Content uploaded by Harriet Zilliacus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Harriet Zilliacus on Feb 18, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Non-human animals in Finnish worldview
education textbooks
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff,
Arto Kallioniemi
Nordidactica
- Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education
2024:1
Nordidactica – Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education
Nordidactica 2024:1
ISSN 2000-9879
The online version of this paper can be found at: www.kau.se/nordidactica
NORDIDACTICA – JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
ISSN 2000-9879
2024:1 139-160
139
Non-human animals in Finnish worldview
education textbooks
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
University of Helsinki
Abstract: Education plays a key role in ethical development, and worldview
education emphasizes ethical questions. Ethical discussions within education
about the treatment of non-human animals are urgently needed. In Finland,
worldview education is a compulsory subject, introduced to students from the
first year of school. In this study, we turn to Finnish educational material on
worldview instruction groups for Lutheran, Orthodox and Islam religion and for
the secular subject Culture, Worldview and Ethics for grades 1-2 to ask how non-
human animals, and the relation between humans and non-human animals, are
portrayed. The article provides a Finnish perspective on animal ethics in
worldview education. Through discourse analysis, we examine how humans’
relations with non-human animals are presented in educational materials. We
find a dominant discourse of human-animal separation, where humans are
portrayed as capable of thinking and feeling, in contrast to non-sentient animals.
Non-human animals are presented as utility animals that supply human needs,
being used for labour and for food, constructing the consumption of non-human
animals as food as natural. We discuss the challenging intertwined discourses of
care, protection and utility of non-human animals and call for a stronger focus
on animal ethics within worldview education.
KEYWORDS: WORLDVIEW EDUCATION, NON-HUMAN ANIMALS, RELIGION, TEXTBOOKS,
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL GRADES 1-2, FINLAND
About the authors: Pia Mikander, PhD, is a university lecturer in history and social
studies didactics at the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki.
Her fields of research include democracy, active citizenship and anti-racism in
education.
Harriet Zilliacus, PhD, title of Docent, is a university lecturer at the Faculty of
Educational sciences at University of Helsinki. Her research focuses on sustainability
education with questions on worldviews and the possibilities for transformative change
through policy development, education and learning. Previous research covers
multicultural and multilingual education and arts-based qualitative research methods.
Lili-Ann Wolff, DEd, is an associate professor in environmental education at the
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. In addition to education, Wolff
has degrees in science and philosophy. Her research interest is transdisciplinary and
critical, including educational issues related to nature and sustainability from
philosophical, political, social, and practical teaching and learning perspectives.
Arto Kallioniemi is a professor of religious education and vice dean at the University
of Helsinki, Faculty of Educational Sciences. He has conducted research in teacher
education, worldview education and education for diversity and pedagogical leadership.
He also holds a UNESCO Chair (values, dialogue and human rights).
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
140
Introduction
The role of animal ethics has developed significantly within societal and
philosophical debates (Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2011; Nussbaum, 2023). One reason
for this is an increased scientifically based understanding of non-human animals as
thinking and feeling creatures (Kupsala, 2020). Another reason for discussing human-
animal relations is a widened understanding of the huge challenges posed by climate
change and an increasingly rapid biodiversity loss, on which livestock farming and meat
production have a significant impact (Machovina et al., 2015). A root cause of these
crises lies in how human societies in many parts of the world relate to the non-human
environment and non-human animals. Western and industrialist societies such as
Finland commonly hold on to human-centred views, and this disconnection from nature
is coupled with dominant economic systems that are detrimental and challenge
planetary health (Redvers, Guzmán and Parkes, 2023). However, contemporary views
of nature are not new, and as Skilbeck (2021) points out, religion has played a major
role, not only in the West, in shaping human minds, and the influence of religions is still
evident. In the current time, increasingly called the Anthropocene, ethical questions
relating to the boundaries between humans and non-human animals have been raised.
The Anthropocene refers not only to a geological epoch, when humans have started to
influence the state of the entire earth, but also to a time for critical reflection that creates
new ways of being in the world (Paulsen, Jagodzinski and Hawke, 2022). Therefore, to
transform current societies towards sustainability, rethinking the relationship between
humans and other animals is most urgent (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2022).
Education plays a key role in how new generations develop their understanding of
and relations with non-human animals. Finland has seen some changes regarding the
way in which ethical questions are conceptualized on a curricular level. In Finnish
education, worldview education has traditionally been assigned the task of providing
students with an ability to reflect upon ethical questions (e.g. FNAE, 2016). Because of
this, ethics has not existed as a separate school subject in Finland. However, similarly
to sustainability perspectives in general, worldview education has barely focused on
animal ethics. Contrasted with previous curricula, the Finnish Core Curriculum for
Basic Education of 2014 links the aim of sustainability to the development of an ethical
stance, not only towards other people, but also through respecting and recognizing the
rights of non-human animals and other parts of nature. This aim is emphasized as
fundamental to becoming a humane and educated individual in the tradition of Bildung
(FNAE, 2016). However, it is not clear how this aim is enforced in educational practice
or to what extent it is visible in various curricular subjects. Finnish worldview education
has a separative approach and students are divided into groups and given instruction
according to the worldview backgrounds in their families (Åhs and Salmenkivi, 2022).
Different instruction groups have separate curricula and textbooks. The study at hand
aims to give further insight into the human-nature relationship in worldview education
through a specific focus on how the human relationship with non-human animals is
represented in educational material, and by widening the scope of textbooks to include
Christian Lutheran and Orthodox textbooks, as well as Islam, and Culture, Worldview
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
141
and Ethics educational material. The article starts with a brief theoretical discussion
about the role of animal ethics in culture and society today based on the common
Abrahamic roots of Christianity and Islam and on secularist understanding. After that,
it presents the Finnish educational context and the empirical part of the study. Finally,
the resulting discourses are presented in three parts, followed by a discussion about their
implications.
Tracing animal ethics in religion and society
Since ancient times, ethical concerns for non-human animals have been part of
philosophy. From the very beginning, Western history has included both defenders of
and antagonists to the idea of human superiority over other creatures (e.g., Attfield,
1994). Some pre-Socratic philosophers, and some of the Stoic philosophers considered
vegetarianism as righteous (Komorowska, 2021; Nussbaum, 2023; Stephens, 2022), and
many Stoics saw harmony with nature as the goal of life, even if they regarded humans
as different from non-rational animals (Carone, 2001). The choice of vegetarian food
was not only a stance against eating meat, it was also a stand against the important role
that food played in human lives (Stephens, 2022).
Through the ages, not just religion, but also politics and economics have had an
impact on how non-human animals have been treated. However, attitudes, values and
actions have changed over time. According to many environmental philosophy scholars,
the human use of nature is rooted in an intertwining of Christianity and Ancient Greek
philosophy (Attfield, 1994; Belshaw, 2001). Christianity as the main religion in the
West, has been accused by many of the ecological crises and humans’ domination over
the rest of nature, especially by Lynn White (1967). Even if this view is widespread, it
has also been met with criticism (Harrison, 1999). Within both Christian and Muslim
theology there have been calls to question humans as more special than other animals
(White, 1967; Tlili, 2018). However, it is important to understand that sacred texts often
include inconsistent messages that are difficult to understand, leaving it up to the reader
to interpret them in accordance with their own interests (Wolff, 2011). Therefore, sacred
texts have always been invaluable for talented rhetoricians, who have used them to
exploit nature and other creatures. Often it has been seen as a human duty to put humans
before the rest of nature, in accordance with a picture of humans as a supreme creature
(Schreider, 1997; Skilbeck, 2021). However, the sacred texts have also been interpreted
to emphasize humans’ role in taking care of the Earth, as the creature who is responsible
for all aspects of nature (see Angga & al., 2020; Skilbeck, 2021; Wolff, 2011; Zilliacus
et al., in press). Especially the Qu’ran has been read in this way (Safitri et al., 2019;
Tlili, 2012; 2018).
Medieval Christians used the Scala Naturae, an idea of a ladder, where species had
their specific positions. The only purpose of the ladder was to indicate permanent
superiority and inferiority (Nussbaum, 2023). Humans were considered distinct from
other animals, but non-human animals were also stuck in their ranked positions.
According to Nee (2005), this way of ordering nature is still obvious in contemporary
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
142
Western cultures. The religious disassociation of humans from non-human animals and
placing humans at the top of a hierarchical order relates to the partly similar separation
of the body from the soul, in which the soul is more eminent than the body, because of
humans’ relation to God (Skilbeck, 2021). Many thinkers have positioned humans
between God and non-human animals: between animal evilness and divine goodness,
the brutish and the civilized (Suutala, 1996). While the boundary between humans and
non-human animals was seen as flexible, humans needed education to become good and
rational and to repress their animal nature (Skilbeck, 2021; Suutala, 1996).
Even if thinking of humans as both a soul and an animal body has flourished long
before the 17th century, philosopher René Descartes is held responsible for the
widespread idea of the split between the body and the soul (Skirry, 2005). In the 21st
century, many authors have rejected the notion of separating the body from the soul and
humans from other animals, but the influence from earlier times is apparent. Some
species are appreciated more than others, and especially small creatures, like insects,
have often been harmed. Many species of animals have been domesticized and used as
pets, labour or nutrition, and religions have emphasized these divisions, for instance by
regulating what animals to eat or not to eat. Some animals have even for centuries been
regarded as ‘cleaner’ than others (e.g., Rooke, 2019).
Today, an awakened understanding of the urgent need for sustainability has
prioritized animal ethics on the contemporary philosophy agenda. Nussbaum (2023)
points to three reasons for an urgent ethical discussion about the treatment of non-
human animals. First, the negative impact of humans on the lives of non-human animals
has grown immensely during recent times, and new forms of maltreatment continue to
emerge. Some forms of cruelty are more direct, such as the treatment of non-human
animals in the meat and dairy industry, while others are caused indirectly, such as
destroying habitats by means of pollution, or supporting harmful industries. Second,
while ancient philosophers and medieval Christians knew very little about the sentient
nature of non-human animals, the world is different today. Science continues to show
that animal intelligence, emotions and sociability exceed previous understandings. As
Nussbaum points out, this must have significant ethical implications. Third, referring to
other historical injustices, she stresses that the only hope for improvement within
politics and legislation is an informed ethical debate, and that there is reason to believe
that more ethical debates could bring about change, since an informed public tends to
support animal rights and oppose industrial farming measures. However, according to
Kupsala (2020), this is not sufficiently reflected in policies and legislation regarding
animals. The link between knowing what is morally right and acting accordingly is,
nevertheless, not straightforward. Oliver (2009) points out the ambivalence towards
animals in Western philosophy and culture started with Descartes and discusses how
animals have been distinguished in Western philosophy after Descartes. Instead of
trying to see other animals as similar to humans, Oliver asks us to notice their
differences and to develop an ethics of difference, relationality and responsivity, as well
as ‘response-ability’, that is to learn live together on a shared planet, since attempting
to master other animals is futile.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
143
Secularist understanding thereby builds largely on religious traditions, but highlights
individual rationality. In Finland in the curriculum for the school subject Culture,
Worldview and Ethics, it is stated that “human beings are understood as actors who
reshape and create their culture and experience and produce meanings in shared
activities and in interaction with the surrounding world” (FNAE 2016, p. 211). To this
it is added: “Worldviews, human practices, and the meanings attached to them are
viewed as products of interaction among individuals, communities, and cultural
heritage. The ability of human beings to actively influence their own thinking and
actions is emphasised in the subject of ethics” (FNAE 2016, p. 211). Culture,
Worldview and Ethics is not based on sacred texts, but is connected to societal issues
that are relevant to pupils’ lives. Questions of sustainability and the relationship
between humans and other animals are highly relevant as ethical topics. However,
considering humans to be active agents who construct meaning based on interaction and
active thought processes has also met with resistance. Gruen (2015) argues that ethical
theory has failed to meet the real moral problems, since people do not necessarily
practice what they preach. Humans live in a paradoxical situation where there is an
increased concern over animal wellbeing while the meat industry is rapidly growing.
Aaltola (2019) connects this paradoxical state to the philosophical notion of akrasia,
meaning being in a situation where one knows the good and chooses to do the opposite.
In practice, the struggle with akrasia can lead people to demand that non-human animals
are treated well, but mainly to avoid the risk of having to confront their suffering. People
might also choose to consume domestically produced meat in the belief that it is cleaner,
safer and more ethically produced than other meat. This is often the result of powerful
advertisements linking the consumption of domestic meat to patriotic good deeds
(Kotilainen, 2015). The call for better treatment of non-human animals, even if
supported by the public, is not reflected in consumer choices (Donaldson and Kymlicka,
2011). Knowledge about how non-human animals are treated seems to have an effect;
however, the further away animals are from people’s lives and routines, the easier it is
to disregard animal rights (Kupsala, 2020).
Finnish history has seen a range of animal activism among young people, such as
resistance to fur farming (e.g., Juppi, 2004). In a large-scale survey among adults and
young people in Finland, a third of the participants shared the view that nature is
primarily a resource for humans (Haanpää and Laasonen, 2020). However, another
survey on Finnish young people’s relations to nature showed that 86% argued that the
intrinsic value of nature needs to be taken into consideration in decision-making.
Compared to young people in other European countries, Finnish youth has shown more
favourable attitudes towards strengthening legislation on animal welfare and an
inclination to pay more for products that promote animal wellbeing. In the same survey,
protecting animal rights was seen as important by any means possible by 86% of young
people. Preserving biodiversity was similarly seen as important – results that show that
not only human-centred perspectives prevail among young people (Kiilakoski, 2021).
Young people are naturally affected by a number of different viewpoints, not only
those that are presented by schools and textbooks. While not all worldview topics are
necessarily relevant for children, animal ethics certainly interest humans from an early
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
144
age. A part of secularist understanding is that children are confronted by abundant
images of non-human animals in culture. From the earliest years, non-human animal
characters act as protagonists in stories, cartoons, TV shows and games. However, non-
human animals in fiction are often given human-like traits, abilities and emotions, while
there is a silence around their realistic living environments, such as industrial farming
(Koljonen, 2021). Waxman et al. (2014) argue that the fact that non-human animals are
so often portrayed as human-like in children’s culture strengthens children’s
anthropocentric views, ignoring non-human animals as biological creatures. At the same
time it is apparent that knowledge about non-human animals and their natural habitats
is essential to evoke empathy and to encourage ethical reasoning (see Young, Khalil
and Wharton, 2018).
Constructing an understanding of ethical education within
Finnish worldview subjects and textbooks
In Finland, children generally start school the year they turn seven. For children, the
starting years of school shape many perspectives for learning and can consequently be
considered crucial for their education. Worldview education, a compulsory subject, is
provided as part of comprehensive-level and secondary-level education and is
introduced to pupils from the first year of school. The lessons of worldview education
are organized in school as separate lessons based on pupils belonging to certain religious
groups. Currently, in Finland there are 14 different curricula for different religious
groups. The majority religious groups in school are Lutherans, although there is an
increasing number of Islam pupils in Finnish schools. The other large groups are Greek
Orthodox and Catholic. For pupils who are not members of a religious community an
alternative subject called Culture, Worldview and Ethics is provided. In Finnish
research literature, the different religious instruction groups and the secular subject of
Culture, Worldview and Ethics are nowadays commonly subsumed under the term
‘worldview education’. Although education is organized according to the student’s
own religion, religious education in Finnish schools is not confessional in character.
The aim of worldview education is to produce all-round religious literacy.
The educational task is to familiarize pupils with their own religions, with Finnish
religious traditions, and with other religions to help pupils understand the meaning of
religion in culture and for the members of a particular faith, to introduce pupils to
notions of ethical responsibility and to help them understand the ethical dimension of
religion (FNAE, 2016). The different religious education instruction groups follow the
same core curriculum, which is divided into three sections: 1) the student’s relationship
with their own religion, 2) the world of religions and 3) the good life. Environmental
ethical questions connected to the human-nature relationship are included in the
curricula, particularly the third section ‘the good life’. This content is somewhat
different with different religions in the first two school years: Lutheran education
contents include “pupils’ own actions and their consequences for other people but also
to the environment and nature” (FNAE, 2016, p. 144). Orthodox religion articulates the
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
145
“responsibility for the environment and nature as well as the uniqueness of life” (ibid.
p. 146). Islam education curricular content does not mention nature-related content, only
that the contents include “the foundations of a good life according to Islam” (ibid. p.
148). The curriculum of Culture, Worldview and Ethics differs from the above in its
key content areas 1) reflecting on good life, 2) different ways of life, 3) foundations of
communal life and 4) nature and a sustainable future. In the last content area “pupils
explore different forms of life, reflecting on the finite nature of life. The pupils
familiarize themselves with different creation myths. The pupils examine their own
surroundings and the impact of their own choices and actions on it. The pupils seek
meaningful experiences related to nature” (ibid., p. 150).
While the themes of environmental awareness and approaches to non-human
animals in textbooks have been studied internationally (Awayehu Gugssa, Aasetre and
Lechissa Debele, 2021; Fonseca, 2023; Cho, Kim and Stoltman 2022), these studies
have mainly focused on textbooks in science. However, questions concerning the
relationship between human beings and nature have always been central in curricula
and textbooks of worldview education. As we have found in our parallel study on the
human-nature relationships in Finnish worldview textbooks in Lutheran and Orthodox
religious education for grade 1 and 2 in basic education (Zilliacus et al., in press), the
separation between humans and non-human nature appears strong overall in Finnish
textbooks. Based on De Groot’s and van den Born’s (2007) four metaphors of human-
nature relationships as Master, Steward, Partner and Participant we concluded that the
former two metaphors, which reflect human-centred and hierarchical relationships,
were strongly apparent in textbooks, whereas the latter two metaphors reflecting
interconnected and non-hierarchical relationship were rarely present. Animal ethics has
not been introduced as a subject of inquiry in the Finnish early years of schooling
(Aarnio-Linnanvuori, 2013). In the Finnish core curriculum, non-human animals are
framed as resources in food production throughout the early years of schooling, and
only in secondary school philosophy courses is animal ethics introduced as a subject of
study, leaving “nine years of formal schooling to adopt a welfare framework for
teaching and learning about animal use” (Saari, 2021, p. 107).
Methodology
In this article, we turn to Lutheran, Orthodox and Islam textbooks as well as to
Culture, Worldview and Ethics educational material for grades 1-2 to ask how non-
human animals, as well as the relation between humans and non-human animals, are
portrayed. The material consists of 8 textbooks, 6 assignment books and one digital
education unit, all published between 2009 and 2022 that have been used in education
during a curriculum that has been in force since 2016 (FNAE, 2016). The book series
are Himmel och jord [Heaven and Earth] (La1; La2), Hjärtat [The Heart] (Lb1; Lb2),
in Lutheran education, Sofian elämä [Sofia’s life] (Oa1-2) and Aksios (Ob1; Ob2) in
Orthodox education and Salam-islamin polku [Salam – the path to Islam] (Is1-2) in
Islam education. There are several Lutheran textbook series, of which we have chosen
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
146
two widely used ones. Except for the Himmel och jord series, all material is written
originally in Finnish; the Hjärtat series is analysed as a Swedish translation of a Finnish
original. The books are referred to in the analysis section through the above acronyms.
Assignment books are referred to through the letter A (e.g., Is1-2A)" (see appendix for
full details). Most of the material consists of printed textbooks, but we have also chosen
to include a digital educational unit for Culture, Worldview and Ethics, too. We noted
quickly that analysing digital educational material has its challenges. While a printed
textbook is easier to follow as a narrative, the digital material consists of texts and
assignments that may have a clear structure, but that branch out in a way that potentially
makes it challenging to perceive. We still found it important to include the material,
since digital educational materials are increasing in Finland. Our choice of focus on
educational material specifically for the first and second grades also excluded several
printed textbooks for Culture, Worldview and Ethics, where textbooks are often written
for a wider age gap. There is a lack of research about the use of textbooks (Karvonen,
Tainio and Routarinne, 2017), and this also concerns worldview education. In Finland,
teachers are free to choose to what extent they rely on textbooks. According to Åhs and
Salmenkivi (2022), access to choices of textbooks that depend on the worldview
curriculum of the student places pupils in unequal positions.
Through a discourse analysis grounded in Laclau and Mouffe (1985/2001), we
examine the educational material as discursive products that influence society by
creating a version of what can be seen as objective knowledge. In Laclau and Mouffe’s
version of discourse analysis, objectivity is created through articulations, such as talk,
text and actions. Our focus is on how objectivity is created through these kinds of
articulations regarding relations between humans and non-human animals. In the case
of textbook research, discourses are visible in acts of language as well as in requests for
bodily action in the form of textbook assignments that ask students to for instance
categorize, fill in or draw links (Mikander, 2016, p.50). Since the material is devised
for first and second grade pupils, the texts and assignments are written concisely and
clearly. Demands for simplicity require textbook authors to assess critically what is
essential to cover. Consequently, it becomes significant what is included in these books
and what is omitted. However, the limited amount of text also gives teachers space for
interpretation and for making room for other perspectives in teaching practice in the
classroom. Our analysis is restricted to the discourses in the educational material. We
consider the texts, assignments and images as articulations of discourse. Articulations
are included in, but also build and transform discourses (Holmberg, 2015). In the
analysis of the material, all references to non-human animals were initially coded in a
software program (NVivo). The next step was analysing how these articulations, in the
form of text, assignments and images, could be seen to form discourses. We studied
how the images and assignments constructed the relationship between humans and non-
human animals. Images in textbooks can be considered to either strengthen or question
an otherwise dominant discourse. Assignments tend to strengthen discourses in the text
by repeating and highlighting what is considered to be core knowledge; however, they
also require action from the pupil, thereby connecting the discursive to material action
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
147
(see Laclau and Mouffe, 1985/2001, p. 108). The discourses are described and discussed
in the following section.
Even though the educational materials represent different religions and traditions,
we wanted to focus on the material as an entity for several reasons. Mainly, we wanted
to focus on aspects of sustainability and discourses related to the curricular aim of
encouraging sustainability in pupils lives and society by supporting students in
developing an ethical stance to non-human animals.
Portraying non-human animals and human-animal relations
Non-human animals are present in all of the educational material in this study. The
first and second grades cover topics such as the creation, but also description of
everyday life during the times of the sacred texts. In these sections, non-human animals
are referred to in various ways, providing a context for understanding the world and the
position of humans within it. We present three discourses in the studied material: a
discourse of separation, a discourse of utility and a discourse of protection and care.
Separate and different: Anthropocentric descriptions
In this section we focus on descriptions of non-human animals in textbooks. These
textbooks provide their readers with an understanding of how the world is categorized.
We find a dualism where humans are seen as separate from non-human animals and
nature. As an example of this explicit separation, a Lutheran textbook describes the
creation of nature and non-human animals:
The water should teem with fish and aquatic animals. Birds shall fly over the
Earth, said God. And it was so. God continued to create and made animals
that lived on the land. He created animals as big as elephants and animals as
small as ants. God was very pleased with what he had created. God wanted
there to be someone on Earth who could take care of his creation and enjoy
it. Someone who looked like him. Someone who could think and feel. God
created man (La1, p. 16-17, all textbook translations by authors).
In the above quote, humans are articulated as being able to enjoy, think and feel, as
opposed to non-human animals that were created earlier and did not have these traits.
Considering humans to be the only beings capable of enjoying, thinking and feeling,
could be seen as a sign of Cartesian division in which non-human animals were regarded
as merely mechanically operating bodies (Skirry, 2005). Describing non-human animals
as being unable to think, feel or enjoy, as the text does, has consequences: it could imply
that they can be maltreated without consequences (see Singer, 2023).
The digital educational material for Culture, Worldview and Ethics includes a task
that asks students to draw three boxes, marked as Plants, Animals and Humans, and to
draw two examples of each kind (Cwe, n.d., Luokat 1-2-S4-Luonto ja kestävä
tulevaisuus-2 Maailman synty-Tehtävät). This task is notable since, as will be shown,
the Culture, Worldview and Ethics material also has a somewhat different way of
approaching non-human animals. Since humans are placed in a separate box from other
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
148
animals, they are here discursively positioned aside from animals and nature. The act of
categorizing by drawing is an example of embodied construction of discourse or
creating an objective understanding of humans as separate from non-human
animals. This example shows that even the secular subject of Culture, Worldview and
Ethics material includes elements that separate humans from the rest of nature.
An Orthodox assignment book (Oa1-2A, p.79) includes a task where pupils are
taught to play God’s helper:
We must remember that all of creation has its own mission and purpose. If
you could have been God’s helper in creating animals, what kind of animal
would you have created? Draw a picture of the animal in your notebook and
give it a name. Colour the picture.
The assignment is another example of the discourse of division between humans and
other animals, here also teaching young children to see themselves as creators, superior
to the rest of nature. At a time when bioethics and the manipulation of living creatures
are real dilemmas that require ethical competence, a task like this would require ethical
reflection about the relations between humans and non-human animals in a future where
it is in fact possible for humans to ‘play God’.
In the Islam textbook (Is1-2, p.25), too, the separation between humans and nature
is made clear: “In the world there are people and nature, which includes animals, insects
and plants.” However, the book cautiously introduces the idea that non-human animals
could be compared to humans, as in the following, where two Muslim girls are portrayed
looking at an anthill:
“Imagine if we could understand what they [ants] say,” Fatima ponders, like
that prophet, Sulaiman… Mohammad also understood the speech of animals,
their father reminded. “It would be quite a buzz,” Zainab said, and looked at
the swarming ant colony.
Highlighting that the prophet Mohammed understood non-human animal speech
could be interpreted as allowing non-human animals to speak, to have a voice, to even
have some kind of agency. In the Salam assignment book, belonging to the series, the
pupils are even asked to fill in speech bubbles with what they think non-human animals
could say. The assignment includes a large picture of a forest and a meadow, where
people are interfering with nature, picking berries, one cutting down a tree and another
attempting to pick an egg from a bird’s nest. Empty speech bubbles come from the
mouths of a fox, a deer, a rabbit and a bird (whose eggs are assumed to be taken from
the nest). The task is to point out what it is forbidden to do in nature, and to imagine
what the non-human animals might say. This approach, attempting to understand human
behaviour from a non-human animal point of view, is not generally reflected in the other
textbooks in the material, where the anthropocentric perspective is dominant. Non-
human animals are portrayed as separate from humans, and here it is understood not as
a threat, but as non-human animals being expected to teach humans not to abuse nature
and they could thereby be considered ‘wiser’ than humans, who ought to act better.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
149
Categorizing non-human animals through human utility
Across the material, we found articulations in the form of illustrations of friendly-
looking non-human animals, often seemingly passive and in a marginal position
compared to illustrations of humans that are placed mid-page and engaged in
actions. We consider these articulations to construct a discourse of non-human animals
as presented with less intrinsic value, valuable only through their expected service to
humans. Non-human animals that are introduced in the textbooks are largely
domesticated, such as dogs, cats and rabbits. There are also references to non-human
animals used for consumption or labour, such as cattle, sheep, donkeys and camels.
Some of the textbooks highlight divisions not just between people and the rest of nature,
but also among non-human animals. There are rare references to wild animals, which
are often expressed as distinct from domestic, human-friendly animals found in close
connection to human habitations: “Hens, pigeons and sparrows were common birds.
Eagles and other birds of prey soared high in the sky” (La1, p. 76). Except for referring
to birds of prey, the same textbook constructs the categories of non-human animals to
protect and be protected from: “Out in the fields the sheep and goats grazed. The
shepherds protected them from wolves and other dangerous animals” (La1, p. 76). The
wild animals in this textbook are presented as threats, while sheep and goats are
portrayed as in danger, needing humans to survive. These positions differ from one
another, but both place human actions in the center.
This discourse portrays non-human animals as useful, meaning that it is considered
that their function in life is to be useful to humans. Non-human animals are thought to
be useful, for instance, in their role as an aid to humans during times when the sacred
scripts were written, and that they were created specifically for this purpose: “‘Allah
has created horses, donkeys and mules for us to ride and walk on,’ continued the
mother” (Is1-2, p. 90). The explicit choice of words in the Islam textbook is a message
to the reader that non-human animals are created for humans to use, not just in past
times, but also today.
In the Orthodox assignment book (Ob1A, p.79), pupils are asked to draw lines
between non-human animals and their tasks. In the left column, there are pictures of a
camel, a bull, a hen and a goat. In the right column, there is a plough, a basket of eggs,
a small pulling cart and two jars of water. The assignment reads “What do the animals
do? Connect the animal with its task.” This assignment is an example of how the
creation of embodied discourse can play out, since “what the animals do” is limited to
the possible tasks of pulling a plough or a cart, laying eggs or carrying water. When
pupils are asked to connect an animal with its task or intended purpose, the act of
responding to the assignment is an embodied act of discourse (Mikander, 2016). The
role of non-human animals is constructed as objective in the task. The question could
have been “What do humans keep animals for?”, but the question “What do the animals
do?” relieves humans of the responsibility for their actions, implying simultaneously
that being used by humans is in the nature of non-human animals, or the very meaning
of their existence. Children who are asked to draw distinctions take part in strengthening
this discourse.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
150
Another striking example of bodily construction of discourse is an assignment
related to Joseph and Mary’s trip (Ob1A, p.64). The text reads: “Joseph and Mary
travelled long distances on the back of a donkey. One donkey can walk for an hour at a
time.” The page includes rows of donkeys, and the assignment is to colour the correct
number of donkeys – “How many donkeys are needed a) for a 4-hour walk? b) for a 2-
hour walk? and c) for a 3-hour walk?” Within this discourse, there is no room for
counter-discursive resistance towards treating non-human animals, here donkeys, as
utile objects for humans. The young students are expected to take part in constructing
the discourse of donkeys as a mode of transport by colouring them as units.
A Lutheran textbook (La1, p.76) introduces non-human animals in the following
way:
Animals in the world of the Bible - It was common for families to own a few
sheep and goats and a donkey. Wool and meat were obtained from the sheep.
The goats gave meat, milk, wool and skins. Donkeys were ridden. You could
also load things on them. Camels can walk long distances and also survive
well in the desert. The merchants loaded their goods onto them. Those who
cultivated land often owned oxen. The oxen pulled the plough and were
harnessed in front of the wagon. Those who were rich could own horses, which
they harnessed to their fine carriages.
Here, too, the donkeys “were ridden”, and they could also be used for loading things.
Interestingly, the goats are described as giving meat, milk, wool and skin. Describing
non-human animals as giving humans food is a particularly topical example of the
discourse of non-human animals as instrumental. Not only does this apply to food that
humans can take from non-human animals, such as wool, milk, eggs or honey, of which
there are several examples found in many of the books: “The cows give us milk, the
hens give us eggs and the bees give us honey” (La1, p. 20), but even food that requires
non-human animals to be killed – “giving meat”. Humans are not presented as taking
these products from them, non-human animals give them to us. While this discourse
reflects a common framing of human consumption of non-human animals, one which
could be considered to highlight gratitude to nature, the discursive construction
nevertheless hides violence and power. Being ridden, milked or killed by humans is not
a natural life for non-human animals, even if it is an age-old practice. Texts that veil the
hegemonic dominance of humans over non-human animals do not give tools for ethical
reflection.
These discursive formulations construct an understanding of animal consumption for
food as neutral, natural and unquestionable. This could be considered in the light of
sustainability and animal ethics. Meat and dairy industries are major sources of global
emissions (Tubiello et al., 2021). As Aarnio-Linnanvuori (2013) shows, discussions
about consumer choices linked to food get little space compared to recycling in
worldview textbooks, despite their substantial environmental impact. Ethical reasoning
about food and its origins is relevant even to young children, since school lunch is an
integral part of education in Finland, and all basic and secondary education students are
entitled to lunch free of charge. Children’s ethical or religious needs are to be considered
when planning Finnish school food menus (Finnish National Agency for Education,
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
151
n.d.), and discussions about different food cultures often arise in the classroom
(Zilliacus, 2014). One example is the origin of the cow’s milk served at school lunch.
Saari (2021) shows how advertisement narratives about the “milk’s journey” obscure
the understanding of cow’s milk as a product of industrial impregnation and removal of
calves from their mothers. The effective advertising by the dairy industry has a strong
hold over Finnish food culture, not least in schools. In the following, we move on to
discuss the incompatible discourses of utilization, protection and care.
Utilization, protection and care: Incompatible discourses
Finally, we focus on discursive portrayals of how humans are expected to relate to
non-human animals. The role of humans as protecting non-human animals is
emphasized in the metaphor of the shepherd in several textbooks. We have already
shown how the role of humans needing to protect themselves from non-human animals
as well as being portrayed as protecting non-human animals from each other, as in the
case of the shepherd protecting sheep from wolves.
“I am a good shepherd,” Jesus compared himself to the important profession
of his time. [...] The brave shepherd defended the flock without fearing
anything. He also took care of the small and weak members of the flock. When
danger threatened, the shepherd carried them to safety. A good shepherd
defended his flock to the death. (Oa p.112).
The discourse of protection makes a clear distinction between domesticated animals
and animals that pose a threat. Humans are placed in the rational role of sheltering the
tame from the wild. The caretaking role is specified in La1, p. 17:
We have been given the responsibility for taking care of the earth and
everything that is here. Animals also have the right to wellbeing. If we take
care of nature, humans also have greater wellbeing.
As caretakers, humans are dependent on non-human nature, but taking care is also
portrayed as beneficial to humans. Caretaking is highlighted as an important moral
value in the entire material, even though the target is often other humans, such as family
and friends. The excerpt above suggests a win-win game, where both non-human
animals and humans benefit from human protection. Taking care is portrayed thereby
as both a duty and a benefit for humans. In some of the educational material, there are
tangible examples of the role of humans as caretakers, as in the following Islam
textbook, where children and grandparents help and protect domestic animals in various
ways:
Grandma and grandpa gave everyone their own chores. Fatima was
responsible for taking care of the ducks and chickens by bringing them food
and drink. Adam and grandpa looked after the sheep. Father took care of the
cows and gave them water and fodder. Mother and grandmother were
preparing food and sister Zainab put herring in the cat’s bowl. […] Now it
was meal time. Everyone was in the kitchen eating homemade food. Grandma
told us that we had to take care of the animals and give them food and drink
and call the vet if they got sick. It was nice to be in the country helping
grandma and grandpa take care of the animals. Fatima thought, I have
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
152
learned that God has created animals for the benefit of humans. We must not
tease animals. We should treat and care for them well. (Is1-2, p. 91-92)
As spelled out in the quote above, the discourse of utility does not rule out the need
for protection and care. Fatima’s line of thought goes from considering her caretaking
responsibilities, to having learnt that God created animals for human use, and back to
the perception that humans are supposed to treat animals well, taking care of them and
not torturing them. From the point of view of animal ethics, this quote raises questions.
Humans are explicitly portrayed as responsible for non-human animal wellbeing and
expected to utilize non-human animals. What does this mean for society’s most pressing
animal ethical questions, ranging from the meat industry to pollution and the extinction
of species?
While the textbooks are generally careful not to blame humans for any destruction
of nature, we find some elements of criticism. One Lutheran textbook (Lb2, p. 24)
includes suggestions about what children can do to protect nature. “Man’s task is to take
care of nature – the trees, plants and animals. Everyone can help. Just like the ants pull
straws to the hill, everybody must participate.” The text contains one of only a few
references to insects, here portrayed as a guide for humans. The Culture, Worldview
and Ethics material includes a task where students are asked to make responsible choices
and take responsibility for their choices with regard to sustainability. Students are asked
to raise their hands if they concur with certain statements and squat down if they
disagree. The statements include “I take care of my pet”, “I would help an animal in
need”. This assignment expresses taking care of and protecting nature. However, the
digital Culture, Worldview and Ethics material also includes a large segment about
endangered animals and their protection. The protection of these non-human animals is
highlighted as necessary. The ethics material includes a lengthy description about
endangered white-backed woodpeckers and their living conditions. Students are asked
to watch a video about the Saimaa ringed seal, another highly endangered animal:
Watch the video and memorize important things [link to video: Only
protection can save the Saimaa seal]. Choose the correct answer to the
following question. What do Saimaa seals need to watch out for to survive?
Fishermen's nets/Human-made holes in ice/Environmental toxins. (Cwe, n.d,
Luokat 1-2-S4-Luonto ja kestävä tulevaisuus-3 Luonnonsuojelu-Tehtävät-
Uhanalaiset eläimet 1)
The students are expected to take the perspective of the seal in the task, as the
question “What do Saimaa seals need to watch out for in order to survive?” While
humans are understood to be responsible for the suggested answers, humans do not play
the main role. This discursive framing is predominant in the section about endangered
animals in the material. It states that the reason for the protection of non-human animals
is the fact that they are at risk of extinction: “Wolverines are found in Finland, Sweden,
Norway and Russia. There are less than three hundred of them in Finland, which is why
they are protected.” (Cwe, n.d.,S4-Luokat 1-2-Luonnonsuojelu). Again, humans are not
central, in fact, they are either given a very peripheral role or the negative role of
threatening the endangered animals’ existence. The descriptions of the endangered
animals in the Culture, Worldview and Ethics material is an example of a discursive
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
153
element that challenges the anthropocentric worldview that is otherwise dominant in
worldview educational material. In this counter discourse, protection and care are
disconnected from utility, and the human perspective is secondary, as the quotes above
show.
As we see it, the conflicting perspectives of protection, care and utilization towards
non-human animals, which is dominant in most religious educational material, makes it
impossible to consider animal ethics seriously. As we have shown in our previous study
on textbooks in Lutheran and Orthodox religious education (Zilliacus et al., in press), a
discourse on God as an ultimate protector and saviour in times of crisis was important
for humans’ role in relation to non-human nature. God was described as an ultimate
protector of the wellbeing of both humans and non-human nature. This can support
children’s feelings of faith and trust in the world and the future, but may also support a
passive and naive attitude towards the surrounding world and developments that
humans need to confront and take responsibility for. While it might be understandable
that young children should not feel overburdened about this crisis, the combination that
is portrayed points to a challenging position.
Concluding discussion
The focus of this study is on how non-human animals, as well as the relation between
humans and non-human animals, are portrayed. The results show that Finnish
worldview educational material for the first and second grades constructs a separation
between humans and other animals. This discourse is particularly visible in textbook
descriptions about creation, where humans are portrayed as capable of thinking and
feeling in contrast to non-sentient animals. Secondly, we highlight a discourse of
utilizing non-human animals. This discourse is exemplified by descriptions of non-
human animals used for labour, but notably also as food. We found that consuming
animals as food was portrayed as natural, such as in the articulations “cows give milk”
and “goats gave meat, milk, wool and skin”. Thirdly, we found that the discourses
concerning the care, protection and utility of non-human animals often intertwine in a
way that makes discussions about animal ethics complicated to engage in.
The role of non-human animals connects profoundly with ethical questions. Through
these debates, it is possible to connect with discussions about the conditions and rights
of contemporary humans as well as present and future life on Earth, topics which are
strictly dependent on the conditions of nature (see Saari, 2021). The results of our study
clearly point to a contrast between current worldview education material and
discussions about animal ethics. Non-human animals are portrayed differently
depending on their instrumental value to humans. Some non-human animals are cared
for, others considered threats, but caring is often connected to utility. The studied
material introduces young children to an indistinct and uncritical discourse about
humans’ relationship with non-human animals.
When the curriculum encourages ethical discussions, but the textbooks provide
uncritical statements, teachers are caught in a difficult situation and left with few tools.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
154
In Leppänen’s (2016) study, a large majority of student teachers believed that animal
rights should be brought up in early school years. The student teachers unanimously
agreed to the claim that students should be brought up to treat all animals as equally
valuable. However, they simultaneously disagreed with the claim that the school should
encourage students to have a vegetarian diet. This dilemma is just one example of how
difficult it can be to navigate the educational discussions on animal ethics that arise in
classrooms in both the early years and later. Teachers who deal with difficult questions,
such as pondering why humans make decisions that are against their ideas of what is
good, are generally not supported by the educational material that has been the focus of
this study. The question of meat and dairy production is a good example of this kind of
difficult issue. Learning about non-human animals and their conditions helps enhance
empathy and encourages ethical discussions (Young, Khalil and Wharton, 2018).
Thereby, there is a need for a more transparent and scientific base for discussions about
choices for young people.
It is important that educational material provides a current research-based
interpretation of the relationship between non-human animals and human
beings. Worldview education textbooks could support discussions about animal ethics
in a safe classroom environment. Ethical problems should be treated in a serious and
credible manner, but they should also provide opportunities for empowerment,
considering emotions, and instilling hope (Pihkala, 2017). A focus on non-human
animals within ethical debates could mean questioning mundane habits and topics.
Questions like “Should humans eat meat?”, “Should animals be kept in factories?”, “Is
hunting ethically defendable?” and “Is it right to own a pet?” are pertinent. While not
all these questions are equally relevant for small children, at least some of them do touch
upon children’s lives. Our research shows that questions such as these are largely
invisible within worldview education textbook materials for young children.
The textbooks we have discussed in this article are not religious documents built on
sacred scripts but constructed for the Finnish educational system. Typically, textbook
authors are not specialized in questions related to the relationship between non-human
animals and human beings. Their perceptions and views might not reflect debates about
animal ethics within society and religions. It would be important for authors to update
their conceptualizations carefully or have the produced texts checked by specialists
within ethics prior to publication. There are reasons to continue studying these issues
and develop educational material that relies more on ethical research. As Nussbaum
(2023) suggests, moving towards more ethically responsible stances towards non-
human animals is possible within various worldviews. While ethical questions are not
easily solved, it would be important for young students to learn to develop their own
judgements and their own solutions.
References
Aaltola, E. (2019). The meat paradox, omnivore’s akrasia, and animal ethics. Animals,
9(12), 1125.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
155
Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E. (2013). Environmental issues in Finnish school textbooks on
religious education and ethics. Nordidactica: Journal of Humanities and Social
Science Education, 1, pp. 131-157.
Åhs, V. and Salmenkivi, E. (2022). Selvitys katsomusaineiden opetuksen nykytilasta ja
uudistamistarpeista. [Report on the current state of instruction in different worldview
education and need for reform] Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2022:13.
Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-775-8
Angga, L. O., Baadilla, E., Latupono, B., Wadjo, H. Z., Datis, R., Hamid Labetubun,
M. A. and Hanafi, I. (2020). The Main Purpose of Islamic Sharia in Environmental
Conservation. Indonesian Journal of Built Environmental & Sustainability, 2(1), pp.
34-38.
Attfield, R. (1994). Environmental philosophy: Principles and prospects. Aldershot,
UK: Avebury.
Awayehu Gugssa, M., Aasetre J. and Meskerem Lechissa Debele, M. (2021). Views
of “nature”, the “environment” and the “human-nature” relationships in Ethiopian
primary school textbooks. International Research in Geographical and Environmental
Education, 30(2), pp. 148-163, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1763564
Belshaw, C. (2001). Environmental philosophy: Reason, nature and human concern.
Chesham, Bucks: Routledge.
Carone, G. R. (2001). The classical Greek tradition. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), A
companion to environmental philosophy, pp. 67-80. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Cho, C-K., Kim, B-Y. and Stoltman, J.P. (2022). Animal identity and space as
represented in South Korean geography textbooks, International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 31(1), pp. 53-68, DOI:
10.1080/10382046.2020.1852787
de Groot, M., and van den Born, R. J. G. (2007). Humans, nature and God: Exploring
images of their interrelationships in Victoria, Canada. Worldviews, 11(3), pp. 324-
351.
Donaldson, S., and Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A political theory of animal
rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Finnish National Agency for Education (n.d.) Kouluruokailu kuuluu kaikille [School
food belongs to all]. https://www.oph.fi/fi/koulutus-ja-tutkinnot/kouluruokailu-
kuuluu-kaikille (Accessed 29th May, 2023).
FNAE (Finnish National Agency for Education) (2016). National Core Curriculum
for Basic Education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.
Fonseca, R.P. (2023). The impacts of animal farming: A critical review of secondary
and high school textbooks. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 18, pp. 829-852.
DOI:10.1007/s11422-022-10145-0
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
156
Gruen, L. (2015). Entangled empathy: An alternative ethic for our relationships with
animals. Brooklyn: Lantern Books.
Haanpää, S., and Laasonen, V. (2020). Kysely suomalaisten luontosuhteesta. [An
inquiry about Finnish people’s relationship with nature]. Helsinki:
Ympäristöministeriö ja Suomen ympäristökeskus.
Harrison, P. (1999). Subduing the Earth: Genesis 1, Early modern science, and the
exploitation of nature. The Journal of Religion, 79(1), pp. 86-109.
Holmberg, L. (2015). Den frånvarande intellektuelle: En diskursteoretisk analys av en
kollektiv representation. PhD diss, Uppsala University.
Juppi, P. (2004). “Keitä me olemme? Mitä me haluamme?”: Eläinoikeusliike
määrittelykamppailun, marginalisoinnin ja moraalisen paniikin kohteena
suomalaisessa sanomalehdistössä. PhD diss, Jyväskylä University.
Karvonen, U., Tainio, L., & Routarinne, S. (2017). Oppia kirjoista. Systemaattinen
katsaus suomalaisten perusopetuksen oppimateriaalien tutkimukseen. Kasvatus &
Aika, 11(4), pp. 39-57.
Kiilakoski, T. (Ed.). (2021). Kestävää tekoa: Nuorisobarometri [Sustainably made.
The youth barometer] 2021. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseura.
Koljonen, M. (2021). Breaking the silence about the animals we eat: Representations
of the inherent value of nonhuman animals in children’s picture books. Barnboken-
Journal of Children's Literature Research, 44, pp. 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.14811/clr.v44.625
Komorowska, J. (2021). Pythagoras, Plutarch, Porphyry, and the ancient defense of
the vegetarian choice. In L. Wright (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Vegan Studies.
New York: Routledge, pp. 15-26.
Kotilainen, N. (2015). Puhdasta, suomalaista, nationalistista lihaa [Clean, Finnish,
nationalist meat]. In E. Aaltola& S. Keto (Eds.), Eläimet yhteiskunnassa [Animals in
society] Helsinki: into, pp. 37-56.
Kupsala, S. (2020). Sosiologinen tutkimus suomalaisten suhtautumisesta
tuotantoeläimiin ja eläinten käyttöön ruokana [Sociological study on how Finns relate
to production animals and to the use of animals as food]. TRACE: Journal for Human-
Animal Studies, 6, pp. 76-85.
Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C. (1985/2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a
radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
Leppänen, J. (2016). Toislajinen eläin perusopetuksessa: Opettajaopiskelijoiden
käsityksiä eläineettisten teemojen käsittelystä alakoulussa [Animals of other species in
basic education: Student teachers’ understanding of the treatment of animal ethics
themes in primary school]. Master’s thesis, University of Eastern Finland.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
157
Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., and Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The
key is reducing meat consumption. Science of The Total Environment, 536, pp. 419-
431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022
Mikander P. (2016). Westerners and others in Finnish school textbooks. PhD diss.
University of Helsinki.
Nee, S. (2005). The great chain of being. Nature, 435(7041), pp. 429-429.
Nussbaum, M. (2023). Justice for animals: Our collective responsibility. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Oliver, K. (2009). Animal lessons: How they teach us to be human. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Paulsen, M., Jagodzinski, J. and Hawke, S. M. (Eds.). (2022). Pedagogy in the
Anthropocene: Re-wilding education for a new earth. Cham: Palgrave McMillan.
Pihkala, P. (2017). Kuinka käsitellä maailman ongelmia? Traagisuus ja toivo
ympäristökasvatuksessa. [How to deal with world problems? Tragicalness and hope in
environment education] Ainedidaktiikka 1(1), pp. 2–15.
Redvers, N., Guzmán, C. A. F., and Parkes, M. W. (2023). Towards an educational
praxis for planetary health: A call for transformative, inclusive, and integrative
approaches for learning and relearning in the Anthropocene. The Lancet Planetary
Health, 7(1), e77-e85.
Rooke, D. W. (2019). “You shall not eat any abominable thing” (Deut. 14: 3): An
examination of the Old Testament food laws with animal ethics in mind. A. Linzey
and C. Linzey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics, pp.
216-222. London: Routledge.
Saari, M. H. (2021). Animals as stakeholders in education: Towards an educational
reform for interspecies sustainability. PhD diss, Oulu: University of Oulu.
Safitri, L., Nuskhi, M., Muatip, K., Purwaningsih, H., and Setiana, L. (2019). The
Relationship between Human Being and Animal: The Study of the Concepts of
Khalifah and the Animals in the Quran. Animal Production, 20(3), pp. 211-215.
Schreider, J. (1997). The Duty of Humanity before the Environment: A Russian
Catholic viewpoint. Environmental Conservation, 24(3), pp. 210-212.
Singer, P. (2023). Animal Liberation Now: the Definitive Classic Renewed / Peter
Singer, with a Foreword by Yuval Noah Harari. New York: Harper Perennial.
Skilbeck, M. (2021). Loving and studying nature. Cham: Springer.
Skirry, J. (2005). Descartes and the Metaphysics of Human Nature. 1st edn.
Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/809690/ Descartes-and-the -metaphysics-of-human-
nature-pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2023).
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
158
Stephens, W. O. (2022). Stoicism and contemporary thought. Symposium, 9(1), pp.
105-124. https://doi.org/10.5840/symposion2022917
Suutala, M. (1996). Naiset ja muut eläimet: Ihmisen suhde luontoon länsimaisessa
ajattelussa [Women and other animals: Humans’ relation with nature in Western
thoughts]. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Tlili, S. (2012). Animals in the Qur'an. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tlili, S. (2018). Animal ethics in Islam: A review article. Religions, 9(9), pp. 1-18.
Tubiello, F., Rosenzweig, C., Conchedda, G., Karl, K., Gütschow, J., Xueyao, P.,
Obli-Laryea, G., Wanner, N et al. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions from food
systems: Building the evidence base. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6), 065007.
Vinnari, E., and Vinnari, M. (2022). Making the invisibles visible: Including animals
in sustainability (and) accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 82, 102324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102324
Waxman, S. R., Herrmann, P., Woodring, J. and Medin, D. L. (2014). Humans (really)
are animals: Picture-book reading influences 5-year-old urban children’s construal of
the relation between humans and non-human animals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 172.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00172
White Jr, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), pp.
1203-1207.
Wolff, L-A. (2011). Nature and sustainability: An educational study with Rousseau
and Foucault. PhD diss, Åbo Akademi University.
Young, A., Khalil, K.A., and Wharton, J. (2018), Empathy for animals: A review of
the existing literature. Curator, 61, pp. 327-343. https://doi-
org.libproxy.helsinki.fi/10.1111/cura.12257
Zahoor, M. and Janjua, F. (2020). Green contents in English language textbooks in
Pakistan: An ecolinguistic and ecopedagogical appraisal. British Educational
Research Journal, 46, pp. 321-338. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3579
Zilliacus, H. (2014). Supporting students’ identities and inclusion in minority religious
and secular ethics education: A study on plurality in the Finnish comprehensive
school. Ph.D. diss, University of Helsinki.
Zilliacus, H., Wolff, L-A., Kallioniemi, A. and Mikander, P. (in press) Reframing the
Human–Nature Relationship in Worldview Education: A Discourse Analysis of
Textbooks in Finland. In Windsor, S. & Franck, O. (Eds.) Intersections of Religion,
Education and a Sustainable world. Cham: Springer.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
159
Appendix: School textbooks analysed
Aboulfaouz, S., Onniselkä, S., Rouhe, M, Sorsa, H & Wallin, A. (Is1-2). (2021).
Salam – islamin polku 1-2 [Salam – the path to Islam 1-2]. Opetushallitus.
Aboulfaouz, S., Onniselkä, S., Rouhe, M, Sorsa, H & Wallin, A. (Is1-2A). (2020).
Salam – islamin polku 1-2 Tehtäväkirja [Salam – the path to Islam 1-2 Assignment
book]. Opetushallitus.
Aikonen, R. & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (Ob1A). (2017). Ortodoksinen uskontokirja Aksios
1: Harjoituskirja [Orthodox religious education: Aksios 1: Assignment book].
Opetushallitus.
Aikonen, R. & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (Ob1). (2017). Ortodoksinen uskontokirja Aksios 1:
Tekstikirja [Orthodox religious education: Aksios 1: Textbook]. Opetushallitus.
Aikonen, R. & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (Ob2A). (2019) Ortodoksinen uskontokirja Aksios
2. Harjoituskirja [Orthodox religious education: Aksios 2: Assignment book].
Opetushallitus.
Aikonen, R. & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (Ob2), (2019) Ortodoksinen uskontokirja Aksios 2:
Tekstikirja [Orthodox religious education: Aksios 1: textbook]. Opetushallitus.
Erikson-Blomfelt G., Sjö-Särs, I., & Fontana Media (La1). (2016). Himmel och jord:
bok 1 [Lutheran religious education: Heaven and earth: Textbook 1]. Fontana media.
Erikson-Blomfelt, G., Sjö-Särs, I. & Fontana Media (La2). (2016). Himmel och jord:
bok 2 [Lutheran religious education: Heaven and earth: Textbook 2]. Fontana media.
Kantonen, M. & Tajakka, T. (Oa1–2A). (2009). Ortodoksinen uskontokirja Sofian
elämä: Tehtäväkirja 1. ja 2. luokalle [Orthodox religious education: Sofia’s Life:
Assignment book for grades 1 and 2]. Opetushallitus.
Kantonen, M. & Tajakka, T. (Oa1–2). (2021). Ortodoksinen uskontokirja Sofian
elämä: Oppikirja 1. ja 2. luokille [Orthodox religious education: Sofia’s Life:
Textbook for grades 1 and 2]. Opetushallitus.
Länsiö, K., & Vitikainen, N. (n.d). (Cwe). Aatos 1-6. Elämänkatsomustieto.
Digiopetusmateriaali. [Culture, Worldview and Ethics. Digital Educational Material]
Sanomapro. https://tuotteet.sanomapro.fi/bu581410-aatos-1-6-elamankatsomustieto-
digiopetusmateriaali.html
Niittynen, A. & Similä, M. (Lb1A). (2015). Hjärtat 1: Arbetsbok [Lutheran religious
education: Heart 1: Assignment book]. Transl. from Finnish by Cilla Heinonen. Otava.
Niittynen, A., Similä, M., & Vidgrén, K. (Lb1). (2015). Hjärtat 1: Religion [Lutheran
religious education: Heart 1: Textbook]. Transl. from Finnish by Cilla Heinonen.
Otava.
NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN FINNISH WORLDVIEW EDUCATION TEXTBOOKS
Pia Mikander, Harriet Zilliacus, Lili-Ann Wolff, Arto Kallioniemi
160
Niittynen, A., Similä, M., & Vidgrén, K. (Lb2A). (2016). Hjärtat 2: Arbetsbok
[Lutheran religious education: Heart 2: Assignment book]. Transl. from Finnish by
Cilla Heinonen. Otava.
Niittynen, A., Similä, M., & Vidgrén, K. (Lb2). (2016). Hjärtat 2: Religion. [Lutheran
religious education: Heart 2: Textbook]. Transl. from Finnish by Cilla Heinonen.
Otava.
