ple-plant interactions may illuminate important, previously unconsidered, pathways to socio-technical transition through more ecological forms of constraint. It is long been noted that 20th century institutions and spaces are characterized by widespread sensory deprivation that can constrain social and psychological capacities (cf., Berman 1990; Louv 2009). Ac- cordingly, people-plant interactions may orient social life toward qualities of previously unconsidered plant ecologies through practices, rituals, and a sensory re-orientation that includes the living more-than-human world. It is this way that people-plant interaction rituals might open up new ways for people and organizations to see, act, or be.

The result of this re-orientation is not that people abandon all forms of constraint or discerning judgement; but rather, practices and rituals with- in plant environments may facilitate a shift – from the linear rhythms of calculative instrumental rationality toward the more cyclical or reciprocal rhythms of the plant world. The opening, or unfolding, potential of peo- ple-plant interactions is therefore neither prescriptive nor certain. As an important emerging practice that may contribute to socio-technical transi- tions, the phenomenon of people-plant interactions calls for further inves- tigation about how socio-spatial interventions can use plants to enable new ways of organizing social life as part of a wider ecological community. References

Abram, D. (1997) The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More- Than-Human World, New York, Vintage.

Akrich, M. (1992) The de-scription of technical objects, in W. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 205-224.

Akrich, M. and Latour, B. (1992) A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies, in W. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 259-264.

Allen, K. (2011) Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds, Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press.

Avelino, F., Grin, J., Pel, B., and Jhagroe, S. (2016) The Politics of Sustainability Transitions, in “Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning”, 18 (5), pp. 557- 567.

Bataille, G. (1988) The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy, New York, Zone Books.

Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things, Durham, Duke University Press.

Berman, M. (1990) Coming to Our Senses: Body and Spirit in the Hidden History of the West, New York, Bantam Books.

Blake, P. (1977) Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn’t Worked, Boston and Toronto, Little, Brown and Company.

Braungart, M. and McDonough, W. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Cadora, E., Kurgan, L., Reinfurt, D., Williams, S., and Meisterlin, L. (2006) Ar- chitecture and Justice, New York, Spatial Information Design Lab at Colum- bia University.

Callon, M. (1998) An Essay on Framing and Overflowing: Economic Externalities Revisited by Sociology, in “The Sociological Review”, 46 (1), pp. 244-269. Cermak, M. (2012) Hip-hop, Social Justice, and Environmental Education: To-

ward a Critical Ecological Literacy, in “The Journal of Environmental Educa- tion”, 43 (3), pp. 192-203.

Chilvers, J. and Longhurst, N. (2016) Participation in Transition(S): Reconceiving Public Engagements in Energy Transitions as Co-produced, Emergent, and Diverse, in “Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning”, 5, pp. 585-607. Collins, R. (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton, Princeton University

Press.

Cooper-Marcus, C. and Sachs, N.A. (2014) Therapeutic Landscapes: An Evi- dence-Based Approach to Designing Healing Gardens and Restorative Out- door Spaces, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Contreras, R. (2017) There’s No Sunshine: Spatial Anguish, Deflections, and In- tersectionality in Compton and South Central, in “Environment and Planning D: Society and Space”, 35 (4), pp. 656-673.

DelSesto, M. (2015) Cities, Gardening and Urban Citizenship: Transforming Va- cant Acres into Community Resources, in “Cities and the Environment”, 8 (2). Domínguez Rubio, F. and Fogué, U. (2017) Unfolding the Political Capacities of

Design, in “Diseña”, 11, pp. 96-109.

Dubos, R. (1980) The Wooing of the Earth, New York, Scribner.

Du Bois, W.E.B. (1903) The Souls of Black Folk, Chicago, A.C. McClurg & Co. Emerson, R.M. (1976) Social exchange theory, in “Annual Review of Sociology”,

2, pp. 335-362.

Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York, Vintage Books.

Fullilove, M.T. (2013) Urban Alchemy: Restoring Joy in America’s Sorted-Out Cities, New York, NYU Press.

Gallis, C. (ed.) (2013) Green Care: For Human Therapy, Social Innovation, Rural Economy, and Education, New York, Nova Science Publishers Inc.

Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study, in “Research Policy”, 31 (8), pp. 1257-1274.

Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates, New York, Anchor Books.

Gottschlich, D. and Bellina, L. (2017) Environmental Justice and Care: Critical Emancipatory Contributions to Sustainability Discourse, in “Agriculture and Human Values”, 34 (4), pp. 941-953.

Hale, J., Knapp, C., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J., Sancar, F., Litt, J.S. (2011) Connecting Food Environments and Health through the Relational Nature of Aesthetics: Gaining Insight Through the Community Gardening Experience, in “Social Science & Medicine”, 72 (11), pp. 1853-1863.

Haller, R.L., Kennedy, K.L., and Capra, C.L. (2019) The Profession and Practice of Horticultural Therapy, Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Hodson, D. (2003) Time for Action: Science Education for an Alternative Future, in “International Journal of Science Education”, 25 (6), pp. 645-670.

Hoffman, J. and Loeber, A. (2016) Exploring the Micro-Politics in Transitions from A Practice Perspective: The Case of Greenhouse Innovation in the Netherlands, in “Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning”, 18 (5), pp. 692-711.

Jensen, C.B., Ballestero, A., de la Cadena, M., Fisch, M., Ishii, M. (2017) New On- tologies? Reflections on Some Recent ‘Turns’ in STS, Anthropology, And Phi- losophy, in “Social Anthropology”, 25 (4), pp. 525-545.

Jiler, J. (2006) Doing Time in the Garden: Life Lessons Through Prison Horticul- ture, Oakland, New Village Press.

Johnston, N. (2000) Forms of Constraint: A History of Prison Architecture, Champaign, University of Illinois Press.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Ryan, R.L. (1998) With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature, Washington DC, Island Press.

Kohn, E. (2013) How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Hu- man, Berkley, University of California Press.

Kirwan, J., Ilbery, B., Maye, D., Carey, J. (2013) Grassroots Social Innovations and Food Localisation: An Investigation of the Local Food Programme in England, in “Global Environmental Change”, 23 (5), pp. 830-837.

Krasny, M.E. and Tidball, K.G. (2015) Civic Ecology: Adaptation and Transfor- mation from the Ground Up, Cambridge, MIT Press.

dane Artifacts, in W.E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 225-258. Leiss, W. (1994) The Domination of Nature, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s Universi-

ty Press.

Lordre, A. (1983) The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House, in C. Moraga and G. Anzaldúa (eds.), This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, New York, Kitchen Table Press, pp. 94-103. Louv, R. (2009) Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-

Deficit Disorder, Chapel Hill, Algonquin Books.

Macy, J. and Molly, Y.B. (1998) Coming Back to Life: Practices to Reconnect Our Lives, Our World, Gabriola Island, New Society Publishers.

Mares, T.M. and Peña, D.G. (2010) Urban agriculture and the making of insur- gent spaces in Los Angeles and Seattle, in J. Hou (ed.), Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities, New York and London, Routledge, pp. 241-254.

Mauer, M. (2006) Race to Incarcerate, New York, The Sentencing Project. Murray, E. (1997) Cultivating Sacred Space: Gardening for the Soul, San Francis-

co, Pomegranate.

Oommen, V.G., Knowles, M. and Zhao, I. (2008) Should Health Service Manag- ers Embrace Open Plan Work Environments? in Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, 3 (2), pp. 37-43.

Pfohl, S. (1998) Sacrificial Doublings and the Gift of Excess: Durkheim, Mauss, and the “Origins” of Poststructuralist Thought, in “Epoche: The University of California Journal for the Study of Religions”, 21 (2), pp. 15-29.

Rice, J.S. (2006). Working with nature: ceremonies for growth and understanding, in R.L. Haller and C.L. Kramer (eds.), Horticultural Therapy Methods: Mak- ing Connections in Health Care, Human Service, and Community Programs, Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Rod, J. and Kera, D. (2010) From Agency and Subjectivity to Animism: Phenom- enological and Science Technology Studies (STS) Approach to Design of Large Techno-Social Systems, in “Digital Creativity”, 21 (1), pp. 70-76. Scotti, I. and Minervini, D. (2017) Performative Connections: Translating Sus-

tainable Energy Transition by Local Communities, in “Innovation: The Euro- pean Journal of Social Science Research”, 30 (3), pp. 350-364.

Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practices of The Learning Organization, New York, Doubleday.

Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007) Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Devel- opment: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda, in “Environmental Pol- itics”, 16 (4), pp. 584-603.

Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2007) CAUTION! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Prac- tice, And Sustainable Transition Management, in “Environment & Planning

A”, 39 (4), 763-770.

Simone, A. (2016) The Uninhabitable? In Between Collapsed Yet Still Rigid Dis- tinctions, in “Cultural Politics”, 12 (2), pp. 135-154.

Smith, A., Voß, J.P. and Grin, J. (2010) Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges”, in “Research Policy”, 39 (4), pp. 435-448.

Sternberg, E.M. (2010) Healing Spaces: The Science and Place of Well-Being, Cambridge, Belknap Press.

Straus, M.C. and Simson, S.P. (1998) Horticulture as Therapy: Principles and Practice, Boca Raton, Taylor and Francis Group.

Söderlund, J. and Newman, P. (2017) Improving Mental Health In Prisons Through Biophilic Design, in “The Prison Journal”, 97 (6), pp. 750–772. Ulrich, R.S. (2008) Biophilic Theory and Research for Healthcare Design, in S.R.

Kellert, J. Heerwagen and M. Mador (eds.), Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.

Wacquant, L. (2009) Designing Urban Seclusion in the Twenty-First Century, in “Perspecta: The Yale Architectural Journal”, 43, pp. 163-176.

White, M.M. (2011) Sisters of the Soil: Urban Gardening as Resistance in Detroit, in “Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts”, 5 (1), pp. 13-28. White, R. (2018) Ecocentrism and Criminal Justice, in “Theoretical Criminology”,