Conversations on Global Citizenship Education: Perspectives on Research, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education 9780367365448, 9780367740566, 9780429346897

This volume offers a remarkable collection of theoretically and practically grounded conversations with internationally

948 43 8MB

English Pages [217] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Conversations on Global Citizenship Education: Perspectives on Research, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
 9780367365448, 9780367740566, 9780429346897

Table of contents :
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
List of Figures and Tables
List of Contributors
PART I: Critical Views in Global Citizenship Education: Critical Pedagogy, Otherwise/Postcoloniality, Conviviality, and Planetary Citizenship
1. Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship Education
2. Global Citizenship Otherwise
3. Global Citizenship Education as a Counter Colonial Project: Engaging Multiple Knowledge Systems for Transformational Change
4. From Global to Planetary Citizenship: A Proposal for Evolving Brazil University Curriculum
5. Cultivating Global Citizenship Education and Its Implications for Education in South Africa
PART II: Global Skills for Social Justice, Critical Semiotics, and the Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization,
and Global Citizenship Education
6. Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education
7. Educating for Global Citizenship in Diverse and Unequal Societies
8. Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics
9. Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global Citizenship Education
PART III: Flourishing, Awareness, Responsibility, Participation, and Humanism as the Underpinning for Global
Citizenship Education
10. Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education
11. Global Citizenship Education as Awareness, Responsibility, and Participation
12. Global Citizenship Education and Humanism: A Process of Becoming and Knowing
13. Global Citizenship Education as a Metacritical Pedagogy: Concluding Reflections

Citation preview

Conversations on Global Citizenship Education

This volume offers a remarkable collection of theoretically and practically grounded conversations with internationally recognized scholars who share their perspectives on Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in relation to university research, teaching, and learning. Conversations on Global Citizenship Education brings together the narratives of a diverse array of educators who share their unique experiences of navigating GCE in the modern university. Conversations focus on why and how educators’ theoretical and empirical perspectives on GCE are essential for achieving an all-embracing GCE curriculum which underpins global peace. Drawing on the Freirean concept of “conscientization”, GCE is presented as an educational imperative to combat growing inequality, seeping nationalism, and post-truth politics. This timely volume will be of interest to educators who are seeking to develop their theoretical understanding of GCE into teaching practice, researchers and students who are new to GCE and who seek dynamic starting points for their research, and general audience who are interested in learning more about the history, philosophy, and practice of GCE. Emiliano Bosio is a Senior Lecturer at Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, Japan.

Critical Global Citizenship Education Edited by Carlos Alberto Torres, University of California Los Angeles, USA.

1 Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global Citizenship Education Carlos Alberto Torres 2 Educating the Global Environmental Citizen Understanding Ecopedagogy in Local and Global Contexts Greg William Misiaszek 3 The Struggle for Citizenship Education in Egypt (Re)Imagining Subjects and Citizens Edited by Jason Nunzio Dorio, Ehaab D. Abdou, Nashwa Moheyeldine 4 Teacher Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Edited by Philip M. Bamber 5 Exploring the Complexities in Global Citizenship Education Hard Spaces, Methodologies, and Ethics Edited by Lauren Ila Misiaszek 6 Conversations on Global Citizenship Education Perspectives on Research, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education Edited by Emiliano Bosio

Conversations on Global Citizenship Education Perspectives on Research, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education Edited by Emiliano Bosio

First published 2021 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Taylor & Francis The right of Emiliano Bosio to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-36544-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-74056-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-34689-7 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.


List of Figures and Tablesvii Acknowledgmentsviii List of Contributorsix Forewordxiii Introductionxix PART I

Critical Views in Global Citizenship Education: Critical Pedagogy, Otherwise/Postcoloniality, Conviviality, and Planetary Citizenship


1 Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship Education3 HENRY A. GIROUX AND EMILIANO BOSIO

2 Global Citizenship Otherwise13 SHARON STEIN AND VANESSA ANDREOTTI

3 Global Citizenship Education as a Counter Colonial Project: Engaging Multiple Knowledge Systems for Transformational Change37 LYNETTE SHULTZ

4 From Global to Planetary Citizenship: A Proposal for Evolving Brazil University Curriculum45 SILVIA ELISABETH MORAES, EDUARDO MORAES ARRAUT, AND JOSEFINA MORAES ARRAUT

5 Cultivating Global Citizenship Education and Its Implications for Education in South Africa62 YUSEF WAGHID

vi  Contents PART II

Global Skills for Social Justice, Critical Semiotics, and the Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global Citizenship Education


6 Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education



7 Educating for Global Citizenship in Diverse and Unequal Societies



8 Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics



9 Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global Citizenship Education




Flourishing, Awareness, Responsibility, Participation, and Humanism as the Underpinning for Global Citizenship Education


10 Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education



11 Global Citizenship Education as Awareness, Responsibility, and Participation



12 Global Citizenship Education and Humanism: A Process of Becoming and Knowing



13 Global Citizenship Education as a Metacritical Pedagogy: Concluding Reflections





List of Figures and Tables

Figures 2.1 2.2 7.1 13.1

In Earth’s CARE Global Justice Framework and 2.3 The House Modernity Built and Its Hidden Costs A Global Social Justice Framework Principles of Metacritical Global Citizenship Education

16 24 90 186

Tables I.1 Example of Interview Questions xxi 2.1 Mainstream Global Citizenship/Global Citizenship Otherwise23 2.2 Modern Promises and the Colonial Processes That Subsidize Them 25 2.3 LAPSED Approaches to Social Justice and Change 26


The idea for this book came from my dialogues on Global Citizenship Education (GCE) with Carlos Alberto Torres who I would like to particularly thank for inspiring my work. I would also like to thank all the outstanding scholars from all over the world for their contributions and commitment to support this book, which I am hopeful will make an important contribution to research, teaching, and learning in GCE and demonstrate its value toward more just societies.

List of Contributors

Vanessa Andreotti is a Full Professor and Canada Research Chair in Race, Inequalities, and Global Change in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia. Her research examines historical and systemic patterns of reproduction of inequalities and how these limit or enable possibilities for collective existence and global change. Eduardo Moraes Arraut  is Adjunct Professor of Geomatics at the Department of Hydric Resources and Environment, Civil Engineering Division, Technological Institute of Aeronautics (ITA), where he teaches the undergraduate and postgraduate courses in remote sensing (RS) and geographical information systems (GIS). He is also the co-coordinator for South America of the Group for Sustainable Use and Management of Ecosystems (SUME), Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM), and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Josefina Moraes Arraut  is Adjunct Professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the Federal University of Campina Grande. Josefina teaches several undergraduate and graduate courses on the topics – Dynamic Meteorology, Synoptic Meteorology, Physical Oceanography, Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction and supervises various MSc and PhD students on their thesis work on those same areas. Prior to this engagement, she worked as a researcher at the Centre of Earth System Sciences in Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, as a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies, at George Mason University and as a visiting research scientist at the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading. Emiliano Bosio  is a Senior Lecturer in Education at Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, Tokyo, Japan. He is also a Research Committee Member at the Center for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) in the United States and is Contributor to the Academic Network on Global

x  List of Contributors Education and Learning (ANGEL), a UK based network established in close cooperation between Global Education Network of Europe (GENE) and the Development Education Research Centre (DERC) at the University College London, Institute of Education. His work is centered on developing and integrating innovative, ethical, and critical approaches to global learning and global citizenship education into university curriculum across East Asia, Europe, and the United States. Douglas Bourn is Professor of Development Education and Director of the Development Education Research Centre at University College London, UK. He is author of The Theory and Practice of Development Education (2015), Understanding Global Skills for 21st Century Professions (2018) and editor of Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning (2020) and was previously (2008–2015) the editor of the International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning. Maureen Ellis is Senior Research Associate at the Development Education Research Centre, University College London, and Associate Lecturer, The Open University, UK. Maureen does research in Linguistic Anthropology, Cognitive Semiotics, and Comparative Education. Her vision/mission is communicating Progressive Revelation; Omega union of Science and Spirituality; emergent, evolutionary co-creative Quantum Consciousness. William Gaudelli  is the eighth Dean of the College of Education at Lehigh University. Dean Gaudelli’s career spans 30 years as a classroom teacher, researcher, professor, and seasoned administrator. A prominent international scholar, his research areas focus on global citizenship education and teacher education and development. Dr. Gaudelli most recently served as the Chair of the Department of Arts and Humanities at Teachers College, Columbia University. Henry A. Giroux  is a world-renowned educator, author and public intellectual. He holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest, and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. Professor Giroux has authored, or coauthored over 65 books, written several hundred scholarly articles, delivered more than 250 public lectures, and been a regular contributor to print, television, and radio news media outlets. Maria Guajardo is Professor in Leadership Studies at Soka University, Tokyo, Japan. Her area of expertise includes leadership, with a focus on women, GCE, and leadership development. She served as the inaugural Dean for the Faculty of International Liberal Arts at Soka University, then as Vice-President, and is the founding director of the Women’s Leadership Initiative at Soka University. Prior to her arrival in Japan, Maria was sought out internationally as a speaker

List of Contributors xi and trainer on Leadership, Inclusive Excellence, and Racial Healing. She is the recipient of a U.S. Congressional Commendation for her advancement of Latino education. Currently she serves as a Trustee for Soka University of America. Maria, a licensed clinical psychologist, received her A.B. from Harvard University, and her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Denver. Silvia Elisabeth Moraes  is Professor and Supervisor at the education postgraduate programme, Federal University of Ceará. Her postdoctorate research was on Habermas’ theory of communicative action at the University of São Paulo. She held a Senior Internship at the Development Education Research Center (DERC), University College London (UCL). Professors Moraes’ main interests are curriculum theory, citizenship, theory of communicative action, and postcolonialism. Hans Schattle  is Professor of Political Science at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea. He works across the usual dividing lines in political science and international relations, with interests ranging from globalization, citizenship, media, and democracy to the politics of Europe and East Asia. Professor Schattle has written two books, The Practices of Global Citizenship and Globalization and Citizenship, both published by Rowman & Littlefield, as well as numerous articles in academic journals. He earned his doctorate in politics at Oxford and, most recently, he has coedited the volume Making Social Democrats: Citizens, Mindsets, Realities, published by Manchester University Press. Lynette Shultz is Professor and Director of the Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research at the University of Alberta. She is an advisor on several international boards including the Global Centre for Pluralism, The World University Network, and the International Research Center on Global Citizenship Education. Sharon Stein is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia. Her work offers critical and decolonial analyses of the role of higher education in society, and seeks to pluralize the available imaginaries of justice, responsibility, sustainability, and change. Massimiliano Tarozzi is full professor in Education at the Department of Life Quality Studies, where he teaches in the areas of General Education and Global Citizenship Education and he is chairing the International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education. He is Director of the International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education (IRCGloCEd) at the University of Bologna and Coordinator of the Academic Network on Global Education & Learning (ANGEL) in the UK.

xii  List of Contributors Carlos Alberto Torres  is Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and former Director of the UCLA-Latin American Center. He is also the Founding Director of the Paulo Freire Institute in São Paulo, Brazil; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and UCLA. He is considered one of the world’s leading authorities on Latin American Studies and Global Citizenship Education, and the principal biographer of Brazilian philosopher and critical social theorist, Paulo Freire. Yusef Waghid is a Distinguished Professor of philosophy and education and reads philosophy of education at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. He is the principal editor of the acclaimed journal, Citizenship Teaching and Learning. He is coeditor with Ian Davies, Li Hu Ho, Dina Kiwan, Carla Peck, Andrew Peterson, and Edda Sant of Global Citizenship and Education (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan). Miri Yemini is Senior Lecturer at the Tel Aviv University and Cochair UNESCO Chair on Technology, Internationalization, and Education.


Books speak to us “When evening comes, I return home and go into my study. On the threshold, I strip off my muddy, sweaty, workday clothes, and put on the robes of court and palace, and in this graver dress, I enter the antique courts of the ancients and am welcomed by them, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born. And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their actions, and they, in their humanity, reply to me. And for the space of four hours, I forget the world, remember no vexation, fear poverty no more, tremble no more at death: I pass indeed into their world.”1 In this book of conversations, Professor Emiliano Bosio raises several open-ended questions introducing four themes. These are: i) the rationales behind GCE, ii) the operations of global citizenship concept in the institutional context of universities, iii) the attitudes vis a vis global citizenship in their own universities, and iv) how GCE intersect with the domains of learning objectives, curriculum, and instruction. Built through these questions, these dialogues reference critical views of global citizenship which is the first section of the book; the second section addresses what are the global skills for social justice; and the third section discusses the humanistic foundations of GCE. This last subject is consistent with the model of the United Nations and particularly UNESCO. At the end of the book, there is a synthesis from editor Emiliano Bosio confronting the dilemmas, conundrums, and challenges of implementation of GCE in higher education, not only in industrial advance societies – home of the majority of the authors in this volume – but also in developing social formations. Because this book is accessible yet rigorous, and speaks about political activism and GCE as a potential social movement 2 , in many ways, this book follows the pledge of Michael Burawoy for public sociology. This style of scientific disciplinary work in the eyes of Burawoy should engage “multiple publics in multiple ways”.3 I would argue that public

xiv  Foreword sociology, like public science, should engage particularly nonacademic audiences. A book of dialogues is a perfect conduit for this endeavor. The origins of this book date back to a dialogue that Professor Emiliano Bosio and I had at UCLA in 2018, when he interviewed me for his dissertation. I derived a great deal of pleasure in our dialogue and began to understand better the important research that Professor Emiliano Bosio was conducting.4 Apropos of our dialogues, I invited Professor Emiliano Bosio who was ready to finish his doctoral dissertation at the University of London and a seasoned scholar in his own right, to produce a book of dialogues for the series. Dialogue is a quintessential feature of academia and scholarship. We dialogue with authors dead centuries ago and we call them classics. We dialogue with contemporary authors and we learn from them and even confront their views which is part and parcel of knowledge construction and scientific work. We dialogue in our classrooms with our students, in person and through digital pedagogy but we dialogue all the time about our areas of expertise, commitments, research findings, and dreams. Reading Machiavelli some years ago, I was struck by a famous sentence as I discovered later, which become very meaningful to me, and is the epigraph for the first section of this Foreword. Since my early beginnings as a reader, I rarely approached books only as sources of information. The good ones allowed me to engage in dialogue with their authors. Listen to what Machiavelli’s metaphorical analysis tells us; we know there are no many palaces, courts, or rituals of changing our clothes out of respect to these dead masters after arriving to our study these days. However, in many ways, those books that become meaningful for many generations are somewhat independent of the author, even though the author communicates with us through her or his prose or narrative. A vignette will illustrate. I was with Paulo Freire on a lovely spring day of 1983 visiting Stanford University bookstore. In one of the shelves, Freire saw his famous book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Rather than getting it, holding it, caressing the pages of the book as if it will be one of his children, he walked past the book and told me that every time he sees a copy of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he would like to say “good morning”. This simply vignette helps understand that for Freire, his now-classic book has taken a life on its own. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a book that challenges, illuminates, and questions generations of readers while entertaining all sorts of dialogues for people in the pursuit of knowledge and praxis for social justice. Dialogue as a Source of Learning and Democracy “The moral qualities of dialogue or deliberation account for yet another conception of democracy relying on the transformation of people’s preferences. Despite many versions of this general outlook, all rely on dialogue as a means of containing selfish interest and

Foreword xv the power of factions based on them. This constraint is achieved by dialogue’s tendency to exclude those positions which cannot be sustained on an impartial basis”5 As the editor of this book indicated, “The tone of the interviews – which inevitably takes the shape of conversations on GCE – connects the narrative of senior educators and makes the book distinctive in three different ways. Firstly, while some publications have had elements focusing on critically analyzing GCE, it is unusual for senior educators’ “voices” who actually teach GCE to be represented within a book, and it is not common for specific localized theory and pedagogy regarding GCE to be closely examined in a form of conversation. Secondly, this work is unique as a single author publication that focuses on critically analyzing GCE in terms of conversation with those educators who have considerable experience in the field. Thirdly, the intention of this book is to offer a “roadmap” regarding GCE theoretical approaches and teaching experience.” We may have underestimated the value of dialogues in academy. Philosopher of education, Nicholas Burbules highlighted the different meanings of dialogue which should be part and parcel of our pedagogy, teaching, and research. Burbules argues that dialogue has many meanings. It could be defined as inquiry, as conversation, as debate, as a game, as instruction, and as a type of interaction which, in his opinion, can be also constructed as a pedagogical communicative relation.6 In the same vein, I have argued in one of my books that dialogue is a method and experience of learning and struggle.7 Dialogue has been defined as a particular kind of communicative relation, a conversational interaction directed, and intentionally toward teaching and learning. Dialogue is different from storytelling, which entertains and may eventually educate. From critical perspectives, through dialogue and narrative, critical experiences can be constructed as theories that may speak of truth and sincere caring, ever more important in this time and age of post-truth dishevelment. Alas, dialogues also speak about the struggles, dreams, and hopes of the participants.8 Dialogues can empower but also disempower. Dialogues that empower are engaging, imaginative, playful. Engaging dialogue allows oral stories to come alive, vignettes to be educational, and they become a tool of enlightenment and empowerment as well as a source of reconstructed collective histories embedded in individual stories. For instance, dialogues about peace work, drawing particularly from oral stories of women peace activists, offer a unique perspective of social struggles in the United States.9 Dialogues allow for voices to emerge and new narratives to develop without the restriction of the grammar and syntax of written prose. The outcomes of spontaneous or planned dialogues do not have to be judged necessarily in terms of the context of discovery or scientific

xvi  Foreword validation. A good dialogue unleashes sources of creativity, even enabling the craft of fiction, the art of poetry, and the appraisal of the synergism between theory and practice to emerge in a vivid, even exuberant form, going beyond idiosyncrasies and viewpoints.10 Dialogues are constructive but they are also disruptive because they can bring out some of our own contradictions as individuals and/or scholars. They can question forms of interpretation and style of analysis that, at least in academia, are considered well established. Dialogues as experimental, disruptional or simply innovative writing demonstrate how the boundaries between “literature” and other forms of cultural writing “have become hopelessly blurred”.11 These dialogues are about GCE as it is taught in universities. GCE should be part of an educational policy that is technically competent, ethically sound, and politically feasible, and should find a special place in our universities’ curricula. There is no question that in the United States, we do need a reasonable and honest government administration to create these conditions because Trump’s administration was nothing of that sort. Even in the shadow of an authoritarian populist regime in the United States, many scholars in the US universities continue our commitment to social justice education. Dialogues on Global Citizenship Education. “While the World may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality, and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to those challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure, and sustainable societies.”12 Dialogical practices are central to address how education (and, particularly, GCE) relates to the common good. GCE is seen as a key mechanism that has the potential to identify common interests, problems, and solutions via negotiation and coordination involving a dialectic of the global and the local. I have suggested13 that global citizenship should add value to national citizenship14 and to the global commons. The concept of global commons builds on three components that define the common good of humanity: (1) Planet; (2) Peace; (3) People.15 Global commons are defined by three basic propositions. The first is that our planet is our only home, and we have to protect it. Secondly, global peace is an intangible cultural good of humanity with immaterial value. Global peace is a treasure of humanity. Thirdly, there is a need to find ways for people to live together democratically in an ever-growing diverse world, seeking to fulfill their individual and cultural interest and achieving their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Foreword xvii As we have argued elsewhere,16 the central question regarding peace concerns the process of how we can cultivate the spirit of solidarity across differences. The authors of these dialogues about GCE believe that this evolving concept may help global peace, the planet, and all people through its contribution to civic engagement, via its three key elements – cognitive (to better understand the world and its complexities), affective (to enable living together with others respectfully and peacefully), and behavioral (to activate).17 Other important aspects include considerations for equality of opportunity, welfare, and cultural diversity in a cosmopolitan view of the world as proposed by Ulrich Beck18. We confront many challenges in trying to incorporate GCE into our curricula – How to build better schools – that is, intellectually richer schools – particularly for those who are socially disadvantaged in terms of power and resources? How to build a global democratic multicultural citizenship curriculum where everybody learns from the rich diversity of society and where the trends toward fragmentation (i.e. balkanization and separatism) in modern societies can be prevented and even reversed? How might the experience of the uneducated, unemployed, angry, and disenfranchised be included in new models of learning and praxis?19 Conversations on Global Citizenship Education: Perspectives on Research, Teaching and Learning provide a rich gamut of experiences and reflections on how GCE has been played out in the teaching and curriculum of many universities in diverse parts of the world. It is not only a very accessible book, but one that has been selected as one of the Routledge research texts to be put forward for Routledge pledge for OA funding as part of their partnership with Knowledge Unlatched. If successful, this book will be made Open Access upon publication with thanks to funding support from libraries across the globe. Carlos Alberto Torres


1 See Joshua Kaplan. (1961). Political theory: The classic texts and their continuing relevance. The Modern Scholar (14 lectures in the series; lecture #7/disc 4), 2005. Other relevant sources are J. R. Hale, The Literary Works of Machiavelli. Oxford University Press, 139 and https://www.goodreads. com/quotes/66377-when-evening-comes-i-return-home-and-go-into-my/ 2 (2017). For an additional perspective on the topic, see Torres, Carlos Alberto. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global Citizenship Education. New York and London: Routledge, 109–128. 3 Burawoy, Michael. (2005). For public sociology (PDF). American Sociological Review. 70:4–28. doi: 10.1177/000312240507000102. Retrieved September 13, 2020.

xviii  Foreword

4 See C.A. Torres & E. Bosio. (2020). Continuing our dialogues, we had published two of them in 2020. Global Citizenship Education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good and critical consciousness prospects. Comparative Journal of Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment. Torres, C., & Bosio, E. (2020). Critical Reflections on the Notion of Global Citizenship Education. A dialogue with Carlos Alberto Torres in relation to higher education in the United States. Encyclopaideia, 24(56), 107–117. doi: 5 Nino, Carlos A. (1996). The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven, Yale University Press, 101. 6 Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice. New York and London: Teacher College Press. 7 (1998). I will reprise briefly herein some of the analyses I did in one of my favorite books published in 1998 that sought to understand the beginnings of the critical studies in education in the United States. See Carlos Alberto Torres, Editor. Education, Power and Personal Biographies. Dialogues with Critical Educators. New York and London: Routledge. 8 Neil Noddings. (1991). Stories in dialogue: Caring and interpersonal reasoning. In C. Witherell and Neil Noddings (Eds.), Stories Life Tell. Narrative and Dialogues in Education. 157–170. New York and London: Teachers College Press. 9 Judith Porter Adams. (1991). Peacework. Oral Histories of Women Peace Activists. Boston: Twayne. 10 Rita Guibert. (1973). Seven Voices, Seven Latin American Writers Talk with Rita Guibert. New York, Alfred A. Knoft. 11 David William Foster. (1985). Alternative Voices in the Contemporary Latin America Narrative. Columbia: University of Missoury Press, 148. 12 13 Torres, Carlos Alberto. (2017). Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global Citizenship Education. New York and London: Routledge. 14 A concern is that growing poverty and inequality exclude large segments of individuals from active citizenship. Both global and national citizenship depend on material basics and civic virtues. 15 Problems in the global system that undermine peace and prosperity include but cannot be restricted to: (1) unabated poverty; (2) growing inequality; (3) neoliberal globalization that has weakened the systems of organized solidarity of the democratic nation-state; (4) banking education with authoritarian and inadequate curriculum in elementary, secondary, and higher education; and (5) destruction of the planet’s eco-system. 16 Desjardins, Richard, Torres, Carlos Alberto, & Susan Wiksten. Social Contract Pedagogy: A Dialogical and Deliberative Model for Global Citizenship Education. Background paper for the UNESCO’s Futures of Education Commission. Los Angeles: Unpublished. 17 UNESCO. (2020). “What Is Global Citizenship Education?” Retrieved ( 18 Beck, Ulrich. (2006). Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 19 Desjardins, Richard, Torres, Carlos Alberto, & Susan Wiksten. (1998). Op. Cit, and Carlos Alberto Torres, Democracy, Education, and Multiculturalism. Dilemmas of Citizenship in the Global World. Lanham: Maryland.

Introduction Conversations With Educators on Global Citizenship Education: In the Pursuit of Social Justice Emiliano Bosio Educators form a cohort whose working life regularly interacts with a number of different global influences, which means it is imperative that we develop a better understanding of how complex teaching and learning has become and how this impacts both the theory and practice of Global Citizenship Education (GCE) (Bosio & Torres, 2019). Torres (2017) suggests that GCE is a forward-looking framework that supports the common good. It requires the individual to look beyond their own interests and accept moral obligations and respond appropriately. Dill (2012, p. 541) adds that “whether real or aspired to, welcomed, or opposed, global citizenship education is commonly held to be a far-reaching paradigm shift” in the ways teaching and learning in the modern university evolves. The conversations with educators on GCE offered in this book provide a global perspective of research, teaching, and learning in higher education from right across the United States of America, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Israel, and Italy. The central element that the conversations in this book share is the pursuit of an understanding of the way in which educators both theoretically and empirically view GCE, and how these views are essential for a holistic GCE to be introduced in a society where inequality is increasing, populism and nationalism is on the rise, supported by post-truth politics, with hatred and fear of the “other” accompanying it (Torres & Bosio, 2020; Bosio, 2020). Such considerations mean that the conversations in this book regarding GCE concern far more than basic thoughts of how it should be delivered. In this book, GCE is discussed as a way of introducing conscientization (in Portuguese, “conscientização”) inspired by a desire for social justice and with its foundations in critical pedagogy (Freire, 2004b). One significant part of Freire’s (2004b) concept of critical pedagogy is for education to undergo a constant process of engagement and reconstruction so that it develops students’ political conscience. From this point of view, using GCE to develop the values and knowledge of students “implies not only reading the word, but also reading the world” (Goodman, 1992, p. 149) in order to help students in forming critical questions

xx  Introduction to approach the current domination of neoliberal globalization. GCE pedagogy, as discussed in this book, incorporates culture and politics. Seen in this light, GCE promotes enhancement of critical, humanistic, and transformative values incorporating inclusivity ethically, remaining closely intertwined with the influence education has on students’ values and practical approaches to life (Young, 2008). Taking this into consideration, the fundamental question arising from the educators’ narratives and perspectives of GCE demonstrated in this book boils down to – Why are we in research, teaching, and learning if not to be able to help enrich the lives of our students? This volume gathers together thoughts on this question and others from senior educators who shared their perspectives in the book. The aim of the book is then to promote a wider critical awareness of a number of educational contexts so that we can find synergistic solutions to the questions of how we can promote GCE in critical and innovative ways that espouse social justice when the neoliberal globalization narrative is currently so dominant.

Distinctiveness of the Book The tone of the interviews – which inevitably takes the shape of conversations on GCE – connects the narrative of senior educators and makes the book distinctive in three different ways. Firstly, while some publications have had elements focusing on critically analyzing GCE, it is unusual for senior educators’ “voices” who actually teach GCE to be represented within a book, and it is not common for specific localized theory and pedagogy regarding GCE to be closely examined in a form of conversation. Secondly, this work is unique as a single author publication that focuses on critically analyzing GCE in terms of conversation with those educators who have considerable experience in the field. Thirdly, the intention of this book is to offer a “roadmap” regarding GCE theoretical approaches and teaching experience. The conversations offered in this book should be of value to three different audiences: 1 Educators who are seeking to develop their theoretical understanding of GCE into teaching practice; 2 Researchers who are new to GCE and who seek dynamic starting points for their research; 3 General audience who are interested in learning more about the history, philosophy, and practice of GCE. From this point of view, the purpose of the conversations is to offer clarification as to the thoughts of senior educators in terms of their chosen approaches to GCE within their universities’ study programs and courses. I endeavored to elicit the thoughts of the educators regardless

Introduction xxi Table I.1  Example of Interview Questions Rationales: • What is your understanding of “educating for global citizenship”? • How your academic as well as life “journey” has shaped this understanding? • What are three key elements of educating for global citizenship in higher education in your opinion? Operations: • How can education for global citizenship be made suitable for or attractive to university students studying in your country? • Why is or is not education for global citizenship necessary at universities in your country? Positions: • What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators toward global citizenship at universities in your country? Learning Objectives/Curriculum: • What competences including knowledge, skills, attitudes/values, and experiences are university students in your country expected to acquire in order to become “global citizens” or “global graduates”? • In your opinion, educating for global citizenship at universities is more about knowledge, skills, and attitudes/value or some combination of all three? • How can university students’ achievements of these competences be identified? • What themes should a curriculum for global citizenship include in your opinion in order to “fit” universities in your country?

of the fact that they were in an “interview situation” and to allow them to offer a full elaboration of their thinking. A number of questions were subject to discussion, where appropriate, that had a relationship to the wider purpose of the book (see Table I.1). Rationales. To begin with, the first set of questions focused on the rationales behind the ways in which educators understood GCE. Specifically, the focus was on eliciting educators’ conceptions of GCE as informed by a variety of perspectives centered on both their academic and life experiences. These questions examine both internal influences, such as personal philosophy and educational ideology, and external influences. For example, societal expectations, state policy, and specific academic environments. The examination also looked at the way the educators’ conceptions of GCE could be shaped by these elements. Operations. Another set of questions was created to reveal the practical ways in which educators set up GCE courses to make them useful and/or interesting to their students. I also tried to elicit why different educators may have positive or negative attitudes to GCE, remembering

xxii  Introduction the fact that although there is much debate around GCE, with certain notable exceptions, it is not common to find it holistically implemented in a cross-disciplinary manner within universities. Positions. The conclusion chapter third set of questions was created to investigate the development of GCE within higher education institutions with reference to the educators’ perspectives. This set of questions was designed to identify the ways in which educators interpreted and implemented GCE and how enthusiastic they were about the concepts and objectives of their institutions. Learning objectives/curriculum. The final set of questions was designed as part of the investigation into the attributes graduates attained from their GCE. This set of questions intended to investigate how educators understand learning objectives (which include skills, values, and knowledge) and citizenship in the context of growing neoliberal globalization. Specifically, how educators felt the GCE curriculum should incorporate cognitive targets. Altogether, the rich perspectives offered by the educators via conversations on GCE in this book present a distinctive description of the ways in which contemporary GCE is conceptualized and taught. The educators’ perspectives enabled me to conceptualize a proposal for a GCE pedagogical framework aimed at fostering students’ conscientization and social justice rooted in critical pedagogy — the metacritical GCE — which I describe in the concluding chapter of this book.

Main Themes and Structure of the Book This book is divided into three main themes with each theme having a number of chapters covering different conversations with senior educators from a range of countries around the world. The first theme is Critical Views on Global Citizenship Education: Critical Pedagogy, Otherwise/Postcoloniality, Conviviality, and Planetary Citizenship. This theme encompasses a number of critical viewpoints regarding global citizenship and GCE from the Global-north and Globalsouth. In Chapter 1, Henry Giroux and Emiliano Bosio discuss the interconnection of critical pedagogy and GCE. They contend that there is a need to promote social justice via a pedagogical and ethical intervention that helps educators and students alike deconstructing ideologies of oppression. Sharon Stein and Vanessa Andreotti, in Chapter 2, describe their concept of “GCE/otherwise” in detail. This way of approaching GCE and global citizenship offers learners the opportunity to become de/centered, to feel more responsible, and to transform any damaging aspirations that would prevent them coexisting harmoniously with the planet and its inhabitants. Lynette Shultz, in Chapter 3, outlines a concept of conviviality as being the ethical underpinning for GCE and global citizenship. Conviviality centers on the concept that teaching and learning should be done in ways that place an emphasis on harmonious

Introduction xxiii coexistence and wellbeing, encompassing sustainability for sharing the planet, protecting planetary diversity, living well, and coexisting peacefully. Silvia Elisabeth Moraes, Eduardo Moraes Arraut, and Josefina Moraes Arraut, in Chapter 4, provide a critical perspective from the Global-South, from Brazil. They examine the concept of planetary citizenship instead of global citizenship in offering a novel inter/transdisciplinary introduction into the Brazilian university curriculum of planetary citizenship and their self-described “Ecology of Knowledges”. Lastly, in Chapter 5, Yusef Waghid proposes a defense of GCE along the lines of democratic actions guided by an opposition to human rights violations and the unequal treatment of all humans in South Africa. To him, GCE in a university setting is related to rebuilding an African philosophy of education in the context of cosmopolitan justice The second theme is Global Skills for Social Justice, Critical Semiotics and the Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global Citizenship Education. Douglas Bourn, in Chapter 6, proposes the necessity of moving away from narrow approaches to GCE skills that equip students solely to operate in the job-market and toward social justice, where skills are located within the globalization context and the particular requirements of different societies, communities, and cultures. Massimiliano Tarozzi, in Chapter 7, looks at a “social justice GCE” centered on postcolonial critical perspectives, with a stress on the ability of this form of GCE to encapsulate and offer a response to new contemporary educational demands, especially within Europe. Maureen Ellis, in Chapter 8, looks at GCE in terms of critical global semiotics, promoting the need for comprehensive consistent global approaches to the comprehension of cultural similarities and differences that ignore the borders of both space and time. She highlights the advantages of the methodologies and methods of critical global semiotics which offer a way of systematically addressing questions from the kindergarten upwards. In Chapter 9, Miri Yemini suggests that although neoliberals have sometimes attacked and sometimes exploited GCE and internationalization, educators could find ways of interacting with these processes if they find ways of presenting their students with viable alternatives. These alternatives must be created jointly between students and faculty to shape a holistic system in which GCE is theoretically underpinned and informed by current discourses regarding the implications and methodology of GCE. The third and last theme is Flourishing, Awareness, Responsibility, Participation, and Humanism as the Foundation for Global Citizenship Education. In Chapter 10, William Gaudelli illustrates the way in which notions of GCE and “human flourishing” are connected, proposing that the connection is a way in which value can be created by both teachers and learners giving them an objective and a way to aspire to greater human development. Chapter 11 comprises a review by Hans Schattle of the twenty years he has spent in the study of the ways in which “global

xxiv  Introduction citizenship” concepts are shared globally and their interpretation; additionally, he reflects on the university political science courses he has taught with a focus on global citizenship. He explains that there have been three central elements uppermost in his mind regarding GCE – the ways in which he can help students participate more, be more responsible, and have greater awareness. This trio of elements is a reminder that GCE encompasses modes of thought and life in a multiplicity of interlinked communities. In Chapter 12, Maria Guajardo uses humanistic perspectives to encourage a broader comprehension of GCE and its contribution to empowering students to “fuller humanity”: Having an awareness of personal humanity and also welcoming to the humanity of all the world’s people. Finally, in Chapter 13, the editor of the book, Emiliano Bosio, offers some final reflections of the work as a whole and advances a proposal for a metacritical pedagogical framework for GCE.

References Bosio, E. (2020). Towards an ethical global citizenship education curriculum framework in the modern university. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Bloomsbury handbook for global education and learning, 187–206. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education, 17(6), 745–760. Dill, J. S. (2012). The moral education of global citizens. Society, 49(6), 541–546. Freire, P. (2004b). Pedagogia da tolerância. [Pedagogy of Tolerance]. São Paulo: UNESP. Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary schooling for critical democracy. Albany: SUNY Press. Torres, C. A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education. Abingdon. UK: Taylor & Francis. Torres, E., & Bosio, (2020). Global Citizenship Education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good and critical consciousness prospects. Comparative Journal of Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment. https:// Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of research in education, 32(1), 1–28.

Part I

Critical Views in Global Citizenship Education Critical Pedagogy, Otherwise/ Postcoloniality, Conviviality, and Planetary Citizenship


Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship Education Henry A. Giroux and Emiliano Bosio

1.1 Introduction We live in problematic times. This is especially true for critical pedagogues who are faced with the task of advancing global citizenship education (GCE) in a time of rising right-wing populist governments, growing racism, and police brutality tragically exemplified by the killing of George Floyd in the United States. For the last 40 years, neoliberalism has waged a significant attack on the structure and role of public education. Under such circumstances, social bonds are being loosened, public goods are under siege and matters of collective responsibility are under attack by the market-driven forces of marketization and selfish individualism (Bosio & Torres, 2019; Giroux, 2020). Given the ongoing attack on democracy, the social contact and the welfare state, critical pedagogy can play an important role in reclaiming the public good and producing civic education, literacy, and GCE (Bosio, 2017; Bosio, 2019; Torres & Bosio, 2020a/b). With the subsequent dialogue, we contemplate how GCE can progress and connect matters of theory and critique to pedagogical practices informed by critical pedagogy by making the most of civic valor as an approach to political challenges, allowing hope and politics to occupy a space defined by morals, values, and public actions that tackle the motion of everyday experience and the woes of social ills with the might of individual and collective opposition. We believe that drawing upon this philosophy can relaunch critical pedagogy and GCE as one unified force. This is a ‘re/vitalized’ pedagogical approach oriented towards social justice which aims to resist the oppressive neoliberalism that is taking over higher education environments (Bosio, 2020; Giroux, 2020).

1.2  Dialogue with Henry A. Giroux EMILIANO BOSIO: What

is the nexus between citizenship and global

citizenship? HENRY A. GIROUX:  Citizenship

invokes a notion of the social in which individuals have duties and responsibilities to others. A globalized

4  Henry A. Giroux, Emiliano Bosio notion of citizenship extends the concept of the social contract beyond the boundaries of the nation-state, invoking a broader notion of democracy in which the global becomes the space for reaffirming and exercising civic courage, social responsibility, politics, and compassion for the plight of others. Clearly, citizens’ obligations to the environment cannot be seen as merely a national problem. At the same time, there is a globalized notion of citizenship not just as a political issue of rights and entitlements but also as an ethical challenge to narrow the gap between the promise and the reality of a global democracy. It is also important to recognize that the idea of citizenship cannot be separated from the spaces in which citizenship is developed and nurtured. This suggests that any struggle over a globalized and meaningful notion of citizenship that encourages debate and social responsibility must include fostering and developing democratic public spheres, such as schools, media, and other institutions in which critical civic pedagogies can be developed. The space of the pedagogical cannot be enacted fully without the civic institutions that support its ideas and practices. The notion of global citizenship suggests that politics must catch up with power, which today has removed itself from local and state control. New political structures, global institutions, and social movements that can reach and control the flows of uncontrolled power, particularly economic power, must develop. Real citizenship in the global sense means enabling people to have a say in the shaping of international laws governing trade, the environment, labor, criminal justice, and social protections. Citizenship as the essence of politics has to catch up with new social formations that the current political and social institutions of the nation-state cannot influence, contain, or control. BOSIO:  What are the attributes of the global citizen in your opinion? GIROUX:  Citizens for a global democracy need to be aware of the interrelated nature of all aspects of physical, spiritual, and cultural life as part of a broader political and moral project. First, this means having a deep-rooted understanding of the relational nature of global dependencies, whether we are talking about the ecosphere or the circuits of capital. Second, citizens need to be multiliterate in ways that not only allow them access to new information and media-based technologies but also enable them to be border-crossers capable of engaging, learning from, understanding, and being tolerant of and responsible to matters of difference and otherness. This suggests reclaiming, as central to any viable notion of citizenship, the values of mutual worth, dignity, and ethical responsibility. At stake here is the recognition that there is a certain civic virtue and ethical value in extending our exposure to difference and otherness. Citizens need to cultivate loyalties that extend beyond the nation-state, beyond a theoretical distinction in which the

Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship 5 division between friend and enemy is mediated exclusively by national boundaries. Clearly, citizenship as a form of empowerment means acquiring the skills that enable one to critically examine the history and to resuscitate those dangerous memories in which knowledge expands the possibilities for self-knowledge and critical and social agency. Knowledge need not be only Indigenous to be empowering. Individuals must also have some distance from the knowledge of their birth, origins, and specificity of place. This suggests appropriating that knowledge that emerges through dispersal, travel, border-crossings, diaspora, and through global communications. A cosmopolitan notion of citizenship must recognize the importance of a culture of questioning to any global concept of democracy. The global public sphere must be a place where authority can be questioned, power held accountable and dissent seen as having a positive value. There is a growing authoritarianism in many parts of the world, particularly the United States. In facing this threat to democracy around the globe, it is crucial for educators, parents, young people, workers, and others to fight the collapse of citizenship into forms of jingoistic nationalism. This means educators and others will have to reinvigorate democracy by assuming the pedagogical project of prioritizing debate, deliberation, dissent, dialogue, and public spaces as central to any viable notion of global citizenship. In addition, if citizenship is to be global, it must develop a sense of radical humanism that comprehends social and environmental justice beyond national boundaries. Human suffering does not stop at the borders of nation-states. BOSIO:  What is the role of educators in the context of globalization and how this can be framed in our discussion on critical pedagogy and GCE? GIROUX:  I have always argued that educators must be treated as a critical public resource, essential not only to the importance of an empowering educational experience for students but also to the formation of a democratic society. At the institutional level, this means giving educators an opportunity to exercise power over the conditions of their work, particularly when it comes to educating the critical “global citizen”. In this view, we cannot separate what educators do from the economic and political conditions that shape their work, that is, their academic labor. This means they should have both the time and the power to institute structural conditions that allow them to produce curricula, collaborate with parents, conduct research, and work with communities. Moreover, it can be suggested that for a critical GCE to be effective, university buildings must be limited in size to permit educators and others to construct, maintain, and enhance a democratic

6  Henry A. Giroux, Emiliano Bosio community for themselves and their students. We are talking not only about the issue of class size but also about how space is institutionally constructed as part of a political project compatible with the formation of lived, democratic communities. In addition, particularly when it comes to implementing notions, such as “global citizenship”, educators should be given the freedom to shape the university curricula, engage in shared research with other educators and with others outside of the university, and play a central role in the governance of the school and their labor. Educational empowerment for educators cannot be separated from issues of power and governance. Educators should be valued as public intellectuals who connect critical ideas, traditions, disciplines, and values to the public realm of everyday life. But at the same time, educators must assume the responsibility for connecting their work to larger social issues, particularly if they educate for critical global citizenship while raising questions about what it means to provide students with the values they need to write policy papers, be resilient against defeat, analyze social problems, and learn the tools of democracy and how to make a difference in one’s life as a social agent. BOSIO:  What should be the purpose of a GCE when informed by critical pedagogy? GIROUX:  A GCE informed by critical pedagogy must take seriously the connections between theory and practice, reflection and action. All too often, theory in academia slides into a form of “theoreticism” in which it either becomes an end in itself, relegated to the heights of an arcane, excessive and utterly ethereal existence or degenerates into a form of careerism, offering the fastest track to academic rewards and promotions. But theory is hardly a luxury connected to the fantasy of intellectual power. On the contrary, the theory is a resource that enables us to both define and respond to problems as they emerge in particular contexts. Its transformative power resides in the possibility of enabling forms of agency, not in its ability to solve problems. Its politics is linked to the ability to imagine the world differently and then to act differently and this is its offering to any viable notion of citizenship education. At stake here is not the question of whether theory matters, which should be as obvious as asking whether critical thought matters but the issue of what the political and public responsibilities of theory might be, particularly in theorizing global politics for the twenty-first century. Theory is not just about contemplation or paving a way to academic stardom; it is foremost about intervention in the world, raising ideas to the worldly space of public life, social responsibility, and collective intervention. If learning is a fundamental part of social change, then the theory is a crucial resource for studying the full range of everyday

Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship 7 practices that circulate throughout diverse social formations and for finding better forms of knowledge and modes of intervention in the face of the challenge of either a growing authoritarianism or a manufactured cynicism. Moreover, I think a GCE informed by critical pedagogy begins with the assumption that knowledge and power should always be subject to debate, held accountable, and critically engaged. Central to the very definition of critical pedagogy is a common concern for reforming universities and developing modes of pedagogical practice in which educators and students become critical agents actively questioning and negotiating the relationships between theory and practice, critical analysis and common sense, and learning and social change. This is hardly a prescription for propaganda. I think critical pedagogy is often seen as dangerous because it is built around a project that goes to the very heart of what education is about and is framed around a series of important and often ignored questions, such as: Why do we, as educators, do what we do the way we do it? Whose interest does schooling serve? How might it be possible to understand and engage the diverse contexts in which education takes place? Critical pedagogy at its essence is about the struggle over power, agency, authority, desire, and what it means to prepare people for learning how to govern rather than be governed. It is not a method per se but a theoretically informed set of assumptions about the centrality of education to politics and envisioning a world in which justice and economic equality become a thread informing and connecting a larger global universe. Critical pedagogy must inform GCE in a way that is not simply concerned with offering students new ways to think critically and act with authority as agents in the classroom; in this sense, GCE, if informed by critical pedagogy, must also be concerned with providing educators and students with the knowledge and values to expand their capacities both to question deep-seated assumptions and myths that legitimate the most archaic and disempowering social practices that structure every aspect of society and to take responsibility for intervening in the world. In other words, critical pedagogy forges a GCE which, ideally, supports students’ agency through a language of skepticism and possibility. BOSIO:  Do you think there is a “crisis of values” in the modern university, particularly in the humanities? If so, how does this connect with concepts of GCE, critical pedagogy and the role of educators in your opinion? GIROUX: The humanities traditionally has offered both a refuge and a possibility for thinking about these issues, though under historical conditions which bear little resemblance to the present. This is particularly evident as the conditions for the production of knowledge, national identity, and citizenship have changed in a rapidly

8  Henry A. Giroux, Emiliano Bosio globalizing, post-9/11 world order marked by the expansion of new electronic technologies; the consolidation of global media; Western deindustrialization, deregulation, and downsizing; the privatization of public goods and services; and the marketization of all aspects of social life. The “crisis of values” in the humanities reflects a crisis within the larger society about the meaning and viability of institutions that define themselves as serving a public rather than a private good. The “crisis of values” is often an argument that leaves behind how modes of governance, faculty power, and the redefining of students as consumers is being shaped by the neoliberalization of higher education. This, of course, leads to a crisis of values, but it also needs to be understood as a crisis of power. The ongoing “vocationalization” of higher education, the commodification of the curriculum, the increasing role the university plays as part of the national security state and the transformation of students into consumers have undermined the humanities in its efforts to offer students the knowledge and skills they need for learning how to govern as well as develop the capacities necessary for deliberation, reasoned arguments, and social action. The incursion of corporate and military culture into university life undermines the university’s responsibility to provide students with an education that allows them to recognize the dream and promise of a substantive democracy. While it is true that the humanities must keep up with developments in the sciences, the new media, technology, and other fields, its first responsibility is treating these issues not merely pragmatically as ideas and skills to be learned but as sites of political and ethical intervention, deeply connected to the question of what it means to create students who can imagine a democratic future for all people. In its best moments, this era of crisis, fear, and insecurity has reinvigorated the debate over the role that the humanities and the university more generally might play in creating a pluralized public culture essential for animating the basic precepts of democratic public life. Matters of history, global relations, ethical concerns, creativity, and the development of new literacies and modes of communication should be central to any humanities education and the conversation it enables. But at the same time, such conversations have for the most part failed to consider more fundamental issues about the need to revitalize the language of civic education as part of a broader discourse of political agency and critical citizenship in a globalized society. More specifically, a better understanding of why the humanities has avoided the challenge of those critical discourses capable of interrogating how society represents itself and how and why individuals fail to critically engage such representations is crucial if educators are to intervene in the oppressive social relationships they often legitimate.

Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship 9 Given these contexts, educators in the humanities must ask new kinds of questions, beginning with: How do educators respond to value-based questions regarding the “usefulness” of the humanities and the range of purposes it should serve? What knowledge(s) are of most worth? What does it mean to claim authority in a world where borders are constantly shifting? What role does the humanities have in a world in which the “immaterial production” of knowledge becomes the most important form of capital? How might pedagogy be understood as a political and moral practice rather than a technical strategy in the service of corporate culture? And what relation should the humanities have to young people as they develop a sense of agency, particularly in relation to the obligations of critical global citizenship and public life in a radically transformed cultural and global landscape? As citizenship becomes increasingly privatized and youth are increasingly educated to become consuming subjects rather than critical social subjects, it becomes all the more imperative for educators working within the humanities to rethink the space of the social and to develop a critical language in which notions of the public good, public issues, and public life become central to overcoming the privatizing and depoliticizing language of the market. Central to this issue for me is the role that higher education might play as a democratic public sphere. BOSIO: In one of your well-known books you refer to the notion of “teachers as intellectuals” (Giroux, Freire & McLaren, 1988)– why this notion is relevant in contemporary societies and how this connects with critical pedagogy and GCE? GIROUX:  I have always believed that the notion of the intellectual carries with it a number of important political, cultural, and social registers. In contrast to the notion that intellectuals are a specialized group of experts, I have argued that everybody is an intellectual in that we all have the capacity to think, produce ideas, be self-critical, and connect knowledge (wherever it comes from) to forms of selfand social development. At the same time, those intellectuals who have the luxury of defining their social function through the production of intellectual ideas have a special responsibility to address how power works through institutions, individuals, social formations, and everyday life so as to enable or close down democratic values, identities, and relations. More specifically, I believe that the most important obligation that intellectuals have to knowledge is only fulfilled through understanding their relationship to power not as a complementary relation but as one of opposition. This suggests not only understanding how power works but also how to struggle for it, over it and use it in the service of justice and individual and social empowerment. I also think as Jacques Derrida suggested that courage is a special quality demanded of intellectuals and since the

10  Henry A. Giroux, Emiliano Bosio 1980s, it seems to be in short supply as the forces of repression have grown more intense both in the United States and abroad. I think intellectuals, whether in or outside of the academy, must connect ideas to the world and engage their skills, knowledge, and values as part of a larger struggle over democracy and justice. Intellectuals have a responsibility not only to make truth prevail in the world and fight injustice wherever it appears but also to organize their collective passions to prevent human suffering, genocide, and diverse forms of unfreedom linked to domination and exploitation. In this context, a GCE informed by critical pedagogy has a role to play. Herewith, intellectuals have a responsibility to analyze how language, information, and meaning work to organize, legitimate, and circulate values, structure reality, and offer up particular notions of agency and identity. For public intellectuals, the latter challenge demands a new kind of literacy and critical understanding with respect to the emergence of the new media and electronic technologies and the new and powerful role they play as instruments of public pedagogy. Critical reflection is an essential dimension of justice and it can be central to GCE, and it is precisely with respect to keeping justice and democracy alive in the public domain that intellectuals have a responsibility to the global world. Today, the concept of the intellectual, as Pierre Bourdieu reminds us, has become synonymous with public relations experts, sycophantic apologists, and fast-talking media types. Educators as public intellectuals need a new vocabulary for linking hope, social citizenship, and education to the demands of a substantive democracy. This can be a possible understanding of GCE. I am suggesting that educators, particularly those involved with teaching GCE, need a new vocabulary for connecting not only how we read critically but also how we engage in movements for social change. I also believe that simply invoking the relationships between theory and practice, critique and social action will not do. Any attempt to give new life to a substantive democratic politics must address both how people learn to be political agents and what kind of educational work is necessary within many kinds of public spaces. People need to use their full intellectual resources to provide a profound critique of existing institutions and to struggle toward fulfilling the promise of a radical global democracy. As public intellectuals, educators, and other cultural workers need to understand more fully why the tools we used in the past feel awkward in the present, often failing to respond to problems now facing the United States and other parts of the globe. More specifically, we face the challenge posed by the failure of existing critical discourses to bridge the gap between how society represents itself and how and why individuals fail to understand and critically engage such representations in order to intervene in the oppressive social relationships they often legitimate.

Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship 11 It is also crucial for educators as public intellectuals to take seriously what it means to provide the tools for both students and others outside the academy to function as intellectuals. This means making clear to others the necessity as Stuart Hall once put it of being at the forefront of intellectual work and transmitting those ideas not just within the academy but to a broader public. Intellectuals have to be alive to the high stakes pedagogical value of persuasion, rhetoric, providing a discourse in which others can recognize themselves while merging intellectual complexity with clarity and accessibility. I refuse to accept the notion that arcane, leaden writing signals some kind of blessed and incisive intelligence. I also think that intellectuals have a responsibility to both reach across academic specialties and connect them at the same time. All public intellectuals should be border-crossers. Moreover, I think intellectuals can never lose sight of the need to keep matters of politics and power connected to global issues of distributive justice. By combining the mutually interdependent roles of critic and active citizen, intellectual work at its best can exercise civic courage as a political practice, a practice that begins when one’s life can no longer be taken for granted. Such a stance not only connects intellectual work to making dominant power accountable but also makes concrete the possibility for transforming hope and politics into an ethical space and public act that confront the flow of everyday experience and the weight of social suffering with the force of individual and collective resistance and the unending project of democratic social transformation. The road to authoritarianism begins when societies stop questioning themselves and when such questioning stops, it is often because intellectuals either have become complicit with such silence or actively produce it. Clearly, critical intellectuals have a responsibility to oppose this deafening quiet in the face of an emerging global barbarism, evidence of which can be seen in a number of growing religious, political, and economic fundamentalisms. BOSIO: Henry, your writings have undoubtedly inspired educators worldwide who seek to provide a critically oriented education to their students. Do you have any specific message for them? GIROUX:  Yes, these are very difficult times but the stakes are very high and if we value democracy and have any hope whatsoever for the future, we must continue the struggle for connecting education to democracy, learning to social change, and excellence to equity. The only other option is either cynicism or complicity and no educator deserves that. I also think it is important to recognize that these struggles are going on all over the world and that we are not alone and should not be alone in taking on these crucial battles – battles that will determine the fate of global democracy in the twenty-first century.

12  Henry A. Giroux, Emiliano Bosio

1.3 Conclusion As we suggested in the introduction, these are challenging times for critical pedagogues and citizenship educators. Neoliberal forces have engaged in an ongoing assault on the edifice of public education and the democratic values of solidarity and collectivism are gradually being questioned or even superseded by notions of competition and individualism. Critical pedagogy can help inform GCE in a way that helps neutralize the forces of neoliberalism. We believe that GCE can be advanced, even strengthened via critical pedagogy by drawing on civic courage as a political practice which transforms hope and politics into an ethical space and public act that confront the flow of everyday experience and the weight of social suffering with the force of individual and collective resistance. The application of these principles can reinvigorate critical pedagogy and GCE simultaneously. This reinvigorated approach can find space to operate and even challenge the dominant neoliberalism present in university environments.

References Bosio, E. (2017). Educating for global citizenship and fostering a nonkilling attitude. In J. Evans Pim & S. Herrero Rico (Eds.), Nonkilling education (pp. 59–70). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Bosio, E. (2019). The need for a values-based university curriculum. University World News. story=2019092415204357. Bosio, E. (2020). Towards an ethical global citizenship education curriculum framework in the modern university. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Bloomsbury handbook for global education and learning (pp. 187–206). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education, 17(6), 745–760. https://doi. org/10.1177/1478210319825517 Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing. Giroux, H. A., Freire, P., & McLaren, P. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Greenwood Publishing Group. Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020a). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. Prospects, 48, 99–113. Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020b). Critical Reflections on the Notion of Global Citizenship Education. A dialogue with Carlos Alberto Torres in relation to higher education in the United States. Encyclopaideia, 24(56), 107–117. https://


Global Citizenship Otherwise Sharon Stein and Vanessa Andreotti

2.1 Introduction We call our approach to educating for global citizenship in the context of higher education “global citizenship otherwise”. This approach to global citizenship and global citizenship education (GCE) invites learners to decenter themselves, deepen their sense of responsibility, and disinvest from harmful desires so that we might learn to (co)exist differently on a shared planet. We came to this approach to global citizenship through a shared recognition of the common circularities of neoliberal, liberal, and critical approaches to global citizenship (Andreotti, 2011; Pashby, Costa, Stein, & Andreotti, 2020; Stein, & Andreotti, 2020; Stein, 2015), and thus, a sense that other possibilities were needed. In particular, we found that although these different approaches are rooted in contrasting intellectual genealogies and political commitments, in practice, they tend to be oriented by the same underlying set of colonial entitlements to: redemptive narratives; heroic leadership; formulaic solutions; canonical authority; hope for continuity (of the existing system); looking and feeling virtuous; and transcending complicity in harm. When these entitlements are challenged, they tend to prompt affective responses that may contradict and supersede one’s intellectual critique. Global citizenship otherwise is, therefore, an invitation for learners to identify and interrupt these colonial entitlements, trace their harmful and unsustainable conditions of possibility, and engage in a long-term process of disinvesting from those entitlements so that another way of being might become possible. Global citizenship otherwise is partly inspired by decolonial, postcolonial, and Indigenous critiques that denaturalize the harmful underside of the shiny promises offered by nation-states (Byrd, 2011; Walia, 2013), global capital (Coulthard, 2014), universal knowledge (Santos, 2007; Shiva, 1993), social mobility (Donald, 2019), and separability (Silva, 2016), which we have summarized as the primary dimensions of the modern conditions of existence. We describe these dimensions using the metaphor of the “house modernity built” (Stein, Hunt, Suša,

14  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti & Andreotti, 2017). Yet while these important theories are useful for recognizing enduring colonial patterns and asking difficult questions, they can only gesture toward the kind of education that might prepare us to surrender our learned sense of superiority and separation, and affirm our radical interdependence with and responsibility to each other and the earth itself. To seek within these theories, a prescriptive (re)solution would be to route them back into the same set of colonial entitlements (and accompanying affective investments) that they challenge. Thus, we do not frame decolonial, postcolonial, and Indigenous theories as the basis of an alternative approach to GCE, but rather understand them as offering useful questions about the limits of common approaches to GCE and issuing an invitation for a pedagogy that can enable us to “dig deeper” (to develop more nuanced self-implicating analyses) and to “relate wider” (to expand sensibilities and responsibilities without turning our backs to our complicity in harm). In other words, instead of treating GCE as a means to cultivate particular values in learners that will then determine their actions, we approach GCE as an opportunity to invite learners to deepen their intellectual engagements, sensitize themselves to the complexities, complicities, and contradictions involved in making change and develop a more expansive sense of entanglement with the world. In this approach to GCE, critiques of colonialism are mobilized to identify how narrow imaginaries of justice, responsibility, and change continue to shape teaching and learning in formal education. It is these imaginaries that have produced many of the global challenges we now face, and thus, any solution – or approach to GCE – that is developed from within these imaginaries will likely produce more of the same problems (Andreotti, 2012). A common response to the circularity of seeking solutions from within the same system that caused the problems is to seek solutions elsewhere – for instance, from within non-Western knowledge traditions. Certainly, important interventions in the field of global citizenship go in this direction. At the same time, this can (re) create colonial patterns of engagement, particularly when these knowledge traditions are instrumentalized as objects of consumption, rather than treated as opportunities to encounter and be taught by difference. These patterns include engagements oriented by a search for innocence and affirmation of one’s “goodness” (Tuck & Yang, 2012); selectively engaging with other ontoepistemologies, then extracting and grafting parts of them back onto one’s own (Ahenakew, 2016); and the colonial romanticization and idealization of difference, which oppose colonial pathologization while remaining within the same colonial grammar of reasoning and desire. As diagnosed by several decolonial, postcolonial, and Indigenous scholars, these tendencies are often rooted in desires to transcend complicity in colonial harm without giving anything up (Jefferess, 2012;

Global Citizenship Otherwise 15 Spivak, 1988). In particular, for those who desire to hold on to the perceived entitlements, certainties, and securities that are offered by the house modernity built, it can be very difficult to actually receive the gifts and insights of other systems of knowledge (Kuokkanen, 2008). Thus, in order to interrupt and unravel enduring colonial patterns of education, we will need to consider how coloniality shapes not just mainstream ways of doing (methodology) and knowing (epistemology), but also ways of being (ontology) (Andreotti et al., 2018; Stein, 2019). Further, because our habits of being are kept in place not only through habits of doing and knowing, but also habits of hoping and desiring, educators will also need to address these as well (Kapoor, 2014). Here, Spivak’s (2004) notion of education as an uncoercive rearrangement of desires becomes useful. This approach suggests that while indeed it is educators’ role to denaturalize harmful desires, it is not our role to determine whether or how they might ultimately be rearranged. Some educators may actively create a state of destabilization for learners, while others recognize that the contemporary context itself has done much of this “unsettling” work for us. Regardless of the approach, we practically cannot, and ethically should not, use coercive pedagogical authority to force people to desire something we want them to desire. However, we can support them to navigate today’s complex global challenges by inviting them to consider how their desires both enable and foreclose certain possibilities, and by creating opportunities in which they can start to miss the possibilities that are absent from modern imaginaries (Ahenakew, 2016). In order to illustrate what this might look like, we describe an educational framework that can be used to gesture toward otherwise possibilities in nonprescriptive, noncoercive ways: the In Earth CARE’s Global Justice Framework, which emphasizes the interrelated dimensions of ecological, cognitive, affective, relational, and economic justice (Andreotti et al., 2018). To illustrate this framework, we use the metaphor of mushrooms, representing the ecological and economic dimensions of transformation and underneath them, the mycelium of the cognitive, affective, and relational dimensions, which is the substrata from which the mushrooms emerge. This framework suggests that if we do not address the cognitive, affective, and relational dimensions of global learning and social change, then no shift in the ecological or economic dimensions will be possible. We visually represent this framework as a creative social cartography (Figure 2.1), which are non-normative pedagogical tools. These tools are not intended to describe an accurate reality but rather to move conversations beyond points where they often get stuck, thus inviting different kinds of conversations. These cartographies can help us trace historical and systemic processes, draw attention to points of tension, make visible aspects that are often made invisible and connections that are usually conveniently hidden and ask us to see our own perspectives with skepticism.

16  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti

Figure 2.1  In Earth’s CARE Global Justice Framework.

In the “In Earth’s CARE Global Justice” Framework, for ecological justice, we emphasize the need to reframe “the environment” as a set of living (human and other-than-human) beings, rather than a set of resources to be extracted/exploited, and to sense and treat the earth itself as an entity rather than as property to be owned. For cognitive justice, we emphasize the need to interrupt a monoculture of thought based on a single rationality, recognize the possibilities and limitations of all knowledge systems, and enact intellectual accountability in order to understand and connect the dots between the different structures of knowing and being that keep our existing harmful (ecological and economic) systems in place. For affective justice, we emphasize the need to work through the (unevenly distributed) traumas, fragilities, and fears that have been generated within the existing system and to learn to be comfortable with difficulty, complexity, uncertainty, complicity, failure, and disillusionment in the work of transformation. For relational justice, we emphasize the need to develop reciprocal (rather than extractive or consumptive) relations between one’s self, the earth itself, other humans, as well as other-than-human beings, including both present and future generations of all species. Finally, for economic justice, we emphasize the possibility of enacting modes of coordination

Global Citizenship Otherwise 17 and collaboration that support metabolic wellbeing in ways that exceed traditional debates about “the distribution of resources”, which even in their critical form tend to objectify and commodify the lives and labor of both humans and other-than-human beings.

2.2  Dialogue with Sharon Stein and Vanessa Andreotti EMILIANO BOSIO:  What

is your understanding of GCE? How has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped this understanding? SHARON STEIN AND VANESSA ANDREOTTI:  Our approach to global citizenship otherwise developed through our academic work, our lived experiences, and most recently, collaborations with our research collective, Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures. This is a transdisciplinary collective of researchers, artists, educators, students, and activists doing research, scholarship, and artistic, pedagogical, and cartographic experiments that bring together concerns related to racism, colonialism, (un)sustainability, climate change, biodiversity loss, economic instability, mental health crises, and intensifications of social and ecological violence. In many ways, global citizenship otherwise is the latest manifestation of our long-term, multidimensional efforts to think beyond mainstream approaches to global education and social change. These mainstream approaches tend to take a normative and prescriptive approach in an effort to change peoples’ minds and subsequently change their actions. Our dissatisfaction with this approach lies in at least three dimensions. The first dimension is that we challenge the notion that our role as educators is to tell people what to think and how to act; rather, we seek to create spaces in which people are invited to denaturalize existing frames of reference so that other possibilities for knowing, being, and relating might ultimately become viable. In this work, we do not wish to center ourselves or our perspectives, nor do we think the solution is to center learners; instead, we ask what it might mean to center the earth itself. The second dimension is that we challenge the notion that changes on the intellectual level (ways of thinking) will result in changes on the ontological level (ways of being). We are rarely fully transparent to ourselves about our desires, motives, and investments, and many things are unconscious. Thus, we are interested in working at cognitive but also affective and relational layers of engagement, which we find enables us to better understand where people really are positioned in relation to complex topics and difficult conversations. Finally, we believe that “otherwise” possibilities are likely unimaginable from where we currently stand because we are “so deeply embedded and enlivened by colonial logics” (Patel, 2015, p. 88). This is not only an issue of the challenges of imagination but also about the fact

18  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti that our livelihoods (including in the university) continue to be subsidized by violence. Thus, we seek to create pedagogies that invite learners to sit with and be taught by the complexity, complicity, and uncertainty involved in long-term, nonlinear change, and to engage with multiple theories of what it might look like. The global citizenship otherwise approach also emerged out of a need for different kinds of educational spaces than are generally available. On the one hand, there are spaces where critique becomes weaponized and may manifest in forms of self-righteousness in a search for innocence and/or epistemic authority. While often the critiques articulated in these spaces are incredibly important and we are grateful for them, we do not think a punitive approach or an approach that relies on guilt, resentment, or shame is the long-term answer. On the other hand, we find spaces where people are seeking community and prioritize “going along to get along.” In those spaces, critical questions may be avoided in order not to create discomfort, conflict, or animosity and to keep peace, connections, and a sense of togetherness. While we understand the need for people to feel accepted in all their complexity, we believe that genuine relationships and collective movements are born out of the struggle of addressing difficult issues together. We have, therefore, sought to create an approach to global citizenship that can foster difficult conversations without relationships falling apart and create opportunities to interrupt our satisfaction with existing habits of being, knowing, desiring, and relating. BOSIO:  What are three key elements of GCE in the modern higher education institution? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI: Rather than prescribing three “key” elements of education for global citizenship, we will review three different orientations to global citizenship and emphasize three dimensions of engagement for the orientation that we work most closely with. Most approaches to global citizenship in modern higher education fall under an orientation that we refer to as “soft reform”, in that they advocate for things like greater social and ecological awareness, expanded empathy, and engaged civic participation within the dominant socioeconomic system and related institutions. Some approaches to global citizenship go further and seek to challenge and expand the limits of the currently dominant socioeconomic system. We call this orientation “radical reform”. However, a few approaches to global citizenship seek to problematize the current system at its very roots – in particular, its ecological limits and inherently harmful structures of knowing, being, and relating. We call this orientation “beyond reform”. This orientation speaks of the need to work within the system as long as it exists, while also opening up or regenerating other possibilities for collective existence otherwise as we learn to “be” differently. This

Global Citizenship Otherwise 19 orientation is based on the premise that the challenges we collectively face are due to harmful habits of being that cannot be solved with more knowledge, information, or aligned cognitive frames alone. From this approach, it is not only our intellectual capacities but also our affective and relational capacities that will help us figure out together how to navigate these challenges. Through these three dimensions of engagement, we might be able to feel, to imagine, and to relate differently to everything around and within us. Each of these approaches – soft, radical, and beyond reform – offers something and each has limitations (see Andreotti, Stein, Ahenakew & Hunt, 2015). While in our own work we tend to engage most deeply with the beyond reform approach, we are not seeking a position of hegemony – that is, we are not trying to convince more people to take a “global citizenship otherwise” approach, nor are we trying to make this a new universal approach to GCE. We respect people’s specific interests, contexts, and capacities, and uphold their right to make decisions for themselves. Thus, we can only invite people to engage with this approach and offer it to those who are interested. BOSIO: In describing your approach to GCE in the context of higher education, you refer to “global citizenship otherwise”. In this view, GCE encourages the global citizens to “decenter themselves, deepen their sense of responsibility, and disinvest from harmful desires so that we might learn to (co)exist differently on a shared planet”. Can you discuss how global citizenship otherwise may be translated into pedagogical practices in higher education, for example, in the classes that you teach currently or taught in the past? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI:  Before we answer this, we should note that the pedagogical frameworks and strategies that we describe here were specifically developed for our primary context, in particular for learners in the “global North” or in the “North of the South” who have been socialized within modern schooling and institutions. We, therefore, do not suggest that they are universally relevant or effective for all contexts and learners. Our approach to global citizenship emphasizes that current global challenges are not primarily the result of a lack of adequate knowledge or information, but rather an investment in an inherently violent modern/colonial “habit-of-being” (Shotwell, 2016). Thus, we suggest that several denials are enacted in an effort to protect this habit-of-being from being challenged. Three clusters of illusions drive these denials: •

Illusions related to human-centeredness, merit, innocence, and benevolence – which are premised on a denial of our complicity in the systemic violence of exploitation and expropriation that subsidize modern promises, securities, desires

20  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti •

Illusions related to linear progress and the presumed continuity of an inherently unsustainable system that promises unending growth and consumption – which are premised on a denial of the ecological limits of the planet, and Illusions related to superiority, unrestricted autonomy, and separation (from land, other beings, and each other) – which are premised on a denial of interdependence, entanglement with, and responsibilities to, a wider metabolism.

If we are facing problems of denial rather than problems of ignorance, then we will need pedagogies that address not only the intellectual but also the affective and relational dimensions of learning. Through these pedagogies, we seek to mobilize disillusionment as a productive force that can help people find balance-in-movement in the “eye of a storm” – the storm being the uncertainty and instability of our current economic, political, and ecological context. We use the metaphor of the eye of the storm because we know we will get caught in the storm’s vortex if we walk either too fast or too slow. In this practice, we suggest that the need to balance the work of “hospicing” ways of knowing and being that are dying (including learning from their gifts and mistakes) and assisting with the birth of forms of coexistence and political possibilities that are still undefined and are potentially (but not necessarily) wiser (see Andreotti et al., 2015). Because this work can be quite unsettling and uncomfortable, it is difficult to do this work in the formal classroom, particularly in our currently consumerist context. In this context, learners may be seeking an experience that will affirm their perspectives, choices, and self-image. Because our work tends to interrupt and problematize these desires, much of this work is done in informal spaces, such as workshops and trainings, with community organizations or nonprofit groups that have become dissatisfied with the existing available possibilities, and are, therefore, looking for something quite different. When we do engage this work, we generally ask people to first consider our “Broccoli Seed Agreement”. The metaphor at work here is that through our pedagogical approach, we offer broccoli seeds instead of the candy (comfortable answers) that many people are seeking; thus, for those who chose to engage with our work, we ask them upfront to take responsibility for their own learning (i.e. for planting, growing, and harvesting the broccoli), for instance, by observing their responses and resistances, deciding how far to push themselves and their learning, and not looking to us as facilitators to approve (or disapprove) of their learning process or conclusions. It is important to begin this work by problematizing “business as usual” and developing a sense of the hidden costs of our lifestyles, the scale of the problems we are facing in terms of environmental

Global Citizenship Otherwise 21 destruction and human exploitation, and the difficulties of intervening in these patterns without reproducing more of the same harm. Thus, we generally start by asking people to engage at least some of the basic critiques and resources that draw attention to the hidden costs of mainstream institutions and relations, and the root causes of global injustice, so that they can develop a self-reflexive form of critical literacy and start to “connect the dots” of systemic, interrelated problems. For instance, we often invite people to calculate their “ecological footprint” at and their “slavery footprint” at These tools are limited in what they can do and we certainly encourage people to engage them with a critical eye, but they nonetheless give a general sense of how many planets we would need if everyone had the same patterns of consumption that one has and how much human suffering is already necessary to sustain these patterns today. While, on the one hand, many people would prefer not to think about these things, so as to keep enjoying these pleasures and comforts uninterrupted, in the current state of affairs where these pleasures and comforts may be affecting the very possibility of the continuation of life in the planet, we invite people to consider our responsibility toward current and future generations of human and nonhuman lives. Our pedagogy offers one possibility for interrupting existing satisfactions, investments, and desires, so that we might problematize them and perhaps begin the difficult process of disinvesting from them, welcoming other previously unimaginable possibilities for existence, and developing previously exiled capacities. After introducing and engaging the basics of critique, our pedagogical approach for global citizenship otherwise tends to emphasize two primary strategies – creative social cartographies to support participants as they “dig deeper” into the complexities and paradoxes of collective challenges, to connect the dots and rationally explore the limits of rationality; and affective, embodied, and land-based exercises that are designed to support participants as they “relate wider” to develop the stamina for the difficulties of this work and to tap into exiled capacities that can support wellbeing and working through the messes that we have made. We have included some of the creative social cartographies in this chapter (more here: decolonialfutures. net/creativecartographies), but the specific cartographies and exercises that we engage in our practice will depend on the specifics of the context and the group that we are working with. BOSIO: In your previous work on GCE (e.g. Andreotti, 2011; Stein, 2015), and again in this chapter, you seem to imply that there is a “common circularity” of neoliberal, liberal, and critical approaches to GCE. Can you exemplify what is “common circularity” in your view and how this may relate to your GCE teaching approaches?

22  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti STEIN AND ANDREOTTI:  In

a recent article with colleagues Karen Pashby and Marta da Costa (see Pashby, Costa, Stein, & Andreotti, 2020), we reviewed existing typologies of GCE. In this review, we found that most approaches to GCE are articulated from within imaginaries of global education and social change that emphasize a shift in our way of doing things, but which proceed with the same direction forward (i.e. they seek to change the means, but keep the ends the same). Some approaches to GCE advocate for shifting our way of thinking, challenging normalized assumptions and power relations, and offering deeper historical and systemic analyses of global problems. Within different ways of doing and thinking about GCE, there are many variances; however, overall most of these approaches are rooted within a shared (modern/colonial) way of being in which existence is defined by knowledge, where humans are separated from nature, and a single form of (Cartesian, teleological, logocentric, allochronic) rationality prevails. Anything that falls outside of what is imaginable within this way of being is unintelligible and, thus, presumed to be either worthless or simply nonexistent (Santos, 2007). Alternatively, possibilities for existence that fall outside the modern/ colonial way of being are subjected to forms of projection and appropriation, that is, they are extracted from their own contextual relevance and placed in the modern/colonial way of being in ways that betray their integrity (Ahenakew, 2016). It is, therefore, difficult for people to imagine, let alone engage, global citizenship in ways that do not become circular. Thus, rather than describing for them what this looks like, we often pose questions that invite people to sit at the edge of the modern/ colonial way of being so that they can start to miss what is absent. One way of doing so is to share a creative social cartography that compares assumptions of mainstream global citizenship (soft and radical reform) and global citizenship otherwise (beyond reform) (see Table 2.1). BOSIO: Your work on GCE is informed by “decolonial, postcolonial, and Indigenous critiques”. You are also using the metaphor of the “house modernity built” (Stein et al., 2017) to summarize phenomena permeating modern societies, and I would suggest, the modernity university. Phenomena may include, as you suggest, notions of global capital, universal knowledge, social mobility, and others. Can you offer your perspectives on how you would address the “house modernity built” when conceptualizing and designing a “curricular program” for GCE? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI: The house modernity built synthesizes several analyses produced by marginalized communities of struggle as well as de-/postcolonial, Indigenous, Black, and critical ethnic studies scholars, which identify the root causes and contemporary implications and symptoms of an inherently unsustainable and violent system that separates us from the earth and from each other

Global Citizenship Otherwise 23 Table 2.1  Mainstream Global Citizenship/Global Citizenship Otherwise Mainstream GC

GC Otherwise

Understand the global dimension of local issues; Develop consensus on values and ways forward; Expose people to different voices and perspectives; Develop skills for action

Develop the capacity to face and embrace complexities, uncertainty, paradoxes, and internal contradictions without becoming irritated, overwhelmed, anxious, or depressed; Understand how we are complicit in harm; Rationally explore the limits of a single rationality (self-reflexive multilayered reasoning) Develop stamina to engage with difficult issues and conversations without relationships falling apart and without turning to harmful kinds of hope for redemption; Develop familiarity with being in/with the uncomfortable, the unknown, the unknowable, the unexpected, and tuning into different modes of accessing personal and collective joy (possibility of relating differently through radical tenderness) Interrupt patterns of consumption related to fears, (in)securities, anxieties, and perceived entitlements at individual and collective levels; Find balance-in-movement at the “eye of the storm”; Nurture humility, generosity, compassion, patience, and responseability “before will” (not dependent on choice, convictions, or convenience) (tap metabolic intelligence and compost harmful desires) When the limits of the planet and the dominant system are reached in different contexts at different times, we will be forced to figure out how to be, relate, imagine, and work together differently; Although we cannot predict with certainty or plan for this time, we can prepare to take up this challenge collectively (attempt to extend the glide and soften the crash) We can learn from the recurrent mistakes that our current habit of being reproduces and when the time comes, there is a chance that a wiser way of being will emerge and we will only make different mistakes in the future (encounter possibilities that are viable but unthinkable within current frames)

“Make a difference”; “Be a hero/ ine”; Give people hope for the future; Empower and motivate people to act locally and globally in ways that are authorized by official institutions

Encourage (self-congratulatory forms of) tolerance, empathy, virtue, care, autonomy, courage to stand up against injustice, choosing from (prescriptive) ethical frameworks

Active, educated citizens involved in in/formal civil society and democratic processes can fix the system so that it better serves the collective good

Human rationality, ingenuity, and innovation will enable us to engineer a society that is sustainable and in balance with nature

24  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti





House exceeds limits of planet


Destitution, dispossession, genocide


Unsustainable growth

Waste disposal
















House subsidised & maintained by violence

Figures 2.2 and 2.3  The House Modernity Built and Its Hidden Costs.

(see Figures 2.2 and 2.3). Broadly, these analyses point to the fact that the colonial processes that actually enable modern promises to be fulfilled are often disavowed and externalized because to see these connections can make those inside the house uncomfortable and challenge the satisfactions that they/we get from the promises that the house offers. This metaphor enables us to make these invisible connections visible so that we can deepen our understanding of the challenges we face (see Table 2.2). Most theories of change are made up of a diagnosis of the present and a proposition about a horizon for change. In our case, the house of modernity can be understood as the diagnosis and In Earth’s CARE as the proposition in response. However, as with our other creative social cartographies, the house modernity built (and In Earth’s CARE) is not intended to be a normative theory of change that we believe everyone should adopt, but rather a prompt for learners to reflect upon their own theories of change. For instance, we invite learners to ask how they would answer the following questions based on their preferred theory of change: What is the problem? What is the nature of the problem, and its underlying cause? What would be the solution at a collective or systemic level?

Global Citizenship Otherwise 25 Table 2.2  Modern Promises of the House and the Colonial Processes That Subsidize Them Modern Promise

Colonial Process

Roof: global capitalist economic system

Continuous growth without consequence; fulfilment through wealth accumulation

Wall: nation-state political system

Security through the protection of property; cohesion through shared national identity A single, universal rationality and set of humanist values that offer certainty, predictability, and consensus Upward socioeconomic mobility as the earned reward for individual hard work and “natural ability” (i.e. “merit”) Autonomy and independence of (certain) humans; relationships are presumed optional and based on choice and free will

Racialized expropriation and exploitation of humans and other than-human-beings (including land/the earth itself) Sanctioned violence in the form of policing borders and ‘othered’ people, and global militarism Epistemicide; denial of the gifts of other knowledge systems; treating knowledge and language as a means to index, control, and order the world and define existence Worth determined by a person/being’s perceived capacity to produce value within modern economies

Wall: universal knowledge system

Stairs: hierarchical social system Foundation: premised on separation

Denial of one’s entanglement with, and responsibilities (before will) to, a wider ecological metabolism; objectification, and instrumentalization of other beings

What can individuals do to contribute toward that? As well, the invitation is for learners to self-reflexively ask: What are the contributions, paradoxes, and limits of this theory of change? How does this theory of change relate to other theories of change? Apart from asking students to develop a hyper-self-reflexive stance (Kapoor, 2004) using the metaphor of the house modernity built, we also ask them to use critical tools like HEADS UP (Andreotti, 2012) to critically engage with mainstream examples of GCE, such as that of UNESCO, and offer examples of initiatives that are setting their horizons of hope beyond the house modernity built, specifically: • • •

beyond modern forms of social economy (e.g. capitalism and socialism) beyond nation-states and borders as mediators of relationships beyond separation between “man” and nature (anthropocentrism, patriarchy, and separability)

26  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti • • •

beyond a single rationality and story of progress, development, and evolution beyond social mobility as the purpose of life, and beyond consumption (of goods, knowledge, relationships, experiences, and critique) as a mode of relating to the world.

We have embedded this curricular approach in several courses at our university and we have also used it in teacher and informal education. Through the Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures collective, we run residencies and experiential learning programs that are oriented by this approach to GCE. BOSIO: You refer to global citizenship otherwise as “an invitation for learners to identify and interrupt these colonial entitlements, trace their harmful and unsustainable conditions of possibility and engage in a long-term process of disinvesting from those entitlements so that another way of being might become possible”. How would you teach your students to develop such a pivotal critical approach to GCE? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI:  In our work, we seek to denaturalize the colonial entitlements and colonial horizons of hope and strategies for change that tend to be reproduced in many approaches to education, including GCE. One way that we do this work is again through creative social cartographies, including “LAPSED”, which we gesture to in our introduction and which draws attention to common problematic patterns of response to social problems (see Table 2.3; also

Table 2.3  LAPSED Approaches to Social Justice and Change (heroic) Leadership (canonical) Authority (virtue) Posturing (formulaic) Solutions (projective) Empathy (redemptive) Desire

Framing oneself or a particular person or population as uniquely worthy and qualified to determine the approach and direction of change, often in a way that they are presumed to be above critique or complicity Pursuing certainty by identifying knowledge authorities that are presumed to be the most universally relevant and epistemically privileged Positioning oneself as innocent/virtuous by curating one’s self-image and attempting to ensure that one is seen as saying the “right” thing and doing “good” Seeking simplistic answers to complex problems so as to feel secure that solutions already exist and are easy – we only need to find and apply them Feeling or seeking empathy for a particular (generally marginalized) individual or group by identifying with that individual or group and/or otherwise projecting a particular narrative onto their existence Enacting solidarity or change efforts motivated by a desire to restore one’s sense of goodness and absolve oneself of complicity in harm

Global Citizenship Otherwise 27 see the “HEADS UP Checklist” in Andreotti, 2012). The purpose of this cartography is not to catalogue and condemn these patterns but rather to invite people to self-reflexively observe their own actions, analyses, and responses in relation to these patterns so as to potentially interrupt them and open up new possibilities that would be oriented by different kinds of desires and commitments. This work is not only a matter of deconstruction, as in addition to denaturalizing these patterns, we also create opportunities for learners to ethically encounter other possibilities for existence (without repeating the common patterns of projection, consumption, or appropriation of difference). Nonetheless, we do not offer preconceived alternatives to our existing system because of the risk that we will project our desires and entitlements onto those alternatives if we try to imagine them from here. Thus, we invite learners to work through harmful desires and entitlements so that something else that is unimaginable from where we currently stand may start to become viable. BOSIO:  You are suggesting that in order to untangle forms of colonialism rooted in certain educational approaches, it has to be contemplated how coloniality shapes not just “mainstream ways of doing (methodology)” but also “knowing (epistemology) and ways of being (ontology)”. How shall educators address these in their daily practices and when they design a curriculum for GCE? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI:  One way that we invite educators to consider the differences between ways of doing, knowing, and being is to work with them to create questions that would be asked by those engaging at each of these layers in relation to their context or area of work so that they can start to understand the distinct offerings of each layer. For instance, in relation to GCE, we might illustrate this with the following questions (see Pashby et al., 2020, for a more extensive set of questions): Methodological: What kinds of activities will teach students the values that will support democracy, fairness, and progress for all humanity? How can we foster students’ sense of connection, empathy, and responsibility for individuals beyond their immediate context? What opportunities would enable students to experience “thinking globally while acting locally”? What form of cultural competency will prepare people to work respectfully and effectively across differences? What kinds of lesson plans would enable teachers to easily include GCE into their existing curricula? Epistemological: Who decides what counts as “global citizenship”, how come, in whose name, and for whose benefit? How can global citizenship be politicized and address unequal global political, economic, and ecological systems? How should global citizenship be reframed to be more substantively inclusive of diverse ways

28  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti of knowing (beyond tokenism)? What kinds of analyses and frameworks could prompt learners to take responsibility for their individual role in the structural global problems that emerge from histories and ongoing legacies of global inequality (beyond charity)? Ontological: How might our dominant way of being trap us into a single possibility for existence, and foreclose (often violently) on other possibilities? What desires, denials, and entitlements preclude us from seeing the limits of this way of being – and how might we start to unravel them? What would it look and feel like if our responsibility to all beings was not a willed choice, but rather something “before will”? How can we create educational opportunities for learners to see and feel that we cannot be divided into “good” and “bad” but rather that we contain the full spectrum of humanity within us and we are often both subject to harm from others as well as complicit in harming others? How can learners engage other possibilities for existence without projection, tokenism, romanticization, and appropriation of those possibilities? BOSIO:  Your EarthCARE’s CARE Global Justice framework describes “the interrelated dimensions of ecological, cognitive, affective, relational, and economic justice”. Can you describe these dimensions and how you would design a curriculum for GCE around these dimensions? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI:  As noted in our introduction, the “In Earth’s CARE Global Justice” Framework integrates ecological, cognitive, affective, relational, and economic approaches to local and global justice. GCE informed by this framework is less concerned with cultivating prescriptive approaches to problem-solving and more concerned with preparing people to work with and through the complexities, uncertainties, paradoxes, and complicities that characterize efforts to address unprecedented challenges. We are experimenting with several strategies that work in this direction, including artistic, embodied, and land-based practices. Where possible, we incorporate these practices into our teaching at the university. In one course, which we called “Experiments in Entangled Co-existence: Facing the Inter-sectional Violences of Modernity”, students learned through the traditional approach of academic readings and discussions, alongside alternative pedagogical practices, such as revolutionary dance, dreaming exercises, drum-making with a local Indigenous elder, work on the university farm, a poetry workshop, and a critical labor history tour of the city. Instead of only teaching students about the theories and/or theorists whose work inspired the creation of the course, we sought to offer opportunities for students to develop vocabularies and tools of situated and (self-) reflexive analyses related to modernity’s violences, the differences between separability and

Global Citizenship Otherwise 29 entanglement, and the implications for different forms of sociality and solidarity – all while inviting them to consider how these related to their own contexts. For the final course assignment, students chose a topic related to the themes of the course and could choose between writing an academic essay on the topic, creating an artistic piece, or developing a knowledge translation piece that targeted a specific audience. BOSIO:  Sharon and Vanessa, you both have a significant experience in teaching at the university level in the context of Canada and beyond. Why is or is not GCE necessary in the modern university, particularly in Canada? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI: Today, we are tasked with preparing higher education students to face numerous local and global problems which we summarize under five primary challenges: 1 The systemic colonial violence that underwrites the maintenance of the dominant system (which is premised on invisibilized exploitation and expropriation). 2 The inherent ecological unsustainability of the dominant system (which is premised on unending growth and consumption that ignores the limits of the planet). 3 The emergence of multiple unprecedented “wicked problems”, such as political polarization, resurgent nationalisms, extreme weather, labor precarity, mass migration, the cancellation of civil, human, and labor rights, and a global mental health crisis (which are rooted in systemic violence and ecological unsustainability, but represent exponential growth in their scope, scale, and intensity). 4 The intellectual and affective difficulties of imagining “otherwise” when faced with the intensification of wicked problems (which is reinforced by a lack of stamina for addressing uncertainty and complexity, and perceived entitlements to autonomy, coherence, and control). 5 The imperative to ethically integrate the gifts of multiple knowledge traditions and practices, in particular those of Indigenous communities, so that we might draw on an “ecology of knowledges” (Santos, 2007) to respond to these problems in ways that contribute to greater collective wellbeing (which is difficult given tendencies to seek overarching solutions and to engage marginalized knowledges through appropriation, projection, consumption, or idealization). There is significant potential for GCE to contribute to the preparation of learners with the stamina, critical literacy, and selfreflexivity that will be required in order to face the uncertainty,

30  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti complexity, and conflict inherent in these (and related) challenges. However, in order for GCE to be more responsive, rigorous, and relevant in the context of the many global challenges we currently face, we will need to historicize the approaches that have thus far oriented GCE, acknowledge what has changed and why, and consider what kinds of theories and practices might have a generative impact in the current context, especially given the conditions of dispersed knowledge authorities and fragmented attention. This work will need to account for the full range of possible responses to contemporary uncertainty and instability – including politically reactionary ones. BOSIO:  What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators toward GCE in higher education, particularly Canadian universities? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI: Apart from colleagues from the now-closed Center for Global Citizenship Education at the University of Alberta and a few early and midcareer scholars around Canada, most of our colleagues in education have set their priorities around canonical questions specific to a particular discipline. GCE generally does not fit these disciplinary canonical concerns. Therefore, some colleagues perceive GCE to be a topic that should be critiqued in its mainstream formation, but GCE is not generally thought to be worthy of further scholarly consideration and it may not even be recognized as a legitimate field of policy, practice or research. However, GCE is indeed used within the language of institutional policies and strategies of many Canadian universities (often referring to the improvement of competitive advantages in students’ CVs, as well as the need to prepare students to “make the world a better place”), and in K-12 schools. Therefore, both school teachers and higher education administrators who are tasked with developing and implementing these policies and strategies are generally very interested in GCE. BOSIO:  How can education for global citizenship be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in Canadian universities? What knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and experiences are graduates expected to acquire in order to become global citizens? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI: Part of the difficulty in enacting a “beyond reform” approach to global citizenship, or global citizenship otherwise, is that it is premised on a pedagogy of interrupting the desires and perceived entitlements that many of us have come to expect within existing institutions. This interruption is, in part, an interruption of socially authorized denial, something that is proactively not talked about in formal education, in the media, or in modern institutions (Mills, 2007; Vimalassery, Pegues, & Goldstein, 2016). Thus, talking about what is often denied, and talking about the function of denial itself, can be uncomfortable and frustrating, prompting feelings of guilt, shame, and anger. This is why our

Global Citizenship Otherwise 31 approach takes the form of an invitation – generally, only those who are looking for it will be interested – and those who are not might strongly resist it and take out their resistance on those who bring it up. This is also partly why we do not put forward global citizenship otherwise as a normative approach, but rather invite people into a space in which they can engage with a fuller range and complexity of different approaches to GCE; for instance, through mapping tools like social cartographies (see Andreotti, 2011; Stein, 2015; Pashby et al., 2020). In doing so, we invite people to better understand and situate themselves within these different approaches. We then invite those who are interested in the beyond reform approach to dive deeper with us. But even beyond clarifying the specifics of different approaches, we are, in general, in higher education working within a cacophonous landscape of theoretical and political perspectives, aided by the rapid proliferation and spread of information (Bauman, 2001). Despite the diversity of intellectual perspectives that are available, this landscape is effectively dominated by modernity’s financial and affective economies: knowledge that creates profit and that thereby serves global capital accumulation is most highly valued by institutions. Meanwhile, knowledge that affirms one’s value within these economies tends to be most prized by individuals. Thus, the competition for epistemic authority based on political or moral arguments that characterized earlier iterations of modernity’s intellectual economy – and the approaches to global citizenship that were developed within it – appear increasingly outdated. The most basic challenge is to simply retain people’s attention, which is followed by the more considerable challenge of doing so in a way that invites deepened engagements and relations. In other words, the challenge is for us to figure out how we can invite people to not just eat broccoli, but to actually grow it themselves when it is so much more appealing and easier to eat packaged candy. That said, as the promises that previously animated institutions like higher education become increasingly precarious and go increasingly unfulfilled, we find that more and more people (including both faculty and students) are looking for something different and more fulfilling. This does not necessarily make the process of withdrawing from our desire for candy easier, nor does it mean that these people are looking for the particular approach we have to offer. But we nonetheless hold the space for those who are looking for it. BOSIO:  You are suggesting that educators may help learners “to navigate today’s complex global challenges by inviting them to consider how their desires both enable and foreclose certain possibilities and by creating opportunities in which they can start to miss the possibilities that are absent from modern imaginaries”. In this perspective, is GCE

32  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti in the modern university, particularly in Canadian universities, more about knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, or some combination of all four in your opinion? How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, and disposition) be identified? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI: We have been working on several tools that can help students reflect on the learning that emerges in different immersion experiences. One of these surveys is presented below as an illustration. It organizes dispositions (Andreotti, Biesta, & Ahenakew, 2015) around the five dimensions of justice in the “In Earth’s CARE” Framework: Cognitive Justice/Wellbeing • • • • •

Deepen analyses of historical and systemic forms of violence against the planet and Indigenous communities. Critically examine your assumptions, desires, and complicities in harm. Observe patterns of interpretation (how you are reading and being read). Think in multiple layers acknowledging tensions and paradoxes at the intersection of different histories and world views. Work through the unknown and the unknowable and realize something you did not know about yourself.

Affective Justice/Wellbeing • • • • •

Become comfortable with uncertainty and discomfort. Hold space for internal complexity. Identify and work through projections, fragilities, traumas, and insecurities affecting habits and decisions. Process emotions and release tension without narrative framings. Learn to observe oneself observing with engaged detachment (learning to meta-analyze one’s own narratives and affective feedback loops).

Relational Justice/Wellbeing • • • • •

Work through the complexities of relationships with people who come from different backgrounds and belief systems. Explore different possibilities for being and relating not grounded on shared meaning, identity, or conviction. Feel part of a wider metabolism (planet/land) and collective body (group/community). Interrupt intellectualization in order to sense and relate differently to people and land. Learn through difficult events with humility, compassion, generosity, and patience.

Global Citizenship Otherwise 33 Economic Justice/Wellbeing • • • • •

Interrupt patterns of consumption of knowledges, experiences, and relationships. Decenter yourself and center collective needs (do what is needed rather than what you want to do). Interrupt patterns of entitlement coming from social, economic, and/or racial privilege. Respond in generative ways to teachings (knowledge exchange) that do not resonate with you. Interrupt calculations based on self-interest in order to give and receive differently.

Ecological Justice/Wellbeing • • • • •

Reflect on the challenges of global justice from different cultural perspectives. Grapple with the complexities of addressing consumption and addiction as barriers to change (including cycles of food and waste production). Open up possibilities for thinking, relating, and being beyond what is authorized within modernity. Identify some of the challenges of “digging deeper and relating wider” in GCE work. Develop stamina and resiliency for the slow and challenging work that needs to be done in the long term.


Ultimately, what are three themes a higher education curriculum for GCE should include in your opinion? STEIN AND ANDREOTTI:  From our perspective, GCE curriculum should support people to connect dots in terms of addressing “human wrongs” (a play on the concept of “human rights,”); address how desires and denials are produced (especially how formal education has contributed to the problems we are currently facing); and prepare people for the difficult work of hospicing a violent and unsustainable system that is collapsing, and assisting with the birth of something new and undefined. In this approach to global citizenship, learners are encouraged to: •

Identify and transform problematic ongoing patterns of North/ South, Indigenous/nonIndigenous, and racialized/white engagements that tend to be hegemonic, ethnocentric, depoliticized, ahistorical, and paternalistic. Develop complex, systemic, multilayered, and multivoiced questions and analyses that challenge and provide alternatives to simplistic solutions.

34  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti • •

• • • • •

Work with and through the discomforts and difficulties that arise when a particular habit of being is interrupted and denaturalized. Carefully weave new local and global relationships so that we might collectively mobilize critically informed approaches to global justice in multiple contexts, and engage constructively with difficult issues that emerge in processes of deep intercultural, intergenerational, and intersectional learning and change. Cultivate awareness of how we are implicated in the problems we are trying to address – that is, how we are all both part of the problem and the solution in different ways. Expand frames of reference, acknowledging the gifts, contradictions and limitations of different knowledge systems, moving beyond “either-or” toward “both and more”. Move reciprocally from theory to practice and from practice to theory, understanding the essential and dynamic link between theory and practice and valuing each equitably. Open our social and ecological imagination to different forms of knowing, being, and relating and different futurities beyond a single story of progress, development, and evolution, and Sense our connectedness with and responsibility toward each other and the planet.

2.3 Conclusion Our approach to GCE otherwise seeks to create spaces where people can have difficult conversations without relationships falling apart, and engage in challenging and uncomfortable processes of reallocating individual and collective colonial desires, noncoercively. This requires that we work with and through both individual desires and structural harms, but it is a “tough sell” as this process is often uncomfortable and frustrating. In many ways, people have to already be looking for something very different and even then, that does not mean that they will not still become frustrated or annoyed by the process – hence, the “Broccoli Seed Agreement”. We engage this work assuming that no one person, knowledge system, or approach to global citizenship has the answers and that we are all insufficient and indispensable to the task of learning to be otherwise. This means that Western and other forms of rationality, although important in keeping us learning and accountable, are inadequate in themselves to help us figure out another way of coexisting on a finite living planet. Further, while we recognize that vulnerabilities are unevenly distributed as the dominant system protects the interests of the dominant groups and places unbearable burdens on the backs and lands of marginalized groups, we believe that neither inclusion nor redress within the existing system are adequate responses in the long run.

Global Citizenship Otherwise 35 In fact, we work from the proposition that this system cannot continue forever and we will, therefore, be forced to find another way of being. However, in order to do so, we will need to face our individual and collective messes or we will end up destroying our life-support systems and further harming each other to protect our right to consume what is left. This approach is not about seeking innocence, redemption, or purity (Shotwell, 2016). Rather, it is about preparing to face “the end of the world as we know it” (Silva, 2014) – which is not the end of the world, full stop, just the end of certain ways of knowing, feeling, relating, desiring, and being in the world. The task of GCE, in this context and from this approach, is to help un-numb and enliven our capacities for humility, generosity, humor, (self)compassion, patience, and visceral responsibility that is not dependent on convictions, convenience, or choice.

References Ahenakew, C. (2016). Grafting Indigenous ways of knowing onto non-Indigenous ways of being: The (underestimated) challenges of a decolonial imagination. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9(3), 323–340. Andreotti, V. (2011). Actionable postcolonial theory in education. Springer. Andreotti, V. (2012). Editor’s preface: HEADS UP. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 6(1), 1–3. Andreotti, V., Biesta, G., & Ahenakew, C. (2015). Between the nation and the globe: Education for global mindedness in Finland.  Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(2), 246–259. Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40. Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Sutherland, A., Pashby, K., Susa, R., & Amsler, S. (2018). Mobilising different conversations about global justice in education: Toward alternative futures in uncertain times. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 26, 9–41. Bauman, Z. (2001). Education: Under, for and in spite of postmodernity. The individualised society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Byrd, J. A. (2011).  The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Coulthard, G. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Beyond the colonial politics of recognition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Donald, D. (2019). Homo economicus and forgetful curriculum. In H. TomlinsJahnke, S. Styres, S. Lilley & D. Zinga (Eds.), Indigenous education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 103–125). Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press. Jefferess, D. (2012). The “Me to We” social enterprise: Global education as lifestyle brand. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 6(1), 18–30. Kapoor, I. (2004). Hyper-self-reflexive development? Spivak on representing the third world ‘Other’. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 627–647.

36  Sharon Stein, Vanessa Andreotti Kapoor, I. (2014). Psychoanalysis and development: Contributions, examples, limits. Third World Quarterly, 35(7), 1120–1143. Kuokkanen, R. (2008). What is hospitality in the academy? Epistemic ignorance and the (im)possible gift. The review of education, pedagogy, and cultural studies, 30(1), 60–82. Mills, C. (2007). White ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 13–38). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Pashby, K., Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144–164. Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. New York, NY: Routledge. Santos, B. S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 45–89. Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. Palgrave Macmillan. Shotwell, A. (2016). Against purity: Living ethically in compromised times. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Silva, D. F. D. (2014). Toward a Black feminist poethics: The quest(ion) of blackness toward the end of the world. The Black Scholar, 44(2), 81–97. Silva, D. F. D. (2016). On difference without separability. Retrieved from: https:// Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 24–28). University of Illinois Press. Spivak, G. C. (2004). Righting wrongs.  The South Atlantic Quarterly, 103(2), 523–581. Stein, S. (2015). Mapping global citizenship. Journal of College and Character, 16(4), 242–252. Stein, S. (2019). Beyond higher education as we know it: Gesturing towards decolonial horizons of possibility. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(2), 143–161. Stein, S., Hunt, D., Suša, R., & Andreotti, V. (2017). The educational challenge of unraveling the fantasies of ontological security. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 11(2), 69–79. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1). Vimalassery, M., Pegues, J. H., & Goldstein, A. (2016). Introduction: On colonial unknowing. Theory & Event, 19(4). Walia, H. (2013). Undoing border imperialism. AK Press.


Global Citizenship Education as a Counter Colonial Project Engaging Multiple Knowledge Systems for Transformational Change Lynette Shultz

3.1 Introduction An important starting point of understanding global citizenship is to acknowledge that living on a shared planet is the most significant and urgent concept needed to address the myriad of very urgent issues that threaten the existence of all life on the planet. A global citizen is interested in and able to respond to not only global crises but the wide diversity of knowledges, cultures, and dreams of people living on the planet. Much of my current writing and teaching in the area of global citizenship takes up the idea of conviviality as the ethical foundation of global citizenship and global citizenship education (GCE) (Shultz & Abdi, 2017, 2018; Shultz & Elfert, 2018). The concept of conviviality is rooted in ideas of modes of living together and a concern for wellbeing. While national and other frames of citizenship provide structures of inclusion and exclusion, global citizenship highlights those areas of shared concern – how to sustain life on a shared planet, how to protect the diversity of life on the planet, and how to live well and in peaceful coexistence. Global citizenship and GCE provide frameworks for understanding and working with these shared concerns. The umbrella of GCE is wide and transdisciplinary, bringing together such foci as peace studies, environmental studies, anticolonial studies, equity studies, feminist studies, and antipoverty work. This work shifts epistemologies and relationships bringing me to understanding the work of GCE as that of conviviality, an ethical foundation that makes sense of these shifts. Conviviality is connected to Haraway’s (2016) call for “making oddkin”, the forging of good and deep relations across categories of difference, including human and nonhuman, to sustain life on the planet. This brings decolonial and countercolonial imperatives into a reshaped understanding of what a peaceful existence on a healthy planet might entail, where humans are decentered and hierarchies of difference are dismantled. By focusing on relations, it also provides an ethical foundation for resistance to current neoliberal notions of a marketized education as a

38  Lynette Shultz way to sort individuals and a way to take seriously the many calls for countercolonial relations and actions. The role of education in this project of conviviality is a vital one and the work of GCE can make an important contribution. Of course, it is important to not ignore the many pieces of curriculum that do propose global citizenship as a framework for a socially and economically mobile citizen. These emerge mainly from efforts to support a globalized world economic system of capitalism that requires a mobile global workforce as well as mobile capital (see Shultz, 2007). There is so much more being contributed. Within higher education, working with the multiscalar relations of “the global” brings one face to face with the legacies of current neoliberal globalization, often referred to as neocolonialism and five centuries of European colonialism that continue to shape international relations and certainly the geopolitics of knowledge. This challenges us to expand our understanding of “the modern” university. Higher education has made massive shifts under neoliberal policies that demand education systems create a hyperpossessive, mobile, individual, ready to respond to the marketization of all aspects of the world and willing to compete with every other hyperpossessive, mobile individual on the planet. The modern university is now a corporate university. In addition, while there are some that declare that the project of neoliberal globalization has erased impacts of the relations of European colonialism, I think there is more compelling evidence that these colonial relations have been intensified. When we refer to the “modern” university, we tend to reference the “European University”, based on a particular understanding of modernity that positions European society and universities, and by extension the Euro-American society and universities, as the central source of knowledge. This knowledge system separates all relations – humans from the natural world, and human from human, with a focus on individualism over collective ontoepistemologies and historical relations of power, creating hierarchal categorization by sex, race, geography, culture, and class. Relations of domination are at this system’s very core (see Mignolo, 2011; Santos 2007, 2014; Odora Hoppers & Richardson, 2012). Transforming the historically embedded colonial divide is the starting point of some very important GCE research and teaching. There are outstanding efforts to create countercolonial education spaces where policies and practices begin to reflect a world of diverse people and knowledge. This diversity is the strength we need if we are to address the urgent issues on our planet. This is a very radical and transformational space for education. In terms of education curriculum and pedagogy, global citizenship is what Meyer and Land (2003; Meyer & Land, 2005) call a threshold concept and it is the case for both students and researchers.

Global Citizenship Education 39 Yukawa (2015) highlights five characteristics of a threshold concept: transformational, transformative, integrative, irreversible, and bounded. Global citizenship demands an engagement with troublesome knowledge that is transdisciplinary but also highly relevant to specific disciplinary foci. It is the knowledge that requires shifting how one thinks and views both specific content but also the world in which this knowledge exists. It is also a transformative and irreversible concept in that it results in shifts in worldview, even if this is to acknowledge that one has a “worldview”. Students are transformed when they understand their own epistemological foundation and that knowing this is irreversible. Manfred Max Neef (2005) contributed an important understanding of transdisciplinarity and ethics, and GCE exists within such an epistemological and ethical space, again supporting the notion that it is a threshold knowledge concept. GCE involves the difficult work that is needed to address urgent issues across the planet, for example, climate chaos, the widespread rise of fascist movements, increased militarization including the threat of nuclear war, rising inequality, the massive overuse of natural resources, and expansive food insecurity. These all are linked, interconnected as global issues. A key role of higher education and the university is providing knowledge through research and teaching to address the needs of society. These issues have links to traditional notions of modernity and move through the world along the pathways of European colonialism, marginalizing people, knowledge, and land taken through colonial settlement. The current global issues and these colonial legacies require transformed thinking about life and relations on the planet, and GCE provides both conceptual and practical space to do this.

3.2  Dialogue with Lynette Shultz EMILIANO BOSIO: 

What is your understanding of GCE? Specifically, how has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped this understanding? LYNETTE SHULTZ:  I have been working with ideas and practices of GCE for two decades, first doing project work for ActionAid in the UK and later for Canadian development NGOs and finally, as an academic interested in education policy, global social justice, and the geopolitics of knowledge. The field of global citizenship and GCE studies has shifted over this time and I have done some mapping of the concepts and practices to try and understand “how global citizenship works” in both education and development fields (where it first emerged). At the University of Alberta, where I am located, there has been an opportunity to do this work through institutional spaces being opened up by senior administrators as well as from university – community partnerships, many of these international

40  Lynette Shultz partnerships. This resulted in support for the Centre for Global Citizenship Education and Research and for a transdisciplinary, academic “global citizenship certificate” at the undergraduate level available for all University of Alberta students. It is not surprising that educationists have had a leading role in global citizenship studies. Education work requires a kind of optimism, a belief that people can learn new things and can transform relations and structures around them. Working on a global scale demands a conceptual optimism and the ability to, as Paulo Freire described, to “read the world”, and read its multiscalar complexity and not shy away from what you see and to retreat into “us and them” binaries. The challenge for someone like me who is located as a person of European ancestry with a settler history on colonized land and living a life where I can easily access the benefits of technical and economic advantages in this century is to avoid slipping into valorizing a disconnected elite worldview as is the case too often in GCE work. I am grateful for my many teachers throughout my life who have helped me see the beauty of nature, of simplicity, of living a life in respectful relationship with the land. These many teachers taught me the importance of social justice activism while also learning to work for good relations in whatever place I find myself. I have worked to educate against hierarchies of race, gender, and geography that continue as colonial legacies and in GCE, this includes such things as decolonizing the geopolitics of knowledge, antiracism education, understanding the rights and sovereignty of Indigenous people, and earth jurisprudence. These must all be connected if we are to educate about sharing a planet and a future. BOSIO:  What are the three key elements of GCE in the modern higher education institution? SHULTZ: Higher education in most countries was shaped by colonial understandings of knowledge but has now been reshaped by 30 years of neoliberal policy and practice promoting competitive individualism, marketization, and the “skillification” of a global mobile (and perpetually precarious) workforce. It is impossible to understand any current issue in education outside of these forces. Our task is, however, to imagine how it might be different, a profoundly urgent task. I find students, wherever I am teaching, to be longing for a different way to be in the world. There is a deep despair that is surfaced whenever we discuss the important issues of our time. Solastalgia is a term coined in 2007 by Glenn Albrecht who wanted to understand the connection between human stress and environmental stress. It has its origins in the concepts of “solace” and “desolation” and the pain of isolation from one’s home. Most people I meet express this deep sense of despair, of solastalgia, when they talk about the “state

Global Citizenship Education 41 of the world”. It is certainly the case of students who come to study global citizenship. BOSIO:  You suggest that “working with the ‘the global’ brings one face to face with the legacies of current neoliberal globalization, often referred to as neocolonialism”. When you teach about global citizenship, in what ways do you discuss with your students about neoliberal and neocolonial legacies? SHULTZ: If we want to teach for understanding “the world”, students must encounter the ideas and writing of people who are not Eurocentric epistemologically, ontologically, and experientially. When I refer to the legacies of colonialism, I am looking at how colonialism set up center-periphery relations, with an understanding that knowledge existed in Europe and the rest of the planet was waiting to be provided with this knowledge. Of course, societies thrived for millennia based on their knowledge systems, social structures, and ways of educating. Encounters with European armies, religions, and educators demonstrated the violence of the colonial project, where the bodies, minds, and land of people around the world were taken and these acts justified through the rhetoric of European superiority. Indigenous people around the world are still emerging from the oppression of these events and relations and we see a global resurgence of Indigenous societies. Our education systems are slow to reflect this resurgence. I have published quite a bit about the geopolitics of knowledge and the need for countercolonial curriculums (see, for example, Shultz, 2018; Shultz & Abdi, 2017). My students learn about this colonial history and anticolonial movements but they also learn ways to overcome this history from the work of scholars and educators and in communities. BOSIO:  As you suggest, “the modern university is now a corporate university”. It is difficult to disagree with you on this. In your opinion, how can educators, at the ground level, contribute to a different type of university, perhaps a type of university that values more sustainability and less profit-making? SHULTZ:  I do not see any of these institutions changing until there are wider changes in neoliberal policies. It will take a significant transformation; a radical transformation. The neoliberal knowledge economy puts universities right in the center of the commodification of the ideas, students, teachers, and researchers who work with ideas and with education. We can learn from grassroots social movements about how to create transformational changes but we have to be bold. We might organize around climate change resistance or species extinction. Or perhaps the weight of neoliberal policies might be too much to carry. Writers such as David Harvey have long discussed how neoliberalism requires authoritarianism to maintain itself. Creativity and research don’t do well in captivity; so, there seem to be more

42  Lynette Shultz examples of educators finding ways to work with their communities in ways that transform how knowledge is shared. It is not necessarily the case that our current universities will be the place where transformational decolonial work will begin. BOSIO: The “idea of conviviality” that you propose herewith is very interesting. How does “conviviality” relate to GCE and students’ global learning? SHULTZ:  A conviviality-focused GCE highlights that living on the planet is about building good relationships with other people, communities, and species. It lifts the cloud of individualism that has settled on people through the hegemony of neoliberal ideology, making it difficult to see that we have a shared planet and a shared future. What is “global”? It is the interconnection of all the “locals” on the planet. It requires thinking in a “multiscalar” way to “read the world”. Relationships, whether strong or weak, violent or peaceful, familiar or strange, hold this “multiscalar” world together. So, GCE must ask: How can we live together on this planet? Framing this as conviviality affirms that the work is in the messy, dynamic, and complex relationships that bind us to life. Conviviality accepts difference and sheds light on the importance of learning how to build and sustain relations based on respect, responsibility, and the dignity of difference. I am interested in not only human-based relations but also in nature. This brings in the possibility of building policy regimes based on the Rights of Nature, of what some are calling “Wild Law” and Earth Jurisprudence (see, for example, Peter Burdon, 2011). Indigenous scholars from many colonized lands are working to bring Indigenous knowledge and experience into academic spaces (see, for example, Borrows et al, 2018; Burdon, 2011; Clarke & Haraway, 2018; Smith, 2012). These initiatives and knowledge contributions are transforming our notions of relations and offer a serious countercolonial pedagogical space. Of course, this raises questions about the university itself and, as discussed earlier, how higher education has been shifted to fit a marketized/marketizing system of knowledge exchange. How can we imagine finding institutional space for anticolonial and decolonial work?

3.3 Conclusion In this discussion, I have outlined how I understand the contribution GCE can make in a tangled and interconnected world. I have argued for more than an integrated curriculum and certainly more than one that is driven by a marketized knowledge economy. In many ways, what I have

Global Citizenship Education 43 described as being needed is already emerging; in spaces where Indigenous people are rising up as land and water protectors; where children are nurtured in “Forest Schools” and learn all their subjects through their daylong interactions with the land and nature surrounding them; where Indigenous ceremonies are gently shared in support of an increasing number of Indigenous students who are taking their place as scholars; where students from local communities around the world gather in online global classrooms to research and discern the best responses to our most pressing global issues. These are radical spaces of conviviality and of GCE.

References Albrecht, G. (2007). Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. Australasian Psychiatry. 15: S95–S98. Borrows, J., Chartrand, L., Fitzgerald, O., & Schwartz, R. (Eds.). (2018). Braiding legal orders: Implementing UNDRIP. Waterloo, ONT: Centre for International Governance Innovation. Burdon, P. (Ed). (2011). Exploring wild law: The philosophy of earth jurisprudence. Kent Town, AUS: Wakefield Press. Clarke, A., & Haraway, D. (2018). Making kin not population. Chicago, IL: Paradigm Press. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham/London: Duke University Press. Max Neef, M. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53, 5–16. Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practices within the disciplines. Occasional Report 4. Edinburgh: ETL Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and Durham. Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological and conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388. Mignolo, W. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial opons. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Odora Hoppers, C., & Richards, H. (2012). Rethinking thinking: Modernity’s other and the transformation of the university. Pretoria, SA: University of South Africa Press. Santos, B. S. (2007). Cognitive justice in a global world: Prudent knowledges for a decent life. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Santos, B. S. (2014). Epistemologies of the south: Justice against epistemicide. London: Routledge. Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248–258. Shultz, L., & Abdi, A. (2017). Decolonizing information ethics for the liberation of knowledge. In T. Samek, & L. Shultz (Eds.). Essays on information ethics, globalization, and citizenship: Ideas to praxis. New York: McFarlane.

44  Lynette Shultz Shultz, L., & Elfert, M. (2018). Global citizenship education in ASPnet schools: An ethical framework for action. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s Idea Lab, October 2018. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. 2nd Edition. London: Zed Books. Yukawa, J. (2015). Preparing for complexity and wicked problems through transformational learning approaches. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 56(2), 158–168.


From Global to Planetary Citizenship A Proposal for Evolving Brazil University Curriculum Silvia Elisabeth Moraes, Eduardo Moraes Arraut, and Josefina Moraes Arraut

4.1 Introduction In this chapter, we present our first inter-/transdisciplinary experience within the proposal to include planetary citizenship (PC) and the Ecology of Knowledges in the curriculum of Brazilian universities. PC is discussed according to the views and practices of three academics from Letters/ Education, Biology/Ecology, Physics/Meteorology. PC is conceived here as a floating signifier (Laclau, 2007) to be articulated in a variety of concrete projects proposed by different groups according to their demands and aspirations. PC has already been developed in a series of recent publications where the authors contextualized the topic in their area, Education (Moraes 2014, 2015; Moraes & Freire, 2016; Moraes & Freire, 2017). We recognize the important aspects of global citizenship (GC), but pinpoint its limitations, including those related to its acceptance in the Brazilian University context. In our view, PC captures elements that seem key for the curriculum of universities in Brazil and, perhaps, abroad. We support our proposal of PC in the Brazilian university on the reflections of Rio 92, that introduced Environmental Education in the curriculum; on Gutierrez & Prado’s ecopedagogy (2013), an educational movement coordinated by the Paulo Freire Institute (IPF) and the Latin American Institute for Education and Communication (ILPEC) of Costa Rica, on Boaventura de Sousa Santos’s Ecology of Knowledges (2007), Edgar Morin’s planetary consciousness (2011), and on our studies and experience as university professors.

4.2  Evolution of a Planetary Citizenship in Brazil Capra, in his famous book The Turning Point (1982), observes that our civilization is living a period of profound changes. Three of these changes are shaking the foundations of our lives and affecting our social, economic, and political system – the decline of patriarchalism that has been in action for at least three thousand years, the end of fossil fuel era, and a paradigmatic shift in our thought, perception, and

46  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut values of a determined vision of reality that we call the scientific paradigm. Although all three are equally important, in this text, we will concentrate on analysing the paradigm that has dominated our culture for hundreds of years, shaping western society and influencing the rest of the world. Associated to the scientific revolution, enlightenment and industrial revolution, this paradigm includes the belief of the scientific method as the only valid approach to knowledge, the view of the universe as a mechanical system composed of elementary material units, the conception of life in society as a competitive struggle for existence, and the belief in unlimited material progress to be reached through technological and economic growth. The transformation we are living now, says Capra, will probably be more dramatic than previous ones. “It is not a crisis of individuals, governments, or social institutions; it is a transition of planetary dimensions” (ibidem, p. 30). Curriculum design is included in this paradigmatic shift. The scientific paradigm originated the disciplines which have provided education for our professionals in Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, and Mathematics. Scientific research has progressed in all areas. From the beginning until the middle of the 20th century, the Social Sciences – History, Sociology, Anthropology, and Education – did their best to be accepted in the podium by using quantitative methods of analysis of their research topics. In curriculum practice, this tendency originated fragmentation, linearization and alienation of knowledge, portrayed in the strict division of disciplines, class hours, multiple-choice exams, memorization of concepts. The selection of topics had a lot to do with the interests of the social/political group that was in power. The notion of curriculum has evolved. Areas such as Ecology are per se interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and political. They are situated on the boundary where formal education meets new emerging epistemologies like those suggested by postcolonial theory. This new curriculum continues with traditional scientific knowledge but incorporates integration, interactiveness, complexity, creativity, contextualization, and local and global knowledge within its framework. Postcolonial theory has unveiled to us the immense richness of our Indigenous and African matrices discussing the power relations among nations that experienced the European colonization and how these relations have affected our Culture, Science, and Arts. There have been movements toward overcoming barriers and prejudices in the shape of projects, discussion forums, and other initiatives originating at the school and the university. Sousa Santos’ Ecology of Knowledges (2007) is one of these movements. The Ecology of Knowledges is an attempt to overcome the abyssal thinking (Santos, 2007), this invisible but real line that separates Global North from Global South. The Ecology of Knowledges consists of “bringing visibility to a wide range of cultural, epistemological, and experiential possibilities made invisible by a hegemonic logic that not

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 47 only disqualifies and delegitimizes these other forms of social action as makes them absent, unworthy of being considered reasonable to the rational logic in progress” (Moraes & Freire, 2017, p. 31). In 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, we had the most influential events for the drafting of planetary citizenship – the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, better known as Rio 92 or the Earth Summit, where participating countries agreed and signed documents, such as Agenda 21, a comprehensive attempt to promote sustainable development as a new standard on a planetary scale; the Earth Charter, a document on sustainable development and environmental protection that had been drafted by the United Nations World Commission for Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) in 1987. The principles in the Earth Charter represent the building of planetary citizenship through solidarity, respect for the environment, responsible actions, equality, and freedom (Sousa, 2019). Motivated by Rio 92, the Brazilian Ministry of Education launched the National Curricular Parameters Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais - Ministério da Educação e Cultura (PCN-MEC, 1998), which included Environment, Ethics, and Cultural Pluralism as transversal themes. In times of intense doubts about the traditional curricular model, the PCN was planted in fertile soil, for it not only promoted a substantial change in the schools but it also started influencing the university curriculum (Moraes 2005). In 1999, the Paulo Freire Institute (IPF) and the Latin American Institute for Education and Communication (ILPEC) of Costa Rica, coordinated by Francisco Gutiérrez and Cruz Prado, launched the Ecopedagogy, an educational movement that indicates ways for the constitution of planetary citizenship that goes beyond the environmental dimension since it also comprehends the political, economic, cultural, and social dimensions in human life. A curriculum review, consistent with the educational perspective of the Ecopedagogy (Gutierrez & Prado, 2013), must focus on the development of a conscience and a peaceful, fair, and sustainable environmental and social coexistence required by the exercise of planetary citizenship. Values, knowledge, principles, and attitudes must be integrated to assist the education of a planetary citizen. Edgar Morin has long been a major author in Brazilian educational studies. In his view, pedagogy is responsible for a radical fractionation of knowledge, causing the individual to lose connection with the universal. A broken interaction between local and global provides a resolution of existential questions completely detached from the context in which they are situated. Complex thinking allows us to embrace the uniformity and variety contained in totality. Morin perceives the school class as a complex entity that encompasses a variety of dispositions, socioeconomic strata, emotions, and cultures, the perfect space for a paradigm transformation. In his book Terra-Pátria (1993; 2011) we find the idea of a planetary consciousness that is being formed in the world of which evidences

48  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut can be identified in our everyday lives – we have become more aware of inhabiting one planet under permanent threat due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons; a planetary ecological conscience has emerged as a reaction to environmental degradation and pollution; decolonization has brought into the scenario different cultures and civilizations through telecommunications, translation of literature and philosophical works, popularization of music, dance, paintings, cinema, and literature; international partnerships in scientific research have produced significant results in many areas; campaigns and organizations around the world have been very effective in promoting solidarity; and, finally, the impact of the Earth seen from the Moon, floating in the immensity of the Universe, has planted the seed of planetary consciousness. Our idea in this investigation has been to uncover how different fields are putting or starting to put together projects with inter-/transdisciplinary themes that can be identified as pertaining to planetary citizenship. Questions such as what skills and competencies should students acquire to become a planetary citizen, how can contents of the courses/disciplines relate the local, national, and global to the planetary, and what contribution the Ecology of Knowledges perspective can give to each field of expertise have been at the heart of this investigation.

4.3 Conversation with Silvia Elisabeth Moraes, Eduardo Moraes Arraut, and Josefina Moraes Arraut BOSIO:  How

has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped an understanding of global citizenship?


of this chapter are somewhat intertwined. The three of us were at Bilingual Schools in Rio de Janeiro – American (1981–1985) and British (1985–1992) – where SEM was a teacher and EMA and JMA were students. We had contacts with people from many countries, in the teaching staff as well as in the student body. Globalization, employability, cultural diversity, and sustainability were issues that often appeared during lessons and in staffroom discussions. After that period, we all moved to a smaller town in the interior of São Paulo where our academic paths differed. SEM went for a PhD in Education at Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), EMA got a degree in Biology at Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar) and JMA, a degree in Physics at Universidade de São Paulo – São Carlos (USP-São Carlos)1. SEM’s dissertation analyzed the curriculum of the International Baccalaureate (IB) of the American School in São Paulo, focusing on the role of an international school in the global and national context (Moraes 1995, 1997, 1998, 2004). This study showed the evolution of a school from a closed system, with a curriculum initially focused

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 49 exclusively on the country of origin, to a second moment of integration with the Brazilian national system and, finally, to a third moment where three parallel and increasingly integrated curricula are developed – Brazilian, American, and International. During his undergraduate and later in the MSc in Ecology at UNICAMP, EMA studied the song of the Brazilian population of humpback whales in the Abrolhos archipelago (Arraut & Vielliard, 2004). He also spent a couple of months working with these animals in East Australia. The realization that every continent has a population of humpback whales that annually migrates along its coast opened EMA’s eyes to the fact that humans and the rest of nature all share a single planet and that, hence, the fate of living beings is inexorably interconnected. Between 2004 and 2009, EMA carried out a PhD in Remote Sensing at National Institute for Space Research (INPE) with a period at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WILDCRU), Oxford University. Then, in 2013–2014, he went back to WILDCRU for postdoctoral research. These experiences put him in contact with the Amazon and Amazonian manatees, as well as with the common buzzard in the UK and the African lions in Zimbabwe (Arraut & Vielliard, 2004; Arraut et al., 2010, Arraut & Marmontel 2016; Arraut et al., 2017; Arraut, Loveridge, Chamaille, Fox, & Macdonald, 2018). This multicultural experience helped him understand that nature conservation and human welfare issues are not constrained by political borders and that western society has much to learn from local, Indigenous peoples when it comes to managing the environment. JMA’s choice for undergraduate and master’s studies was the Physical Sciences. There she found that the physical view of the world, centered around simple and universal objects like forces and matter/energy and their movements, has an appearance of neutrality relative to human issues. However, nuclear weapons and our wasteful and highly technological economies, both relying on quantum mechanics, made the paradigm of neutrality an uneasy one for her as a student. Global thinking came mainly in the form of overhanging threats science has directly or indirectly brought upon humanity and the planet, as well as, to be fair, the possibility of global scale transportation and communication. Pursuing a PhD in Meteorology (Arraut & Barbosa, 2009; Arraut & Satyamurty, 2009; Barbosa & Arraut, 2009), later working at Brazil’s Center for Earth System Sciences (Arraut et al., 2011; Arraut et al., 2012) and engaging in postdoctoral work in climate change at the Center for Ocean Land Atmosphere Studies at George Mason University was a step away from the paradigm of the neutrality of sciences. Climate and climate change studies, as well as weather forecasting, are areas of knowledge in high demand by society. Themes such as ethics, sustainability and environmental education are rarely

50  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut included in the official curricula. However, they emerge during field campaigns or in meteorological service institutions, where risk and disaster alerts are often discussed. The concept of GC appeared more strongly when SEM repeatedly saw students of her pedagogical disciplines (Licenciaturas2 , 2008–2012) at the Federal University of Ceará, choosing contemporary issues as the topics for their interdisciplinary thematic projects and giving evidences of the planetary consciousness mentioned by Morin – renewable energy, Amazonia, global warming, consumerism, evolution, hunger in the world, pollution, and biodiesel. The universe, ethanol, television, industrial waste, global warming, water, affirmative action, cellular phones, res publica, and citizenship (Moraes 2005, 2008, 2014; Moraes & Freire, 2016, 2017). The need for the university to lead a curriculum reform became clear then. By suggesting topics that were dear to them at the time, the students were implicitly proposing the university to assume leadership in the necessary curriculum reform. In the back of their minds was the pressing need to be prepared for a professional life in the globalized world. Motivated by the experience with these students and the research that emerged from the interaction with them, with the financial support of CAPES3, SEM went in 2013 as a visiting scholar to the Development Education Research Centre (DERC), University College London. In the United Kingdom, SEM interviewed ten academics from five top British Universities about the theme of global citizenship (GC). They were asked about the meaning they attributed to GC, what skills one should acquire to be a global citizen, and how each area of expertise is contributing to the articulation of GC. The university appears as a main discursive context for GC and the meanings attributed by UK scholars to internationalism, globalization, cosmopolitanism, global market, employability, sustainability, and cultural diversity is part of the floating signifier GC in the discursive context of their institutions and projects (Moraes, 2014). Back in Brazil, the term “global” suffered some distrust from our part as we realized that it is the product of an arbitrary division of Global North and Global South, created by a very particular point of view – that of Global North researchers – and that, ironically, seems to play against the idea of a unified planet. Global is, in our view and in that of Brazilian academics with whom we exchanged ideas, excessively and probably irreversibly related to economic and cultural globalization. Moreover, the information gathered from UK academics also indicated that their focus was in scientific knowledge more than in any kind of Indigenous knowledge. As our life experience showed, it made little sense to not include in society’s body of knowledge that which

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 51 comes from the multitude of local cultures that still exist in Brazil and elsewhere, some of which having hundreds of years of experience of effective environmental management. We, therefore, adopted the Ecology of Knowledges perspective (Sousa Santos, 2007). The concept of planetary citizenship appears to us as an evolution of GC since it includes the Ecology of Knowledges as a framework for a more democratic academic curriculum. As an environmental scientist at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research and later as a professor at a Federal University in the heart of Brazil’s semiarid Northeast region, JMA has, on many occasions, either seen or been part of the conflict between the globalized culture, to which academic knowledge may be seen to belong and traditional ways of life and cultural identities. These experiences have led her to believe that a strong sense of cultural identity is crucial to ensure a true exchange in the sense of the Ecology of Knowledges. Becoming a professor at a Federal University, located in a midsized town in the impoverished semiarid region of the country’s Northeast, was a step toward a more active practice of planetary citizenship. Teaching and supervising research proved to have its challenges in a culture that has been strongly influenced by the scarcity of water and resources. Empowering students is a prerequisite, and an important way to do it is by attributing value and showing appreciation for their culture and customs. This has been an enriching experience which is now beginning to bear fruit. It is also inspiring reflections about the role of cultural identity in the scope of the Ecology of Knowledges. Meanwhile, it has been important to continue with international collaborations (Dogar et al., 2018). This sense of identity is often present amongst traditional populations that maintain their cultural practices and way of life and an interchange with academics and the university can have a role in strengthening the voice of these populations. However, this strong sense of identity can be absent as in the marginalized miscegenated urban populations in Brazil. Popular culture initiatives have been striving to rebuild this identity by teaching popular dance, music, rituals, and festivities within their original cultural framework. Academics in the field of dance have brought us the notion that a very important path for planetary citizenship in the universities is the inclusion of a contextualized view of local popular culture in the official curricula of the Arts, Sciences and even Engineering courses. At this moment of our history, we are surrounded by references and initiatives in favour of a citizenship, active and critical in different educational spaces, from the perspective of cultures of sustainability and of recognition that each ethnic or cultural group has its own ways of seeking meaning and fulfilment in life. However, both cultures are in great danger, which makes our proposal even more urgent.

52  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut BOSIO:  What

is the core difference between global citizenship and planetary citizenship? SEM, EMA and JMA:  Global citizenship is born with the globalization of capitalism, which brings about a demand for global markets and with it a need for a global scale homogenization of consumer habits and tastes. Furthermore, there is the globalization of production, which requires dissemination of production methods and of the training and skills of the workforce. This has called for homogenization of education, in which the worldview and culture of the dominant capitalist countries prevail over local knowledges, so that, to some degree, globalized education is an instrument of abyssal thinking, as described by Santos (2007). If it is to avoid chaos on a global scale, consumerist society needs a new set of values and a new attitude toward its own life and life in general on this planet. Krenak (2019) expresses the Indigenous view that our environmental crisis and our human crisis come from the hegemonic view of humanity as separate from nature. Indigenous and other traditional societies fill their lives with meaning through the association of the individual with nature and with the community. The idea of a planetary citizenship comes from the realization that a culture of coexistence is a primary necessity in today’s world. It arises as a dialectic response to global citizenship, stemming from the realization that the different human identities and ways of being in our world are an expression of the inherent richness and diversity of the human soul. It is based on the notion of Ecology of Knowledges, which opens an avenue for educational goals and strategies, as will be explained further ahead. At this point, it must be said that an Ecology of Knowledges is only possible when all the cultures and individuals involved have a strong sense of identity, meaning that they feel secure relative to their own self-worth, as well as to the worth of their traditions, values, culture, and overall way of being in this world. BOSIO:  What forms of knowledge and skills do learners need to effectively engage in today’s global societies? How does this connect with your conceptualization of “planetary citizenship”? SEM, EMA and JMA:  First and foremost, learners need to understand that there are no such distinct things as “humanity” and “nature”. There is only nature, of which humans emerged from and continue to be a part of, whether they realize it or not. In addition, they need to acquire a clear mental perception that they do not live in a city, a state, or a nation, but in a single and finite planet that they share with all other components of this nature – they literally need to be able to visualize and feel this. With those concepts in mind and a curriculum that helps them develop critical thinking, the possibilities for their development as planetary citizens become greatly expanded.

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 53 Many of our universities are still using traditional educational practices, based on expository lectures and written exams. This is highly unsuitable for the body of students we work with today. Some of them are urban young people that have a shortened attention span and the expectation of immediate fulfilment due to instant communication and the constant distractions of technology in general. Other students are from rural areas and not at all familiar with the independent and lonely living, working, and learning habits of the cities. On the other hand, these disparities between our more traditional views of education and learning and the needs of our students are a rich breeding ground for some of the skills and values that must be encompassed by planetary citizenship. There is a vivid dispute between the old and the new curriculum. The old one clings to rigid objectives, rigid methodologies, leaving little space for student’s initiatives. The new one is bold; it looks at the future. The new curriculum will educate meteorologists, engineers, and educators ready to participate in the international environmental discussions. This view is slowly emerging and planetary citizenship is a proposal for the new curriculum. It aims to encourage and foster programs, discussion forums, and social mobilization – local, regional, national, and international – having the main challenge to contribute to the construction of citizenship, active and critical, from the perspective of a culture of sustainability. Its conceptualization is in permanent construction by different groups within the university in accordance with aims and perspectives of their areas of knowledge. BOSIO:  How would you foster “planetary citizenship” in your students in the classes that you teach currently and taught in the past? SEM, EMA and JMA:  Students in the south-eastern universities come from all over the country. For such a cultural and academically mixed body, project-based learning has proven flexible enough for approaching topics of planetary relevance, such as urbanization, ecosystem services, urban ecosystems, urban heat islands, ecological corridors, global warming, and species reintroduction. Students in north-eastern universities come from an almost feudal power context where they have no contact with modern science. For them, it is important to have a definition of the semiarid – technical data, such as soil, climate, vegetation and cultural origin, and family – learn about Amazonia, Antarctica, extratropic subtropics and the South Sea. For both groups, the project-based learning gives them a definite and practical context in which to understand the basic knowledge. The projects also require skills in scientific paper reading, programming, and data analysis. It is very unusual for a student to be gifted in all three aspects; therefore, the projects require collaboration within and amongst groups. It is also very true that the projects are challenging for all of them because they require a researcher’s approach to knowledge. Students do not often

54  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut see themselves as researchers. In fact, many of them enter graduate-level studies without even imagining themselves as researchers. BOSIO: How would you practically incorporate your framework for planetary citizenship in curricular programmes in a modern higher education institution? SEM, EMA and JMA:  Universities, such as UNICAMP, Federal University of Bahia, and UFC have opened up Indigenous Intercultural Graduation Courses which aim at educating Indigenous teachers for schools located in villages and reserves in line with the specific social and cultural reality of each people and according to national legislation on Indigenous school education. The Faculty of Education (UFC) has a flexible curriculum design and the elective subjects in graduation and postgraduate courses are good institutional spaces where professors suggest new research topics and courses where students can come up with subjects of their interest. The curriculum illustrates both traditional and contemporary trends, such as rural education, environmental education, spirituality, culture of peace, Africanism and Afro/descendance, ethnicity, culture, subjectivity, and gender. It offers important insights for contemporary debates involving intercultural studies, coloniality/decoloniality, dialogues about new paradigms, and their influence on educational processes. ( At the Civil Engineering Division of Technological Institute of Aeronautics (ITA), the incorporation of planetary citizenship can occur via projects agreed upon by teachers of different disciplines so that a single project is developed in the contexts of each one of them. For example, an airport project course and remote sensing are taught in the same semester. As remote sensing techniques are expanding the possibility of selecting airport sites with reduced environmental, social, and economic costs, student assessment is to be made based on the development of projects that use remote sensing techniques to improve airport site selection process. In addition to technical skills, social and communication skills are also valued and fostered. Students who are naturally empathic, self-assured, and assertive will be called upon to organize meetings and the collaboration within and between the groups and to ensure that less confident colleagues receive incentive and assistance. All these collaborative strategies have an additional common goal – they help students see themselves as agents in processing, transforming, and diffusing knowledge and, in this way, aid them in the development of a researcher identity. BOSIO:  Silvia, Eduardo, and Josefina, you have significant experience in teaching at the university level in Brazil and beyond. Why is or is not education for planetary citizenship necessary in the modern university, particularly in Brazil?

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 55 SEM, EMA and JMA: Education

for planetary citizenship is not only necessary but vital in the university nowadays. The political agenda at the federal and state levels continues to be dominated by a view that dates to the early mid-20th century, irrespective of whether the leading political party is more left-winged or right-winged. For example, the Program for the Acceleration of Growth (PAC) that was pushed forward by the last left-winged government viewed the Amazon as a massive hydroelectric powergenerating basin that also offered a suite of minerals, oil, and gas. Unsurprisingly, it was under the left-wings’ watch that Belo Monte dam was built. Owing majorly to political pressure from the environmental sector and the uncovering of corruption schemes, the Belo Sun gold mine, whose plant is to be located next to Belo Monte dam so that it draws energy from it, was not built. Now, with a more right-winged federal government in power, the plan is to follow through with the building of the Belo Sun mining company. Neither governments have been able to see the value of the Amazon from the perspective of the Indigenous cultures or biodiversity. However, our journeys as teachers and researchers and our family ties with other academics have led us to believe that abyssal thinking (Santos, 2007) is being undermined from within. Furthermore, our experiences in multidisciplinary federal educational institutions in the southeast and in the northeast of Brazil have put us in contact with resilient indigenous and other traditional cultures, as well as with researchers and educators who work or have worked with them. This has made us realize that some of these nonhegemonic cultures are still thriving in their ability to remain alive, confident in their own identities and fulfilled with a dignified approach to the dialogue with the oppression they currently live under. The Ecology of Knowledges has been an important theory in the deconstruction of the myth of racial equality in Brazil and the university is a privileged place for the development of such a concept since one of its responsibilities is to transpose boundaries and borders of prejudice and intolerance. Therefore, we feel even more responsible and courageous to go on with this study. BOSIO: How can education for planetary citizenship be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in Brazilian universities? What knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and experiences are graduates expected to acquire in order to become planetary citizens? How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, and disposition) be identified? SEM, EMA and JMA:  In our proposal, students work in groups of different areas of specialization. This gives them a more complete understanding of the issues to be approached and develops their sense of cooperation, of being responsible for the changes required by time and place contexts. From our experience, students seem to become

56  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut motivated when they need to develop projects that might have a positive social, environmental, or economic impact; in other words, when they seem to be able to connect the work that they are doing with problems we are facing in the country. Such projects, in addition to providing meaning for their education, help them acquire knowledge, develop skills, and gain experiences that can be valuable in other contexts. Just as in the intertwined dualities of Yin and Yang, globalized education for leadership and for scientific research brought about an international exchange of students and professionals that puts different cultures into direct contact, leading to the beginnings of a dialogue between worldviews and group identities that undermines abyssal thinking from within. Meanwhile, the Brazilian context shows that some of the cultures which, to use Santos’ denomination, are at the depth of the abyss, like some remaining Indigenous populations that are still in contact with a natural habitat, are very much alive and searching for new depths of spiritual growth and even of the fruition of life, as put by Krenak (2019). Furthermore, rural groups that descend from independent communities of runaway slaves and even some urban and miscegenated groups have remained loyal to a search for meaning in life by means of religious practices of African and Indigenous origin and by cultivating ancestral cultural expressions of music, dance, food, festivities, and family and social ties. There have been fruitful interchanges between these groups and artists, intellectuals, and educators, in various research and educational contexts, that are leading to an injection of new values in educational, research, and artistic practices. These practices and experiences undermine abyssal thinking from without. BOSIO: Is educating for planetary citizenship in the modern university, particularly in Brazilian universities, more about knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, or some combination of all four in your opinion? SEM, EMA and JMA:  SEM and EMA’s opinion is that educating for planetary citizenship is a combination of all four. For JMA, although knowledge and skills are extremely important to face the challenges of our complex globalized world, educating for planetary citizenship is more about values and dispositions. They seem more fundamental since they can better enable individuals and groups to improve their knowledge and skills when necessary. Knowledge in the sense of being exposed and interested in learning about the various interpretations and possibilities of the concept planetary citizenship; skills as the ability to use this knowledge in situations that demand action; values as the principles that underlie and guide this practice, such as

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 57 cooperation, solidarity, understanding, and otherness; and dispositions as an aptitude and an attitude to act, to develop, and/or to change something. BOSIO:  How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, and disposition) be identified? SEM, EMA and JMA:  In a context, where students arrive with a little scientific knowledge base, identifying and overcoming difficulties, such as understanding fundamental Physics and Mathematics, practicing logical reasoning, group work skills, communication, public speaking, computer skills have equivalent weight than that of acquired knowledge. The subjectivity of this sort of assessment brings some difficulty because other students may express dissatisfaction at having been awarded a lower grade than a colleague or colleagues if they do not understand the reason. To circumvent or avoid this, it is necessary to call the attention of students when they are overcoming their limitations, which breeds self-confidence, self-esteem. The development of group work skills is also vital for improving socialization and fostering horizontal collaboration among students and, in a more general sense, helping to overcome loneliness and anxiety that often accompanies graduate students. An attempt to identify achievements in knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions, we suggest looking at the work Education postgraduate students have recently developed at UFC. Mihaliuc (2019) proposes the inclusion of planetary citizenship as a transdisciplinary theme in the Law courses at the University of Fortaleza. She places planetary citizenship within a new paradigm that reinforces the perspective of a critical, reflexive, and socially responsible Bachelor of Law, committed to cooperation and a culture of peace, with respect for the environment, cultural diversity, and justice as a common good. For Lima (2017), planetary citizenship as a curriculum theme for school and university is urgent because this would help democratize the power relations still very present in school and academic spaces. Sousa (2019) studied a school in Maracanaú, a district of Fortaleza, and appointed the relevance of digital literacy for the education of planetary citizens. Matias (2019) discussed the development of planetary citizenship in youngsters through the teaching of art at a professional secondary school in Caucaia, another district of Fortaleza. Vieira (2017) discussed the importance of creativity in the education of planetary citizens. They can all be found at http:// BOSIO:  What are three themes a higher education curriculum for planetary citizenship should include in your opinion? SEM, EMA and JMA:  From what we have concluded so far in our areas of specialism – Education, Ecology, and Meteorology – the key elements

58  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut of educating for planetary citizenship in the modern university are the Ecology of Knowledges, Ecoliteracy, and Employability. We include in every one of them Identity, Ethics, and Creativity. The Ecology of Knowledges (Santos, 2007) as an attitude of dialogue and coordination between the official/Western knowledge and those others that have long been excluded from the scenario. In every area, there is knowledge that has not been included in the strictly academic approach. Ecoliteracy, as defined by Capra (1997), is an understanding of the principles of organization of ecosystems and the application of those principles for creating sustainable human communities and societies. An ecoliterate person is prepared to be an effective member of a sustainable society, with well-rounded abilities of head, heart, hands, and spirit, comprising an organic understanding of the world and participatory action within and with the environment. Employability is a sine qua non condition for critical action. A planetary citizen must have a worthy occupation so that he/she can influence/change the system from within. Identity makes the Ecology of Knowledges possible when all cultures and individuals involved have a strong sense of meaning that they feel secure relative to their own self-worth, as well as to the worth of their traditions, values, culture, and overall way of being in this world. Ethics is here seen as the rules that guide human interaction which must be constructed democratically, i.e. as the product of decisions within groups – to maintain identities – and among groups – to favor social cohesion. Creativity is side by side with innovation. Innovation, considered a great asset for the 21st century, has creativity as an essential input. This ability is considered multidimensional as it involves cognitive processes, personality characteristics, environmental conditions, and the interaction of these variables (Revista FAPESP, 2019). These elements must be part of every project that articulates the signifier planetary citizenship.

4.4 Conclusion Poverty, widespread pollution of oceans and rivers, climate change, conflicts among peoples of different nationalities, among several other issues, show that the global consumerist society is in desperate need of a new set of values and a new attitude toward its own life and life in general on this planet if it is to survive. The notion of global citizenship emerged as a means to deal with this, but after a few decades, it has become too focused on market insertion, a single kind of knowledge (scientific) and has been subject to divisions which are against the very

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 59 purpose of its idealization (Global North and Global South). This has caused it to lose support in countries that have been disfavoured by the way the concept evolved, as is the case of Brazil. Planetary citizenship, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of Indigenous and other traditional societies not only as having the right to exist, but also as bearers of knowledge that may help Western society to overcome the problems it created for itself and others. The emphasis on planet earth itself, instead of on its shape (the globe), also makes it clearer that no segregation between peoples is acceptable. This chapter presented the views and practices of planetary citizenship (PC) of three professors/researchers from three Brazilian universities with different specialisms – Letters/Education, Biology/Ecology, Physics/Meteorology. The life-journeys of the authors provided a background for their adhesion of planetary citizenship as a major theme in the university. Many educational institutions are in a process of changing the curriculum, looking for more flexibility, innovation, student and teacher protagonism, and openness to new epistemologies. This is a great opportunity for our proposal of developing planetary citizenship as a floating signifier to be articulated in concrete projects proposed by different groups according to their demands and aspirations.

Notes 1 UNICAMP: Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP; UFSCar: Universidade Federal de São Carlos, SP; USP: Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos, SP. 2 Teacher degree courses where students of various areas of knowledge come to obtain pedagogical skills. 3 Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazilian research-funding agency.

References Arraut, E. M., & Marmontel, M. (2016). Amazonian manatee threatened with extinction by massive dam-building plan in the Amazon. Science, 351(6269): 128–129 (eletter). Arraut, E. M., & Vielliard, J. M. E. (2004). The song of the Brazilian population of humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae, in the year 2000: Individual song variations and possible implications. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 76(2), 373–380. Arraut, E. M., Arraut, J. L., Marmontel, M., Mantovani, J. E., & Novo, E. M. L. M. (2017). Bottlenecks in the migration routes of Amazonian manatees and the threat of hydroelectric dams. Acta Amazonica, 47(1), 7–18. Arraut, E. M., Loveridge, A., Chamaille, S., Fox, H. V., & Macdonald, D. W. (2018). The 2013-2014 vegetation structure map of Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe, produced using free satellite images and software. Koedoe: Journal of African Protected Area Science and Conservation, 60, A1497.

60  Silvia E. Moraes, Eduardo M. Arraut and Josefina M. Arraut Arraut, E. M., Marmontel, M., Mantovani, J. E., Novo, E. M. L. M., Macdonald, D. W., & Kenward, R. E. (2010). The lesser of two evils: Seasonal migrations of Amazonian manatees in the Western Amazon. Journal of Zoology, 280(3), 247–256. Arraut, J. M., & Barbosa, H. M. J. (2009). Large scale features associated with strong frontogenesis in equivalent potential temperature in the South American subtropics east of the Andes. Advances in Geosciences, 22, 73–78. Arraut, J. M., & Satyamurty, P. (2009). Precipitation and water vapor transport in the southern hemisphere with emphasis on the South American region. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology (Online), 48, 1902–1912. Arraut, J. M., Lu, J., Hodges, K. I., Manganello, J., & Straus, D. (2018). Storm Tracks and Climate Change in the Southern Hemisphere in Two Different Model Resolutions. Submitted to: Geophysical Research Letters. Arraut, J. M., Nobre, C., Barbosa, H. M. J., Obregon, G., & Orsini, J. M. (2011). Amazonia’s Aerial Rivers and Lakes: Investigating Large Scale Moisture Transport, its Relation to Amazonia and Subtropical Rainfall in South America, Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation in Amazonia. (Available at: https:// final%20report%20v2%20Edinburgh%20GCP%20et%20al_0.pdf) Arraut, J. M., Nobre, C., Barbosa, H. M. J., Obregon, G., & Marengo, J. A. (2012). Aerial Rivers and Lakes: Looking at large-scale moisture transport and its relation to Amazonia and to subtropical rainfall in South America. Journal of Climate, 25, 543–556. Barbosa, H. M. J., & Arraut, J. M. (2009). A quantitative evaluation of the role of the Argentinean col and the Low Pressure Tongue East of the Andes for frontogenesis in the South American subtropics. Advances in Geosciences, 22, 67–72. Capra, F. (1982) O Ponto de Mutação (the turning point). São Paulo: Cultrix. Capra, F. (1997). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York, USA: Anchor Books. Dogar, M. M., Kucharski, F., Sato, T., Mehmood, S., Ali, S., Gong, Z. … Arraut, J. M. (2018) Towards understanding the global and regional climatic impacts of Modoki magnitude. Global and Planetary Change, 172, 223–241. Gutierrez, F. & Prado, C. (2013) Ecopedagogia e Cidadania planetária. Tradução de Sandra Trabuco Valenzuela. 3a ed. São Paulo: Cortez. Krenak, A. (2019). Ideias para adiar o fim do mundo. Rio de Janeiro: Companhia das Letras. Matias, A. P. (2019). A formação do cidadão planetário em uma escola de educação profissional: eventos de letramento da disciplina de Artes. Dissertação de mestrado. Faculdade de Educação, Universidade Federal do Ceará. Mihaliuc, K. M. (2019). Cidadania planetária como tema transdisciplinar no currículo de formação do Bacharel em Direito. PhD Thesis. Faculty of education, Federal University of Ceará. Moraes, S. E. (1995). O currículo do diálogo. Tese de doutorado, Unicamp, SP Moraes, S. E. (1997). A construção dialética de um currículo no ensino médio internacional. Cadernos de Pesquisa (Fundação Carlos Chagas), São Paulo, 102, 134–156.

From Global to Planetary Citizenship 61 Moraes, S. E. (1998). Normative universalism as vision in Brazilian international schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies (Print), USA, 30(5), 577–592. Moraes, S. E. (2004). Pesquisa de currículo e metáforas. Revista de Letras (Fortaleza), UFC/Fortaleza, 1/2(26), 35–43. Moraes, S. E. (2005). Interdisciplinaridade e transversalidade através de projetos temáticos. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos (RBEP), 86, 213–214. Moraes, S. E. (2014). Global citizenship as a floating signifier: Lessons from UK universities, in International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 6(2), Autumn, 27–42(16). Moraes, S. E. (2015). Cidadania global como tema interdisciplinar em universidades inglesas. In: Arlindo Philippi Jr; Valdir Fernandes (Org.). A prática da interdisciplinaridade na pesquisa e no ensino de pós-graduação - prêmio jabuti 2015. 1 ed. Barueri. SP: Manole, 551–597. Moraes, S. E., & Freire, L. A. (2016). The university curriculum and the ecology of knowledges: Building a planetary citizenship, Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1). Moraes, S. E., & Freire, L. A. (2017). Planetary citizenship and the ecology of knowledges in Brazilian university. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 8(3), March, 25–42(18). Morin, E. & Kern, A.B. (1993–2011) Terra Pátria. Tradução Paulo Neves da Silva. 6a ed. Porto Alegre: Sulina Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais (PCN). Ministério de Educação e Cultura (MEC), 1998 Revista Fapesp (2019). Escolas e universidades não estimulam a criatividade dos alunos Santos, S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review, XXX(1), 45–89. Sousa, G. L. (2019). Cidadania Planetária e Tecnologias Digitais de Informação e Comunicação (TDIC) na Educação: estudo de caso de uma escola municipal de Maracanaú, CE. Dissertação de mestrado. Faculdade de Educação, Universidade Federal do Ceará. Vieira, A. L. (2017). Criar em atividade: estudo de caso de uma escola premiada pelo programa Criatividade e inovação na Educação básica/MEC em Fortaleza, Ceará. Dissertação de mestrado. Faculdade de Educação, Universidade Federal do Ceará.


Cultivating Global Citizenship Education and Its Implications for Education in South Africa Yusef Waghid

5.1 Introduction To be invited to contribute to a volume of essays on GCE is not only an honor but also a recognition that scholars from the Global South – the marginalized other – have something to say about a discourse that, in many ways, has been dominated by an Anglo-Saxon tradition for many years. There is a plethora of literature on GCE that can broadly be categorized according to three interrelated strands – a participatory form of human engagement that recognizes citizens’ rights and identities (Arthur, Davies, & Hahn, 2008); a human rights discourse that opposes war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace through attentiveness to democratic public life (Peters, Britton, & Blee, 2008); and discourse of equal moral respect to all humans (Wallace Brown & Held, 2010). Firstly, there is a recognition that all humans, irrespective of their cultural orientation, have the right to participate as active citizens in political and societal life, which requires that they (humans) have a right to be listened to and acted upon. In other words, their citizenship rights are honored because other humans engage with them through listening, articulation, and (dis)agreement. Any instance of exclusion and dismissiveness would deny them their rights to global citizenship. This is a strand of GCE in its most basic form. That is, humans everywhere engage actively about public matters that concern them, underscored by acts of democratic engagement, such as listening, speaking their minds, and taking one another’s assertions into controversy. Secondly, GCE as a human rights discourse holds that any form of human injustice accelerated through war crimes, human rights violations, and hostile actions that undermine peaceful and democratic living should be quelled through actions that invite people to abandon their acts of violence. This implies that people ought to hold one another responsible for human injustices on the basis of finding democratic ways to interrupt the devastating consequences of human injustices. Thirdly, the cultivation of GCE is focused on eradicating human inequalities

Cultivating Global Citizenship Education 63 based on race, culture, and class. Equality implies granting equal access to all citizens to the basic civil liberties, education, health and welfare, security, shelter, and protection. In this way, GCE recognizes the rights of all humans to equal moral treatment.

5.2  Conversation with Yusef Waghid EMILIANO BOSIO:  How

GCE relates to your journey as a South African

educator? YUSEF WAGHID:  As

a South African educator in schools and universities for more than four decades, I have witnessed the political demise of repressive apartheid education. At first, through the promulgation of the White Paper on Education Transformation in 1997, both the public and private sectors of education were overhauled to increase access of participation, the inclusion of all “races”, and the deliberative engagement of teachers, students, and community members in curriculum renewal and institutional governance. The rights of all citizens to education and to be taught in the language of their choice at schools and universities have been legitimized through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No longer could “race” be used as an institutionalized category to exclude citizens from their right to educational advancement and to participate in their learning for the sake of political and societal upliftment. My own appointment as a professor at the institution where I currently work is a testimony to the transformation of the education system in the country considering that I also became the first philosopher of education and dean of color at my institution in more than one hundred years since its inception. I am not intimating that only procedural transformation occurred, but rather that appointments have also been enhanced meritoriously and substantively as well. This is so based on equitable redress and the urgency of the newly found democratic education dispensation in the late 1990s to become more open to the demands of a competitive global economy and equitable redress in South Africa. That is, educators of all “races” have been appointed at educational institutions on the grounds of their potential to enhance the much-needed democratic and transformational ethos that began to emerge after 1994. As it happened, participants at educational institutions became progressively attuned to global citizenship as they were invited to engage in iterations and compromises on their educational futures. In this regard, I am reminded of my own work on education for democracy that I managed to advance and integrate into the university curriculum to the extent that our roles as scholars in philosophy of education assumed an academically activist orientation. In other

64  Yusef Waghid words, through our democratic pedagogical influence, we managed to disrupt the hegemonic curricular advances of the previous system of university education. Similarly, our work in philosophy of education also assumed a social justice orientation through which we endeavored to cultivate notions of inclusion, freedom, and equality in and through our pedagogical work. In a way, our pedagogical work is underscored by an integrated understanding of GCE mentioned above – iterative democratic action, critique and the quest for social justice, and a recognition of equality and inclusion. No longer did we witness with impunity how the education system pedagogically oppressed teachers and students because with the demise of apartheid, the right to question, interrogate, critique, and to offer alternative understandings was encouraged through democratic processes of iteration and reflexivity. The pedagogical changes were so overwhelming that some students were even reluctant to embrace their newly found freedoms, but instead, complained and insisted that teachers assume a less critical demeanor in university classrooms. A colleague thought she did the right thing by reprimanding me to be less provocative and belligerent in classroom discussions as if iterations should always be neat, unmessy, and unthreatening. Nevertheless, democratic educational transformation, commensurate with understandings of GCE mentioned earlier, seemed to have permeated curricular discourses and many teachers and students were surprised by its sudden upheaval in disrupting pedagogical actions. Hence, postapartheid education never remained static and there was always pedagogical space for more changes to come. Next, I examine the rationale that underpins GCE in South African educational institutions. BOSIO: What is the rationale of GCE in South African educational institutions? WAGHID:  After the establishment of the country’s first democratic government in 1994, South Africa was not only set upon a political discourse of democratization of all structures and institutions, but also one of moral compromise and reconciliation. It was not as if the country was mandated to set in motion a constitutional democracy constituted by the equal moral treatment of all citizens but more specifically, it became necessary for the country to embark on nation-building and reconciliation after decades of apartheid rule. It was under apartheid that serious human rights violations happened in the country, and through the agency of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission established in 1996 that a series of public hearings were set into motion to hold people politically and morally accountable for injustices committed under the aegis of apartheid rule. Political and moral figures like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu became protagonists of restorative justice in the sense that the recognition of

Cultivating Global Citizenship Education 65 the political and moral rights of all citizens was considered as necessary to cultivate a legitimate democratic dispensation. Along the lines of a notion of restorative justice, educational institutions were summoned to implement a discourse of democratic emancipation, coupled with the demands of equity and redress and, concurrently, to implement practices that accentuate the recognition of human dignity, moral responsibility, and justice for all. The basis of such a form of justice is twofold – firstly, humans should recognize the possibility to reconcile and that antagonism and conflict among humans should be subverted. That is, humans are considered as equal to one another based on their humanity so that they abandon any acts of reprisal and exclusion. Secondly, when humans reconcile, they open themselves up to one another to listen and talk with one another and that any possibility for resentment would be undermined by their willingness to forgive (Waghid, Waghid, & Waghid, 2018, p. 47). Put differently, restorative justice opens up opportunities to engage deliberatively and forgivingly with the possibility that people’s moral autonomy would not only be enhanced but that they can heal scars brought about by discrimination and repression. It is through restorative justice that educational practices can be enacted according to notions of equality, freedom, inclusion, and responsibility (Waghid, Waghid, & Waghid, 2018, p. 48). When restorative justice becomes the rationale of education, human coexistence and cooperation constituted by respect for the dignity of all and the acknowledgment of one another’s humaneness will manifest. Put differently, restorative justice “is a sustainable act of righteous human living whereby humans should always remain conscious of the possibility of doing wrong against other humans …” (Waghid, Waghid, & Waghid, 2018, p. 49). It should be everywhere to prevent any form of human injustice from recurring. By implication, restorative justice is aimed at enhancing humans’ interconnectedness and educational responsibility to cultivate deliberative democratic environments that not only harness human engagements but also their responsibility to be attentive to one another’s vulnerabilities. Consequently, one finds that a manifesto informs the postapartheid South African education policies on values, education, and democracy (DoE, 2001). Such a manifesto aims to cultivate the following communitarian values in and through educational programs – democracy, social justice, equity, equality, nonracism, nonsexism, ubuntu (human dignity and humanness), an open society, accountability, the rule of law, respect, and reconciliation (DoE, 2001). BOSIO:  What is your personal understanding of GCE? WAGHID:  Cultivating GCE is to consider contributing to a justice that is still to come (Derrida, 2004). This implies that humans ought to

66  Yusef Waghid assume new ways of taking responsibility so that their actions enlarge the rights of humans and resist human rights violations (Derrida, 2005, p. 17). On the one hand, Derrida (2004, p. 153) purports the responsibility of such a form of education is to ensure that the rights of those who make up educational institutions, such as universities and schools, are to open up one risk against another – always risking the worst. On the other hand, the public responsibility of educational institutions, such as a university, is to engage in provocative reflection to imagine a moral future that is not yet (Derrida, 2004, p. 155). In the above sense, the responsibility of schools and universities ought to be twofold – to take risks and to be provocative-reflective – referred to by Derrida (2004, p. 151) as “[t]he new responsibility of the thinking [educational institution]”. Such an understanding of education would extend the responsibility of its institutions beyond reason, critique, and technical and instrumentalist thinking, and toward an institution taking an activist stand. The conception of responsibility, for which I am arguing here, is strongly connected to a moral action that is informed by a sense of fairness and justice. To Derrida (2004), justice comes in the form of responsibility to the other as difference – that every individual has a responsibility to live with the other and to treat the otherness of the other justly. It also means that in order to live responsibly as global citizens, we have to live with others and be mindful of how we treat one another. In not acting responsibly, one does not enact one’s humanity in relation to the other and, by so doing, fails to recognize that one’s humanity is so because of a relational co-belonging (Waghid & Davids, 2013). The upshot of the above understanding of justice is that GCE ought to remain in becoming. That is, GCE ought to be directed toward the cultivation of justice, whereby humans are brought into educational spaces to deliberate freely and openly about their claims for a just education and society. Educational institutions focused on the cultivation of responsibility and justice-oriented education for global citizenship invariably reimagine their curricula concerning issues of race, gender, and class, whereby discrimination, marginalization and exclusion, in particular, are denounced. BOSIO:  How do you approach GCE in a university setting, particularly in South Africa? WAGHID: My own work on GCE in a university setting is related to reconstituting an African philosophy of education in the context of cosmopolitan justice. African philosophy of education involves analyzing societal problems on the continent and concomitantly, examining the implications of such problems for education. For instance, in an examination of ongoing student protests, symbols of colonial hegemony and escalating tuition fee hikes that increase the possibility of disadvantaged students not completing their university

Cultivating Global Citizenship Education 67 education, one finds that disruptive student action ensues that often contributes to the dysfunctionality of higher education institutions. Dysfunctionality is accelerated when students fail to attend lectures, disrupt other students from attending classes, and in some cases, buildings are vandalized and burned down. Elsewhere, I posit that “cosmopolitan justice requires that all students be treated justly and that equal access to education should not exclusively privilege those students who can afford to pay for their tuition fees” (Waghid, Waghid, & Waghid, 2018, p. 90). By implication, if African institutions of higher education cannot provide equal opportunities for students to advance their studies, then ways have to be found to counteract such a dilemma. In this regard, cosmopolitan justice requires that compassionate action be taken to support underprivileged students in settling their tuition fees. If a shared compromise cannot be reached in the student fees dilemma in South Africa, at least in terms of cosmopolitan justice, I cannot see how functionality would and should return to university campuses. This is not an advocacy for violence but rather an insistence that a dystopia like a fee’s dilemma cannot and should not remain unresolved. The point about the tuition fees predicament in South Africa raises an important aspect about education for restorative justice – it cannot be the responsibility of marginalized students alone to ensure that they pay their tuition fees and complete their university studies. Cooperative responsibility is required, whereby the privileged also commit themselves to support the underprivileged in completing their university education. A cosmopolitan or global citizenry assumes collective and cooperative responsibility for all students in the pursuit of university education. This also implies that privileged institutions like mine, together with the public (including government) and private sectors, have to commit themselves more justly toward resolving the ongoing tuition fees dilemma. If a solution is not imminent, the cosmopolitan South African community has not really started working in earnest toward the cultivation of a cosmopolitan citizenry that can be responsive to the democratic (including economic and political) demands of its diverse student population. During the apartheid past, educational institutions prejudiced the privileged, and it would not be unjust if a democratic society uses its enormous economic and political resources to attend to a major predicament that confronts higher education in South Africa. Simply put, if university education can only benefit the country economically, politically, and socially in future, it does not make sense not to enact some of the demands of GCE, in particular, ensuring equal access to and just opportunities to those underprivileged that are so desperate to acquire university education.

68  Yusef Waghid BOSIO: How

do you educate for global citizenship in a university classroom? WAGHID: I teach an online course for postgraduate students in GCE that uses a Rancière (2010) notion of living philosophy. In his book, Chronicles of Consensual Times, the French philosopher Jacques Rancière (2010, p. 79) invites us to ponder on two considerations. On the one hand, he refers to consensus – a concept we have come to (dis)associate with Rancière. He explains that “the consensus governing us is a machine of power insofar as it is a machine of vision”, intent upon getting us to believe that “what is, is all that is” (Rancière, 2010, p. viii). On the other hand, and in response to consensus, he proposes a restoration of philosophy for all. Bringing such a philosophy to life involves people devoting themselves to problems they encounter in their daily lives and “to change the life of those who dedicate themselves to it” (Rancière, 2010, p. 79). In our course, students are invited to reconsider problems on the African continent, such as political dictatorships; ethnic conflict and violence; and poverty, famine, and hunger. They are then summoned to think through the problems using the practice of a living philosophy and to come up with ways how such problems can be addressed. This “living philosophy” for Rancière (2010, p. 79) provides “a philosophy for nonprofessionals, identical to the experiment of changing one’s life” (Rancière, 2010, p. 79). Put differently, a “living philosophy” is a philosophy that becomes “life meant learning” – that is, such a philosophy is less perilous and teaches us “to take good care of ourselves and how to live life harmoniously in the everyday. [S]imultaneously [it teaches us] to enjoy the thrill of travelling in the Platonic chariot across the radiant heaven of ideas and … hav[ing] the half-hearted comfort of thought and body in the smallest things in life” (Rancière, 2010, p. 81). Thus, for Rancière (2010, p. 81), a “living philosophy” is mostly concerned with a reconciliation of two theses – “the sky to which one flees and the earth in which one takes root”. It is such an idea of a living philosophy that we encourage students to use it to address some of the most pressing problems on the African continent as a way of contributing to the cultivation of GCE. Firstly, when students have analyzed the political and social problems pertaining to political dictatorships, ethnic conflict and violence, poverty, famine, and hunger, they are invited to proffer constitutive meanings of what makes the problems what they are. In other words, they should not only look at how the problems manifest but more intrinsically, to the rationale that underscores the problems. In our analyses of the political and social problems on the African continent, we have found that a misunderstanding of authoritarianism seems to constitute such problems. Authoritarianism, as a

Cultivating Global Citizenship Education 69 political act, seems to be a mechanism whereby governmental opposition and civil society are not allowed to question the rules that govern their participation. Furthermore, regimes do not necessarily need to be perceived as legitimate by the entire population to remain in power (Schlumberger, 2007, p. 15). Considering authoritarianism as a political problem on the African continent, democracy remains off the agenda. The reason is that the ruler’s survival depends on the support of the military that has been awarded economic benefits and chances that still make it count among the politically relevant core elite (Schlumberger, 2007, p. 16). In Rancièrean way, identifying authoritarianism as a political problem, students would then go on to imagine what ought to be done to remedy the problem. Secondly, when students imagine how authoritarianism would be quelled and replaced by democratic governments, they come up with reasons why democracy would invoke the legitimate voices of an entire population. They would also imagine how political protestations and activism should be combined with contestation, agreement, and disagreement to establish legitimate democratic regimes. In other words, counteracting authoritarianism implies that students come up with ways to actuate political reforms in repressive nation-states. In developing imaginary fictions about future democratic societies, students are also encouraged to take issue with Rancièrean thought on using violence to quell injustice. According to Rancière, evil “cannot be righted except at the expense of another evil which remains irreducible” (Rancière, 2010, p. 115). Students thus use this conception of a living philosophy to show that there should always be a possibility to combat evil nonviolently or without the use of eviler. Moreover, for him to argue that “[t]here is good and bad violence … violence which oppresses and violence which liberates” (Rancière, 2010, p. 114) is, in fact, a recipe for continuous evil. In this sense, we find it problematic to conceive of violence as not causing harm or affliction, and as such, the idea of violence being good presents a particular contradiction that can only yield to more justifications of violence. Thirdly, students are then urged to think about how education can be altered in light of democratic engagement. It is then that practices of deliberation, iterations, shared compromises disagreement are reimagined in the context of educational encounters. At the core of such a proffering is the idea that educational encounters ought to become more provocative, engaging, and deliberative if education were to have any influence on political change. The fact that students themselves engage equally and iteratively is a vindication that political and social problems would most appropriately be addressed on the basis of deliberative iterations and (dis)agreement. Of significance to the cultivation of democratic iterations in

70  Yusef Waghid pedagogical actions is the understanding that dystopias, such as human rights violations, repressive political moves, and the exclusion of marginalized citizens, are contested in light of democratic imaginaries of change.

5.3 Conclusion GCE involves cultivating pedagogical spheres of deliberative iterations, activism against human rights violations, and the enhancement of equal political and moral respect among citizens. Central to enactment of GCE is the notion that humans ought to be treated justly – that is, without discrimination, prejudice and exclusion. When just human actions guide pedagogical encounters, the possibility exists for students and teachers to become more provocative, deliberative, and iterative. In this way, GCE can manifest legitimately and constructively in teaching and learning at educational institutions in South Africa and elsewhere. In this chapter, I offered a defense of GCE along the lines of democratic actions guided by an opposition to human rights violations and the unequal treatment of all humans in South Africa and elsewhere. To be a global citizen is to remain open and reflexive about that which influences one, and at the same time, be attentive to what can still be actualized. The very idea of linking global citizenry with education is a recognition that these two interrelated human actions are underscored by notions of engagement that takes into consideration deliberation, iteration, and (dis)agreement. The argument of this chapter is built on the understanding that global citizenship can be cultivated in educational institutions through the practice of a living philosophy of education. Through such a philosophy of education, teachers and students can (re)consider real human engagements in their particular contexts and the underlying dystopias that make such actions defective or not. Concurrently, teachers and students are provoked to imagine alternative possibilities for more desirable political and social living. Finally, I argued as to why pedagogical encounters ought to become more deliberative, iterative, and equal to disrupt and reconceptualize some of the political and societal ills about human actions that seem to dominate political and civil life on the African continent.

References Arthur, J., Davies, I., & Hahn, C. (Eds.) (2008). The SAGE handbook of education for citizenship and democracy. Los Angeles: SAGE. Derrida, J. (2004). In J. Plug (Ed.), J. Plug. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cultivating Global Citizenship Education 71 Derrida, J. (2005). The future of the profession or the unconditional university (thanks to the ‘humanities’, what could take place tomorrow). In P. P. Trifonas, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Deconstructing Derrida: Tasks for the new humanities. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 11–24. DoE (Department of Education) (2001). Manifesto on values, education and democracy. Cape Town: Cape Argus Teacher Fund. Peters, M. A., Britton, A., & Blee, H. (Eds.) (2008). Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy. Rotterdam/Boston/Tapei: Sense Publishers. Rancière, J. (2010). Chronicles of consensual times(S. Corcoran, Trans.). London: Continuum. Schlumberger, O. (Ed.) (2007). Debating Arab authoritarianism: Dynamics and durability in nondemocratic regimes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Waghid, Y., & Davids, N. (2013). Citizenship education and violence in schools: On disrupted potentialities and becoming. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Waghid, Y., Waghid, F., & Waghid, Z. (2018). Rupturing African philosophy on teaching and learning: Ubuntu justice and education. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. Wallace Brown, G., & Held, D. (2010). The cosmopolitan reader. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Part II

Global Skills for Social Justice, Critical Semiotics, and the Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global Citizenship Education


Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education Douglas Bourn

6.1 Introduction The term “global citizenship” can be seen everywhere today – in mission statements of universities, in ethical policies from companies, amongst international policymakers, and by civil society organizations. Behind the term being the “flavor of the month” is a recognition that people and communities throughout the world seek and desire the knowledge and skills to engage in the globalized societies and economies they are now part of. The interest in the usage of the term has been heightened by political and social developments in North and Latin America, and Europe in recent years with the calls from political leaders for a more economically nationalistic approach to social change. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the Brexit phenomenon in the United Kingdom suggest a reaction to the onward drive toward globalization and the domination of global forces. The response to these events by educationalists has been from a desire to demonstrate the value and need for the promotion of terms, such as “global outlook” and “social justice”. Terms such as global citizenship have, therefore, become even more political and ideological than they were a decade ago. However, the term “global citizenship”, as the Brazilian educationalist Moraes (2014) has commented, has become no more than a “floating signifier”, meaning all things to all people. Similarly, the South African writers Jooste and Heleta (2016) have suggested that the term “global citizenship” is a western construction, developed to support western interests. They instead prefer the term “global competencies”. The term is, therefore, contested but this means it should become seen as part of educational debates and not as just a slogan or mission statement as has happened in some universities around the world (see Bourn, 2018). Global citizenship also as a term needs to be considered with the added word “education” which moves it from a philosophical or sociological discussion to a pedagogical one. Also, within education, there are different interpretations and meanings of the term with regard to formal, school-based education, and say, higher education. Concerning

76  Douglas Bourn the former, the emphasis has been through organizations like Oxfam (2016) and the initiatives from UNESCO (2014) pedagogically focused. Whereas in higher education, the emphasis has been much more on the mission statement, student values, and with only occasional consideration of higher education (Blum, Bourn, & Kraska, 2018; Schattle, 2008). There has also been recent literature that has focused on knowledge as an integral component of GCE (Reimers et al., 2016) or being essentially a values-based perspective (Sharma, 2018). Whilst some of the literature has referred to skills and competencies (Dill, 2013; Oxfam, 2016; Gaudelli, 2016; Davies, Pashby, Sant, & Shultz, 2018; Davies et al. 2018), there has to date been no major study that has located the discourses around global citizenship within a skills framework. One of the exceptions to this has been the work of Jooste and Heleta (2016). They take a critical approach to the terminology but as have indicated elsewhere, there is a lack of clarity as to how they are defining competencies. To take the debates forward within a clear pedagogical discourse, the ways in which GCE has been aligned with practices and debates in development and global education and global learning have been particularly helpful. They provide an intellectual coherence and a distinctive pedagogical approach that can inform debates around the value of the usage of the term “global citizenship”.

6.2 Development and Global Education, and Global Learning and Global Citizenship In my volume on Development Education (Bourn, 2015), I show how a discourse and a body of educational practice has evolved, primarily in Europe and North America, which has been located in learning about global issues that have a strong value based around social justice and promotes a participatory and learner-centered approach. The fields of development and global education emerged out of educational practice, led predominantly by nongovernmental organizations in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. These fields emphasized the value and importance of learning about global issues with a strong emphasis on participatory methodologies. This discourse has been heavily influenced by the work of the Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire and his promotion of a critical pedagogical approach that questioned the value of just reproducing bodies of knowledge relating theory and learning to practice. To Freire, knowledge is constructed through dialogue and only emerges through continuous reflection, discussion, and reconceptualization (Freire, 1972). Henry Giroux has developed Freire’s thinking through the concept of critical pedagogy, particularly the need to develop a critical awareness of the oppressive realities many of us live within. Relevant to the discourses on GCE is Giroux’s emphasis on the democratic potential of learning that

Global Skills and Global Citizenship 77 is questioning, thinking critically, and actively engaging in society for social change (Giroux, 2011). Elsewhere, I have written about the importance of Freire and Giroux in terms of taking forward the discourses on development education and global learning that has a stronger critical pedagogical basis (Bourn, 2015). To me, these same themes apply to GCE which, in many countries, has come out of this practice of development education and global learning. An example of this can be seen in the work of Oxfam (2016) and Temple and Laycock (2008). This influential international aid agency has emphasized global citizenship to encourage learning about global issues and has a strong active citizenship component, encouraging young people particularly to seek and secure global social change. In other literature. including in England a curriculum policy document for schools, global citizenship was seen as a theme alongside social justice, sustainable development, conflict resolution, and human rights (DFES, 2005). Here the emphasis was on connecting the global to the broader school-based initiatives on citizenship.

6.3 Global Citizenship Education as a Distinctive Pedagogical Approach In some countries and policy and practice initiatives around the world, “global citizenship” has become the dominant term replacing global education or learning or development education. For example, this can be seen in initiatives in the European Union-funded Global Schools project that involved a range of countries in Europe (Tarozzi & Mallon, 2019). It can also be seen in a range of initiatives in Canada and the United States (Peck & Pashby, 2018) and East Asia (Chong, 2015; Ho, 2018). However, the main themes within these initiatives are little different from other policies and programs which have used global learning or even development education as the dominant themes. For example, there is little difference in aims between the Global Schools initiative and the Global Learning Programme in England from 2012 to 2018 (Hunt & Cara, 2015). There could be an argument for suggesting that GCE as a term has resulted in a greater emphasis on participatory forms of learning and a linkage to the broader citizenship discourse. These emphases have also been promoted by civil society organizations and it is not, therefore, surprising that it is with such bodies that one can see the greatest emphasis on the usage of the term. In some respects, it could be argued that the differing names that have been used are less important than the intentions and aims behind them. For example, in Europe, the usage of specific terms, be they development education, global learning, global education, or global citizenship, has been influenced by domestic policy agendas and the influence of programs from civil society organizations.

78  Douglas Bourn What, however, is evident that through both policy documents and practice initiatives, where global citizenship has been used, the emphasis has been on general aspirations and goals. There are some exceptions to this, such as the materials produced by UNESCO, Oxfam and the work of Tarozzi and Torres (2016). But in the main, the focus in the academic literature has been dominated by more philosophical discussions about what is meant by being a global citizen or relating the usage of the term to national initiatives on citizenship education (see Dower, 2003; Schattle, 2008; Dill, 2013;). With regard to higher education, there has perhaps been a richer and more nuanced debate with discussions relating GCE to internationalization strategies and ways in which universities promote their courses in terms of graduate attributes. Here also one can see elements of ways in which global citizenship is used instead of equipping graduates to be effective workers in the global economy or to be general humanistic cosmopolitan citizens. Rarely in higher education do you see evidence, apart from the work of authors, such as Andreotti (2006), Bamber (2016), or Stein (2017), of the need for a more critical and transformative approach to the promotion of global citizenship within higher education.

6.4  Skills Agenda and Global Citizenship Within the discourses and practices around global learning and GCE, there has also been a tendency to focus on the acquisition of knowledge or the promotion of specific value bases, such as justice and fairness. The rationales for these emphases have been because the drivers for much of this educational practice have come from civil society organizations and policymakers with an interest in securing engagement and support for their programs and policies around learning about global and development issues. For example, relating initiatives to goals around securing global poverty or sustainable development encourages an emphasis on increased knowledge of specific issues, such as climate change or having a sense of empathy with securing a more just and sustainable world. What, however, can be a consequence of this approach is a lack of recognition and discussion as the value of skills. Where skills have been discussed within these discourses, they have related to the recent OECD initiatives around global competencies (see Asia Society and OECD, 2018) or focusing specifically on the individual skills, learners might need to secure effective employment in the global economy (OECD, 2017). Skills can often be seen in technical skills, such as the ability to achieve a specific task or as what have been termed soft skills, such as cooperation, teamwork. Whilst there have been attempts to locate the debates around skills within the broader social and economic context, such as the work of Trilling and Fadel (2009), there is

Global Skills and Global Citizenship 79 little recognition of the relevance of understanding the forces of globalization or to make direct connections with the discourses around global citizenship. Whilst many of these skills could be seen as implicit within the broader discussions on global citizenship, there is no context to the approaches and neither is there any recognition of social justice or skills for social engagement. In my volume on Understanding Global Skills (Bourn, 2018), I suggested there is a need to move beyond this rather narrow approach to one that located skills within the context of globalization and the specific needs of cultures, societies, and communities. These themes are very relevant to the discourses around GCE because the emphasis in both the literature and practice-based material has been on moral questions, emphasizing the emotional feature of being a global citizen. Dill (2013) does refer to the growing debates around global competencies but he tends to focus on the initiatives on the 21st-century skills and more specifically new technology. Sharma’s work (2018) is important however in that her writings on GCE whilst having a strong values base do refer to skills.

6.5  What Do We Mean by Global Skills? My engagement in the debates on global skills began in 2008 when I produced two reports, with colleagues (Bourn, 2008; Bentall, Blum, & Bourn, 2010), on what the concept might mean within further and vocational education in the UK. In these publications, global skills were seen as including working with people from a range of social and cultural backgrounds, openness to a range of perspectives and understanding of the importance of global forces. I further developed my thinking in this area in Bourn (2011). This article aimed to locate the debates and practices around global skills within three distinct thematic areas: • • •

Skills for work in a global economy Skills to engage people from different cultures Skills for making sense of and engaging with the globalized world

This separation into three distinct themes mirrored broader debates that have taken place around global education and GCE in terms of an economic or neoliberal interpretation, a broader cosmopolitan or humanistic approach, and a postcolonial or critical pedagogical perspective (Kraska et al., 2018; Stein, 2017). But what I continued to find was the lack of attention given to the influence of globalization on skills needs and development and the consequential power imbalances. This led me in Understanding Global

80  Douglas Bourn Skills for the 21st Century Professions (Bourn, 2018) to propose the following framework: • • • • • •

An ability to see the connections between what is happening in your own community with those of people elsewhere in the world Recognize what it means to live and work in a global society and the value of having a broad global outlook on the world that respects, listens to, and values perspectives other than their own An ability to understand the impact of global forces on one’s and other people’s lives and what this means in terms of a sense of place in the world Understands the value of using ICT and how best to use it in a way that is self-reflective and critical and questions data and information Openness to a continued process of self-reflection, critical dialogue, and questioning one’s own assumptions about the world Ability to work with others who may well have different viewpoints and perspectives than yourself, be prepared to change one’s own opinions as a result of working with others and to seek ways of working that are cooperative and participatory in nature Confidence, belief, and willingness in wanting to seek a more just and sustainable world

These themes can help make an important contribution to the discourses and practices in and around GCE because they link together themes, such as globalization, pedagogy, and social action. They put a process of learning to be the heart of any framework on global skills which can, in turn, influence GCE. The framework outlined above can specifically help the skills development of teachers through demonstrating how they can enable learners to make connections between their own lives with people elsewhere in the world. It also means understanding the impact of global forces, recognizing the value of different voices and perspectives and, above all, engaging in a process of dialogue, self-reflection, and potential personal transformation. This approach not only brings in an important recognition of skills but also can locate global citizenship more directly within a pedagogical discourse of global social justice.

6.6  Dialogue with Douglas Bourn EMILIANO BOSIO: What

is your understanding of global citizenship and GCE? How has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped the understanding of global citizenship and GCE? DOUGLAS BOURN:  My understanding and usage of the term “global citizenship” has been as part of an ongoing discussion with learners

Global Skills and Global Citizenship 81 about how they see themselves in the context of the globalized world we all live in today. In many societies, people of all ages have complex identities and the usage of the term “global citizenship” can be a way of encouraging reflection about the interrelationship of one’s identity to local, national, and global influences. I personally have not been a strong supporter of the usage of the term “global citizenship” because I have found it to be used in an elitist way, of being applicable to only a small section of society. I discussed this point in my book’s chapter on Students as Global Citizens (Bourn, 2009) and have seen the promotion of the term being often associated with the more elitist universities as a way of indicating the special and global nature of their student body and also within private and international schools. GCE, however, can be a useful term to use if it is a way of encouraging a more participatory approach to learning about global issues. This, for example, can be seen in the materials produced by Oxfam (2016, p. 9) where “Education for global citizenship is seen as a multitude of participatory teaching and learning methodologies, including discussion and debate, role play, ranking exercises, cause and consequence activities, and communities of enquiry”. My own experience from being Director of a civil society organization that had an implicit reference to global citizenship to my more recent work as running a research center in development education has been that the term can be a useful one to use as a way of encouraging dialogue and debate about how one sees oneself in a global context. What, however, I would also try to avoid is having a definitive definition because this can lead to a narrowing of perspectives or encouraging unrealizable expectations or goals. BOSIO:  What is the relationship between global, local, and national in your opinion? How does this relationship link to GCE? BOURN:  Globalization is about the local and the national as much as it is about the global. Global forces impact upon an individual’s lives as well as that of a local community. All too often, the local, national and global, are seen as competing tensions or as a series of concentric circles. I would suggest a rather different approach that starts from the individual or the community and looks at what influences their development. The extent to which forces from elsewhere in the world influence what happens locally will vary according to social, economic, and cultural factors. Kukita (2019) in her research on young people and global citizenship in Japan found the global influences and outlooks built on the local and the national albeit in a form that was not immediately obvious. Nayak (2003) in her study on young people in the North-East of England showed the influence of cultural forces from elsewhere on the world on local identities.

82  Douglas Bourn Global citizenship can play a role in helping individuals and communities have a greater understanding of their sense of place and to see the linkages between local, national, and global. It can also help break down the divisions that have emerged in a number of societies over the last decade between nationalism and globalism. BOSIO:  What forms of knowledge and skills do learners need to effectively engage in today’s global societies? BOURN:  There are excellent examples in England through the work of the Global Learning Programme and also the framework for GCE by Oxfam. Both highlight the importance of critical thinking, deepening knowledge about global issues and promoting learning that recognizes different voices and perspectives. What this means also is that the knowledge and skills that should be encouraged need also to be contextualized. This means taking into account specific local, national, and cultural contexts, the language that is used to promote these issues and the methodologies to be undertaken. For example, what is meant by ‘living and working in today’s global societies’ may well mean very different things if you are living in Nigeria, India, Jamaica, China, or the UK. There are, of course, some common approaches related to encouraging more critical thinking and looking at issues from different perspectives but how this is done and the starting points for engaging learners may well need to be very different. BOSIO:  The notion of “global skills” seems to emerge as a key element of GCE according to your conceptualization. How do you foster global skills in your students in the classes that you teach currently and taught in the past? BOURN: Within our Masters Programme on Development Education and Global Learning at UCL-Institute of Education, one can see evidence of global skills at both a generic level across the course and specifically in one of the modules where the term is itself discussed in online discussion forums. Concerning the former, this can be seen in the activities in our modules on looking at issues through a range of voices and perspectives. Andreotti’s “Through Other Eyes” materials are used as an example of this. Then more specifically in one of our modules on the theme of globalization, there is a specific activity on global skills where students are asked to review models of how the term is used and come to their own conclusion about their appropriate relevance and value. The students are asked specifically to choose an area of educational practice to consider how the ideas of global skills or competencies might be interpreted and implemented. They are then asked to identify what they think are the key skills/competencies required in the area they have chosen. In doing so, the students are also asked to consider the extent to which these skills/competencies might be different in diverse social,

Global Skills and Global Citizenship 83 cultural, or economic contexts. This means, for example, you may be a teacher in a multicultural school in an urban area. Would the skills/competencies needed for working in a monocultural rural area be the same or different? Similarly, are the skills/competencies identified likely to be the same or different to those needed in other areas of educational practice? What we also try and do in our course is to relate global skills to debates around global social justice and to encourage moving beyond either neoliberal and economic interpretations or cosmopolitan ones, but to encourage more critical pedagogical approaches. BOSIO: How would you practically incorporate your framework for “global skills” in curricular programs for GCE in a modern higher education institution? BOURN:  I would not approach like this. Frameworks like the one I outline on global skills should not be lifted and used directly in courses but more used as guiding influences. What is important in discussions on global skills and global citizenship with educators is not to try and impose one way of working. From my own experience at UCL, the strategy you take to engage educators in discussion on these issues needs to be handled very sensitively. Any attempt to impose new guidelines without considerable consultation and dialogue is likely to result in considerable resistance. There is a need, however, for skills to be directly reflected within GCE-related courses. This means including reference to specifically looking at key terms, such as critical thinking, cultural understanding, forms of participation, and engagement in societies. But as suggested earlier, this needs to take account of specific cultural contexts for the students. For example, in the MA on Development Education and Global Learning I am involved with, a number of the students are teachers in international schools around the world and, therefore, their approaches to GCE will be influenced by their own experiences. What, however, I would encourage is to promote debates around global skills that bring in themes of social justice and social responsibility which can move thinking beyond the personal to the wider societal needs. BOSIO:  Doug, you have a significant experience in teaching GCE-related subjects and researching on the topic of global citizenship at the university level in the UK and beyond. Why is or is not GCE necessary in the modern university, particularly in the UK? BOURN:  Global citizenship themes and debates pose questions for higher education about the purpose of universities in the age of globalization. How do universities both through the formal curriculum but also more widely through its culture, lifestyle, and aims encourage learning that equips graduates for not only working but living in and

84  Douglas Bourn engaging in a global society. This to mean needs to be an essential component of all higher education courses, regarding the subject matter or discipline. Also, by posing the inclusion of global citizenship into degree courses, it raises the wider question of the purpose of universities. There is ongoing debate about the influence of neoliberal thinking within higher education. Whilst global citizenship can be interpreted in a neoliberal way, equipping the graduate to have the skills to work in the global marketplace, it does pose questions around global social responsibility. BOSIO:  What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators toward GCE in higher education, particularly in British universities? BOURN: I am not sure there is a lot of negativity around the term “global citizenship” within UK universities. There will be individual educators who will object to the term for philosophical or ideological reasons. This will always be the case but I think there have been significant changes toward the term in the UK and elsewhere in the world in recent years because of the rise of economic nationalism. Brexit has had a major impact on UK universities at all levels and there has been a realization by both senior leaders and educators of the need to equip graduates with a global outlook, to have a sense of global social responsibility and to be conscious of the need for us all to work toward a more sustainable way of living. Global citizenship as a term has creeped into the discourses and policies almost by stealth. There has been in the UK at least no major policy initiatives or champions for the term. What tends to happen is that institutions see the need to address the area and include it within future policies but there appears to be lack of ambition as to how it could be more central to policies and practices. The tendency is to develop some form of optional global citizenship course, organize special lectures, or see the usage of the term as essentially a marketing tool. BOSIO:  How can education for global citizenship be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in British universities? What knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and experiences are graduates expected to acquire in order to become global citizens? BOURN: There are dangers of encouraging an approach that suggests some form of ideal or goal to be global citizens. Global citizenship should be seen as part of the pedagogy for equipping students with the knowledge, skills, and values to be active participants in the globalized economy and society. What is noticeable is that it is often students themselves who have demanded more courses or activities that have a sense of global citizenship. An obvious example is the engineering student network, Engineers Without Borders.

Global Skills and Global Citizenship 85 They organize courses and work with universities to provide opportunities for overseas experiences. Similar examples can be seen in Medicine (See Bourn, 2018). Universities should ask students how they would like to see more emphasis given to global citizenship themes and approaches. What it should not be is adding onto a course, an extra lecture, or session on global citizenship. The reason I have started promoting the term “global skills” is because within higher education, all courses have to demonstrate the skills to be acquired and the desired learning outcomes. This is where the global comes in. BOSIO:  Is GCE in the modern university, particularly in British universities, more about knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, or some combination of all four in your opinion? BOURN: I have not done sufficient research to fully answer this question. But from my anecdotal evidence, what you will find across UK universities are a range of responses from reference in mission statements to specific courses. An area that is increasingly being posed, in part in response to the climate emergency activity, is the linkage between global citizenship and strategies on sustainable development. This also incidentally is having an impact on internationalization strategies as questions are increasingly being raised about educators engaging in large amounts of overseas travel. From my experience at my own university, there has also been a tendency in the past for strategies on internationalization and sustainable development to go along parallel lines. What global citizenship does, and this is now happening at my university, is to bring the areas more closely together. BOSIO:  How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, disposition) be identified? BOURN:  All too often global citizenship is reduced to being an optional extra, something that is not assessed. Some educators would argue that once you start to bring it into formal assessment, it ends its creativity and innovation and can reduce it to be just another tick box exercise. I would suggest, on the other hand, that whilst you need innovation, also to make global citizenship to be embedded in courses, this means inclusion within learning outcomes which means forms of assessment. I would be looking for examples that not only encourage learning about global issues, but looking at issues from different perspectives and also including some form of active and participatory learning. This would be looking for evidence of skills development in group-work, working cooperatively, learning how to change viewpoints, and self-reflection. BOSIO:  What are three themes a higher education curriculum for GCE should include in your opinion?

86  Douglas Bourn BOURN:  I

would try and avoid talking about themes or even forms of knowledge but desirable learning outcomes. This means therefore: • • •

Increased knowledge and understanding about how globalization and global forces impact upon the specific curriculum subject area Recognizing that in all forms of learning that are different social and cultural perspectives. Understanding them and what they mean How can the learner develop skills that can connect their learning to broader social, economic, and cultural needs regarding ensuring a more just and sustainable world?

By taking this approach, you are then able to link the learning to the core aims of the courses. It also means that forms of assessment can directly make reference to global citizenship approaches. Such learning outcomes may also, of course, need to be refined to take account of specific disciplines and subject areas. What these outcomes might mean for engineers and doctors, for example, are likely to be slightly different to those of teachers. But there are some common elements related to the impact of globalization, recognizing, and understanding different cultural voices and the relationship of their learning to broader social goals. I have found making reference to the UN Sustainable Development Goals helpful here.

6.7 Conclusion Global citizenship, as this chapter has demonstrated, is an increasingly popular theme within academic debates, policies, and programs that aim to equip learners with the skills, knowledge, and values to be active participants in the globalized society we are all now living in. However, global citizenship needs to move beyond being a marketing ploy, a oneoff activity, or as repackaging existing courses to respond to changing external agendas. Global citizenship should be seen as a distinctive pedagogical approach that is encouraged and promoted as an integral component of students’ learning experience. This is where and why I have used the term “global skills” because this brings in what and how students learn, equipping them to respond to the challenges of globalization. Within the discussions on global skills and its relationship to global citizenship, there is a need to encourage learning that not only recognizes the different ways skills can be interpreted but also to bring in themes of global social justice and global responsibility. As I have suggested elsewhere (Bourn, 2018), global skills need to be much more than skills for employment in the global marketplace, but skills for life and skills to make sense of the impact of globalization on our daily lives. Within this broader

Global Skills and Global Citizenship 87 interpretation of global skills, a connection to global citizenship debates emerges particularly if the theme of global social justice is included. Whilst there may have been some questions raised in this interview and chapter concerning how the term “global citizenship” has been used, particularly within higher education, there is no doubt that if there is a connection made in its usage to achieving a more just and sustainable world, then it can be a potential force for transforming how higher education is seen and implemented.

References Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Asia Society and OECD (2018). Teaching for global competence in a rapidly changing world. Paris and New York: OECD/Asia Society. Bamber, P. (2016). Transformative education through international service-learning. Abingdon: Routledge. Bentall, C., Blum, N., & Bourn, D. (2010). Learning and skills for a global economy. Coventry: Learning and Skills Improvement Service. Bourn, D. (2008). Global skills. London: Centre for Excellence in Leadership. Bourn, D. (2009). Students as global citizens in Jones, E. (ed.). Internationalisation: The student voice. Abingdon: Routledge, 18–29. Bourn, D. (2011). Global skills: From economic competitiveness to cultural understanding and critical pedagogy. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 6(1), 3–20. Bourn, D. (2015). The theory and practice of development education. Abingdon: Routledge. Bourn, D. (2018). Understanding global skills for 21st century professions. London: Palgrave. Chong, E. K. M. (2015). Global citizenship education and Hong Kong’s secondary school curriculum guidelines: From learning about rights and understanding responsibility to challenging inequality. Asian Education and Development Studies, 4 (2), 221–247. Davies, I., Ho, L.-C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C., Peterson, A., Sant, E., & Waghid, Y. (eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave. Department for Education and Skills (DFES). (2005). Developing the global dimension for the school curriculum. London: DFES/DFID. Dill, J. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education. Abingdon: Routledge. Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education. New York: Routledge. Ho, L.-C. (2018). Conceptions of global citizenship education in East and SouthEast Asia in Davies, I., Ho, L.-C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C., Peterson, A., Sant, E., & Waghid, Y. (eds.). The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave, 83–95.

88  Douglas Bourn Hunt, F., & Cara, O. (2015). Global learning in England, baseline analysis of the global learning programme whole school audit 2013–2014, DERC research papers 15, London: UCL-IOE. Jooste, N., & Heleta, S. (2016). Global citizenship versus globally competent graduates: A critical view from the South, Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(1), 39–51. Kraska, M., Blum, N., & Bourn, D. (2018). From internationalisation to global citizenship: Dialogues in international higher education in Davies, J. & Pachler, N. (eds.). Teaching and learning in Higher education: Perspectives from UCL. London: UCL Press, 85–98. Kukita, S. (2019). Connecting the “Local” and “Global”: Japanese secondary school students’ perceptions and attributes towards the world, unpublished PhD thesis. London: UCL. Moraes, S. (2014). Global citizenship as a floating signifier: Lessons from UK universities, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 6(2), 27–42. Nayak, A. (2003). Race, place, and globalisation, Oxford: Berg. Oxfam (2016). Education for global citizenship education, Oxford: Oxfam. Peck, C., & Pashby, K. (2018). Global citizenship education in North America in Davies, I., Ho, L.-C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C. Peterson, A., Sant, E., & Waghid, Y. (eds.). The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education, London: Palgrave, 51–64. Reimers, F., Chopra, V., Chung, C., Higdon, J., & O’Donnell, E. (2016). Empowering global citizens: A world course, North Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Sant, E., Davies, I., Pashby, K., & Shultz, L. (2018). Global citizenship education: A critical introduction to key concepts and debates, London: Bloomsbury. Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship, Lanham: MD; Rowman and Littlefield. Sharma, N. (2018). Value-creating global citizenship – engaging Gandhi, Makiguchi and Ikeda as examples, London: Palgrave. Stein, S. (2017). Internationalisation for an uncertain future: Tensions, paradoxes and possibilities, The Review of Higher Education, 41(1), 3–32. Tarozzi, M., & Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: A comparative study in four European countries, London Review of Education, 17(2), 112–125. Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. (2016). Global citizenship education and the crisis of multiculturalism, London: Bloomsbury. Temple, G., & Laycock, A. L. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Towards a clearer agenda for change, in Bourn, D. (ed.). Development education: Debates and dialogues, London: Bedford Way Papers, 99–109. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times, San Francisco: Josey-Bass. UNESCO (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century, Paris: UNESCO.


Educating for Global Citizenship in Diverse and Unequal Societies Massimiliano Tarozzi

7.1 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic spread worldwide from the beginning of 2020 has dramatically shown the disastrous, and, in some cases, catastrophic effects that a health emergency can have not only on the sphere of public health, but also on the economic, social, political, and even on the educational one. To make an example of the impact on educational systems, policies, and practices, UNESCO reported that in early April 2020 to contain the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, over 90% of the world’s school population was experiencing serious disruptions due to the closure of schools ( The global interconnection of individuals, societies, and institutions has been the ways for the spread of the virus. But some possible responses have passed through the same ways, such as human solidarity, political responsibility, and social justice – responses only partially given by governments and decision-makers to contain and defeat the virus outbreak and face social and economic consequences in the medium and long term. The coronavirus crisis tragically showed that global problems require global responses. GCE is one of the responses to global challenges and opportunities that cannot be addressed and solved (only) at national or local level. The case of the new coronavirus is emblematically evident for its devastating pervasiveness, but it is not the only one. Other examples include environmental emergencies, especially those related to climate change, poverty, and the deep economic inequalities that generated it, local conflicts and wars involving global actors, international migrations, and the forced culture encounters/clashes that derive from them. I have dealt extensively with this last topic – intercultural encounters in educational settings – by researching policies and practices especially in teacher education. This is a global issue that perfectly falls within the responses that GCE can offer to policymakers, practitioners, and students. The social, political, and educational implications of the intercultural encounter generated by global migration processes are emblematic themes – such

90  Massimiliano Tarozzi as on a different plane the pandemics – to show the effects of global interconnections. But GCE also highlights how educational responses can only come from adopting a complex and holistic approach to them. GCE stands out as a new educational perspective, an ethos, making sense of and framing theoretically and methodologically different types of knowledge, abilities, and values (UNESCO, 2014). However, GCE is a contested concept, differently conceptualized in the last decade, open to many different interpretations (Bourn, 2015; Davies, 2006; Dower, 2003; Heater, 2002; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pike & Selby, 1988; Pashby et al., 2020), which can be placed along two extreme poles – on the one hand, GCE is understood as an approach enhancing global competition for global elites preparing them to a flexible and competitive global labor market, forming human capital for the international competitive knowledge economy (Hartung, 2017; Schattle, 2009; Gardner-McTaggart, 2016); on the other hand, it can be understood as a way to challenge global inequality, providing a pedagogy for “global social justice” (Davies, 2006; Bourn, 2015; Jefferess, 2008; Torres 2017), or advocate a postcolonial perspective (Andreotti 2006; Andreotti 2010; Andreotti 2011; Abdi, Shultz, & Pillay, 2015). As I have argued elsewhere, I embrace a non-neutral Global Social Justice Framework (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016) (Figure 7.1) which considers GCE not only a new educational content, as a mere extension of the citizenship’s concept from the national to the global level, but a new perspective that allows policymakers and practitioners to reconceptualize old issues within a new educational stance. This framework encompasses the individual global mindedness, subjective responsibility, and behavior

Figure 7.1  A Global Social Justice Framework.

Educating to Global Citizenship 91 toward the social and environmental sphere. As graphically illustrated in Figure 7.1, it can be regarded as an ethos that should not only be rooted in individual choices and responsibility for the social community and the natural environment in the form of consciousness, attitude, and behavior but also political commitment. In this framework, key educational issues, such as interculturality, sustainability, and social justice make new sense in a global holistic view. If applied to the issue of diversity in unequal societies, this GCE map offers a new angle to overcome the conundrums of limited educational concepts – such as intermulticultural education, civic/citizenship education, combining interculturality with social justice and sustainability and providing new meanings to the problems of citizenship in global, plural, and heterogenous societies. GCE provides a value-based idea of citizenship as ecological belonging to the world. While this idea does not have legal value, a new environmental ethic is rooted in it, by closing the traditional gap between citizenship and sustainability, human rights and environment, and social sphere and biosphere. This chapter aims at distilling 20 years of research in intercultural and social justice education resulting in systematically delineating the notion of GCE as a new educational perspective providing an innovative angle to reframe old dilemmas of citizenship in diverse societies.

7.2  Dialogue with Massimiliano Tarozzi EMILIANO BOSIO: 

What is your understanding of GCE? Specifically, how has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped this understanding? MASSIMILIANO TAROZZI:  I have been studying both empirically and theoretically the field of intercultural education for more than 20 years. The synthesis of my research itinerary from intercultural education to GCE has been published in the coauthored book Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism with Carlos Alberto Torres (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016). Here GCE is presented as a new perspective, providing an innovative viewpoint to reframe old dilemmas of citizenship and intercultural education in diverse societies and in a globalized world, taking into account both equality and human rights and the respect for difference. This book represents the latest step of a long scientific itinerary that started with my PhD thesis 25 years ago. The first decade of my research on this field culminated in the 2005 book Cittadinanza interculturale. Esperienza educativa come agire politico [Intercultural citizenship. Educational experience as political agency], whose concluding chapter is emblematically entitled “Education for a Global Citizenship” (Tarozzi, 2005).

92  Massimiliano Tarozzi The second decade of my research in this field resulted in the 2015 book Dall’intercultura alla giustizia sociale. Per un progetto pedagogico e politico di cittadinanza globale [From Interculturalism to Social Justice. For an educational and political project of Global Citizenship] (Tarozzi, 2015). In the meantime, I have undertaken my intellectual dialogue with Carlos Albert Torres since 2006 when I first went to UCLA as a visiting scholar within the Education Abroad Program and then as a Fulbright Fellow in 2009 for a full semester. We began discussing our goal of comparing interculturalism and multiculturalism as two pedagogical approaches developed in Europe and North America. Originally, we wanted to map the “queries and contradictions – and also the possibilities – of further dialogue between the modes, methods, theories, and practice of intercultural education, as a dominant epistemological paradigm in the European continent, with multicultural education being the dominant epistemological paradigm in the USA, but also with other connotations with a similar terminology in the rest of Latin America” (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016, p. viii). Then, from that comparative dialogue between theories and education policies, an indepth discussion emerged on the implications of globalization on educational processes. Thus, our goal became the discussion on new developments of GCE. BOSIO:  Your research work examines interculturalism and multiculturalism. How do these terms connect the book Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016)? TAROZZI: Both interculturalism and multiculturalism are umbrella terms and while there are some differences among them, they can be regarded as two sides of the same coin. One of the main ideas of the book is that there are diverse crises of inter/multiculturalism and there are many reasons for these crisis. Multiculturalism was being criticized from the far-right, from the conservative, from the neoliberal, and even from some progressive educators, for the failure of its practices. In our book, we endorse some of these criticisms and we reject some others, but both agreed that there is a historical crisis of multiculturalism in dealing with diversity in educational policy and practice. Our argument ended up maintaining that what is needed is a global perspective to address global issues and this is particularly visible in the education policy. National models of integration, including multiculturalism or interculturalism, are no longer appropriate to deal with diverse societies. Cultural conflicts, tensions, and encounters between cultures are rooted in global perspectives, so they require a global view and global responses to address them. And we found this is the main idea to open up the way for including GCE as a way out for this crisis.

Educating to Global Citizenship 93 To sum up, three main reasons for the crisis of culture-based models to deal with diversity in educational policy can be identified: 1 Populist, xenophobic, instrumental criticisms. Overall in the western world, there is an emerging new public feeling of hostility to intercultural approaches, supported by explicit xenophobic attitudes and a re-emergence of conservative assimilation. 2 Academic criticisms (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010; Joppke, 2004, 2010, 2017) aimed to overcome the excesses of culturalism and stressing the need for including social dimension in the educational debate about diversity. 3 The emergence of a civic integration model. This is a trend toward social integration in a national culture, values, and beliefs. A sort of new assimilation prevailing in most Nordic countries. It prioritizes immigrant integration into mainstream society, respect for liberal-democrat values (including human rights) and full knowledge of national language and history. An emblematic example of this approach is the introduction of the school subject Fundamental British values in British schools. However, the book argues that the very idea of a national model of integration is in crisis and it should be overcome. The French model of assimilation, the German exclusionary ethnic and the intercultural European, the USA multiculturalism or the new emerging civic integration are perhaps all outdated. Following Wieviorka, “The so-called ‘models of integration’ are all failing” (Wieviorka, 2014, p. 633), and not only multiculturalism. Multiculturalism cannot solve the conundrums of superdiversity (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010) in education policy and practice, not even other more traditional education policy models. Such models are now unable to provide adequate normative responses in facing the challenge of diverse and equal societies, by perpetuating divisions between “majority” and “minority” views. National models of integration should be overcome (Joppke, 2007; Wieviorka, 2014) because within this global complexity, solutions for education policy in particular can only emerge from a global or at least supranational perspective, going beyond the narrow national view mostly rooted in self-perceived political culture and traditions. BOSIO: Immigration is reshaping societies around the globe. Barriers erected by wealthier nations have been unable to keep out those from the global South – typically poor, and often desperate – who come searching for work and a better life. How can GCE address this issue in your opinion? TAROZZI:  Migration is an emblematic condition of today’s global economy and culture (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016) and globalization creates

94  Massimiliano Tarozzi the economic, technical, and cultural conditions for migration. In spite of the political discourse dominant in Western societies that tends to portray immigration as a negative but stoppable byproduct of globalization, cultural diversity and multiple identities are constitutive elements of our societies. Educational institutions are structurally plural and diversity cannot be seen as an emergency but as a structural sign of heterogeneity with which educators, policymakers and scholars have to deal with (Zoletto, 2012). In this scenario of postmigrations, new educational challenges take shape – a relativization of the western-centered way to represent the world; the emergence of social inequality, discrimination, and racism within nationalistic societies; the need to rethink education for postnational citizenship. Cultural diversity, especially the one generated by global migrations, is a key issue for GCE because it poses the question in terms of global mobility and inequalities between and within nations. However, to address challenges that migration poses to educational systems, not every approach to GCE seems suitable. To address some of the unsolved questions posed by multicultural/intercultural education, a Social Justice Global Citizenship Education (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016; Shultz, 2007), rooted in a postcolonial critical perspective (Abdi et al., 2105; Andreotti and de Souza, 2012), is needed because it is able to capture and respond to the new emerging educational needs. BOSIO:  The question of (national) citizenship is nowadays playing a key role in governing the current migration crisis. How does global citizenship relate to national citizenship? TAROZZI:  In terms of its possibility to reconceptualize educational challenges of cultural diversity, the idea of Global Citizenship can be seen as a response to globalized societies and postnational or multiplex citizenship. In modern times and in postnational societies, Marshall’s classical conception of national citizenship might be “obsolete” (Soysal, 1994; Cohen, 1999; Tambini, 2001) because it does not take into account the transnational dimension of today’s ways to belong to a worldwide “community of destiny” (Morin, 1999). Therefore, acknowledging a global perspective on citizenship is crucial to address global social, political, and environmental challenges. Obviously, a call for global citizenship does not imply the extension of the citizenship’s legal status from the national to the global level. However, the sense of belonging to a global sphere certainly has an ethical and political value and, by implication, a substantial educational significance. Even if it cannot be seen from a legal point of view, yet global citizenship has a great educational power, is an ethos that embodies new meanings for education, and a paideia that provide a sense of belonging to a common humanity, embodying new meaning for education and its role in developing knowledge, values, behaviors for securing tolerance, diversity recognition, inclusion, justice, and sustainability across the world (Tarozzi & Torres, 2016).

Educating to Global Citizenship 95 This view echoes the UNESCO’s definition of global citizenship: Global citizenship refers to a sense of belonging to a broader community and common humanity. It emphasizes political, economic, social, and cultural interdependency and interconnectedness between the local, the national and the global (UNESCO, 2015, p. 14). However, in recent times, the success of right-wing populism and radical nationalism in many countries across the globe seems to run counter to the values of GCE. Moderate forms of nationalism – such as the “America first” motto in the USA or the Brexit accomplishment in the UK – and exclusionary and virulent forms of nationalism or ethnonationalism, share similar anti-immigrant and xenophobic feelings. These antiglobalist feelings gained electoral consensus by simplifying complex social, political as well as educational issues within a rigid tension between patriots and globalists. BOSIO:  Your idea of GCE as an umbrella term, encompassing a number of different educational fields has certainly many positive aspects in combining perspectives too often taken as separate, but are there also some negative points? TAROZZI:  My conceptualization is very holistic and inclusive. It tries to embrace different educational traditions which have addressed cultural diversity, environment, social justice, and human rights issues by following parallel and separate approaches, in a form that in the UK was once termed “adjectival”. In Europe, in particular, GCE has been used as an umbrella term trying to be as much inclusive as possible to encompass different issues and different political agendas (GENE, 2018). This approach can be tacked back in 1997 under the still prevailing name of “Global education”, with the Global Education Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe (CoE 1997), and especially with the Maastricht Declaration embraced in 2002 by the CoE, which represents a framework for a European strategy on Global education (Forghani-Arani, et al., 2013). From the Maastricht declaration follows the definition of Global Education, then broadly spread by GENE: “Global Education is education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity, and human rights for all. GE is understood to encompass Development Education, Human Rights Education, Education for Sustainability, Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention, and Intercultural Education being the global dimensions of Education for Citizenship.” While such manifold and inclusive definition has had the merit of merging several themes under the same notion, and it can be

96  Massimiliano Tarozzi regarded as a single educational response able to interconnect diverse global issues and current challenges, however, the lack of clear conceptual boundaries and the continuous semantic widening of established concepts (such as development education, global education, sustainable development education) risk to make GCE an indefinite and sterile concept, especially for practitioners (Goren and Yemini, 2017), being unable to produce consistent and coherent practice. BOSIO: In describing your approach to global citizenship education in the context of higher education, you refer to “a non-neutral Global Social Justice Framework”. Can you discuss how this framework may be translated into pedagogical practices in higher education, for example, in the classes that you teach currently or taught in the past? TAROZZI:  There are several and competing approaches to GCE. I mentioned earlier that they can be located in a continuum between two poles – market oriented vs. global social justice. But there are more nuanced positions in between. Diverse views in framing GCE show that it is open to many different conceptual, political, and educational interpretations (Pashby et al., 2020; Blee, Britton, & Peters, 2008; Tawil, 2013; Gaudelli, 2016; Torres 2017, Reimes et al., 2016) addressing different goals, rooted in contrasting visions and political assumptions. GCE could be regarded as “neoliberal” (Gaudelli, 2009; Shultz, 2007), open (Veugelers, 2011), soft (Andreotti, 2006), economic (Oxley & Morris, 2013; Mannion et al., 2011), and entrepreneurial (Stein, 2015). Moreover, since GCE is undertaken within specific national and cultural contexts, it inevitably reflects broader social and cultural aspects of the state (Andreotti, 2011; Goren & Yemini, 2017; Wang & Hoffman, 2016; Cho & Mosselson, 2017). All these diverging standpoints reveal that the overall assumptions of a global view in citizenship education cannot be thought as ethically or politically neutral not only because every educational practice is political per se (Freire, 1985), but also because some key concepts, such as citizenship and globalization, can be viewed from different angles, including a nationalist or neoliberal or critically radical, postcolonial and counterhegemonic. In my postgraduate courses on GCE, I am currently carrying out both in Italy and in the UK, my main goal is to stimulate and sometimes to provoke students’ critical attitude toward global issues. For example, by asking them to reflect on the peculiarities of GCE in Europe and North America; or if they are aware of GCE interpretations in other regions of the world, especially where they live or work; or to discuss the various ideologies underpinning GCE. To facilitate indepth knowledge and independent and critical thinking, it is also important to apply GCE understandings to educational practice in a range of settings. I work from the proposition that an understanding of the diverse range of current GCE policies in formal and nonformal

Educating to Global Citizenship 97 education around the world is only possible in combination with understanding of current practices of GCE around the world. BOSIO: How can GCE be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in European universities, particularly in Italy? TAROZZI:  I have been teaching GCE courses for three years both in Italy and in the UK at Master programs. It is a relatively new topic in academia and in Italy, I have taught the first course addressing this issue. I must say, however, that the University of Bologna in 2017 hosted an international conference entitled “Global Citizenship Education: the role of Education in a Globalised World”, focusing on the contribution of higher education to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development through the promotion of Global Citizenship. A final document drawn from the conference and the work of a crossdisciplinary team within the University was developed and submitted to the G7 meeting, hosted by Italy in the same period. However, apart from these important political positions, GCE in higher education research, with few exceptions (Stein, 2015; Torres, 2015), has received less research attention, and it is still a largely neglected policy area compared to other levels of formal education. While higher education institutions are in the best position to support both a rigorous research agenda and relationships among several actors involved in the promotion of GCE (Tarozzi & Mallon, 2019), too little attention has been paid thus far to the contribution to GCE by tertiary educational institutions compared to other educational levels. Yet, internationalization is widely considered a priority across market-driven universities and GCE is frequently invoked as central to universities’ internationalization efforts (Stein, 2015). Employability and performativity are worldwide valued in international comparative university rankings where the number of international students is one of the key indicators. In contemporary universities, competing in the global market to recruit the best students and to prepare a workforce to navigate in a global labor market, international students are regarded as commodities and clients (Burbules & Torres, 2000). But as you know, because this is the subject of your personal research, commodification, competition, and internationalization of universities are different from GCE (Nixon, 2011). Otherwise, higher education can play a pivotal role in providing teaching, research, and capacity building on GCE. I am convinced that to make GCE suitable and attractive for students, especially undergraduate ones, GCE should be taught as a transversal global skill. Global skills are nowadays central for the professional profile of students from every field of study. Therefore, I suggest organizing courses on GCE at university level as it is being experimented in some universities. GCE can be regarded as key skills for everyone, but in a different way to the idea of key competencies widely promoted by

98  Massimiliano Tarozzi supranational agencies, such as OECD, to promote a sort of technocratic competitive efficacy. On the contrary, I endorse the need for transversal courses on GCE based on a new interpretation of global skills as conceptualized by Bourn (2018) influenced by critical pedagogy, development education, transformative learning and thinking. BOSIO:  Based on your research work and teaching experience, what are three themes a higher education curriculum for GCE should include? TAROZZI:  If you look at the figure that represents the theoretical model of social justice GCE that I presented in this chapter, the three fundamental themes are – interculturality, social justice, and sustainability. They are located at the intersection of the three spheres that shape the global dimension of education – individual, social, and biosphere. I have already extensively discussed above the centrality of the theme of interculturality. On several occasions, I have maintained that the cultural diversity dimension cannot be dissociated from equality and more broadly from social justice. In each of my courses on GCE, there is a module focusing on GCE in diverse societies where the GCE’s responses to cultural diversity and social justice are addressed. As mentioned before, cultural diversity in a global dimension is nowadays closely related to global migrations and the refugee crisis. Therefore, in my courses, I critically address with my students migration impact on education and the understanding that GCE can provide to frame this phenomenon in a broader perspective. It is a crucial issue for GCE especially if the question of cultural diversity is linked to global mobility and inequalities. It is also useful to turn the migration discourse upside down by introducing voices from the South that critically reveal the postcolonial dynamics underlying the migration processes. Migration is also linked to sustainability. Migration is not only an emblematic condition of today’s global economy and culture, but it also reveals the impact of environmental issues, such as climate change, pollution, resource depletion, and desertification. One of the expected outcomes in my courses is that students understand the connections between migration and global phenomena, such as conflicts, poverty, inequalities, and climate emergencies. This brings me to another key theme in my courses on GCE – a critical analysis of sustainable development goals. In my courses, I address SDGs as an overall global agenda where GCE provides an essential contribution for all the SDGs and not only for the specific target 4.7 where it is explicitly mentioned. I always seek to make students aware of the extent to which these goals are related to people’s everyday life around the world. By looking for evidence of the SDGs in their “local” context or workplace, students are invited to fill the gap between the individual, and the social and biosphere. In teaching GCE at any level, a deep gap is inevitably created between the abstract dimension of the values with which the GCE is

Educating to Global Citizenship 99 represented and conceptualized and the concrete and contextualized dimension of the body. However, research demonstrates (Francesconi & Tarozzi, 2012) that learning is valuable and effective when they are embodied. Therefore, teachers constantly need to propose an embodied GCE in which students can recognize the global dimension within their subjective lived experiences and their relationships with others.

7.3 Conclusion The dynamic relation between cultural identity and diversity is one of the key dimensions of my GCE conceptualization. It is not the only theme under the GCE umbrella, of course, nor the most important, but one on which GCE has provided effective educational responses. In fact, my approach to GCE seeks to address unsolved questions posed by multicultural/ intercultural education as well as by (national) citizenship education. Multiculturalism and multicultural (or intercultural) education have been political and educational responses to the challenges that diversity has posed to education policy and practices for decades. However, in the last ten years, multiculturalism as a national model of integration has suffered a backlash for both theoretical and political reasons. I engage my work with students assuming that policy and education policy dealing with cultural diversity and migration in particular can only emerge from a global perspective, going beyond narrow national views. Also, I am grounding my teaching and research on a holistic definition of GCE, trying to be as much inclusive as possible to encompass different national policies and supporting a transformational agenda and the pursuit of global social justice. However, such an all-encompassing holistic definition lacks clear conceptual boundaries that makes GCE an obscure concept, especially for practitioners. Therefore, many policymakers and practitioners are constantly asking scholars to provide a univocal definition of GCE. Yet, providing such a definition of GCE is not only impossible, but in my opinion, it is also useless trying to properly define it in a unique and unequivocal way. It is absolutely necessary to conceptualize GCE, but not for the purpose of providing a single clear-cut definition. The reason why it is so difficult to conceptualize it in an unequivocal way is probably due to the fact that in the last decade, it has been endorsed from global international institutions, trying to encompass several issues, to include several perspectives, several national or international agendas, and to embrace several discourses under one unique label. But one of the side effects of using an all-encompassing concept is that it is hard to provide a unique definition. Nevertheless, I work from the proposition that this is acceptable. Not having a definitive, objective definition, it is also extremely important to consider differences in the ideologies, cultural or theoretical perspectives

100  Massimiliano Tarozzi undermining the various ideas of GCE. For example, the profound differences between the social justice transformative GCE, that I endorse – and the neoliberal one, which also has its peculiar definition, would disappear under a unique, neutral, and comprehensive definition. A Global Social Justice Framework addresses particular goals and it is based on a precise theoretical and political perspective. We do not expect that everyone will agree on the position we endorse, but we are ready to discuss and negotiate our standpoint.

References Abdi, A. A., Shultz, L., & Pillay, T. (2015). Decolonizing global citizenship education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Andreotti, V. (2010). Postcolonial and post-critical global citizenship education. In G. Elliott, C. Fourali, & S. Issler (Eds.). Education and social change. London: Continuum, 223–245. Andreotti, V. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 381–397. Andreotti, V., & de Souza, L. M. T. M. (Eds.) (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. New York and London: Routledge. Bourn, D. (2015). The theory and practice of development education: A pedagogy for global social justice. London-New York: Routledge. Bourn, D. (2018). Understanding global skills for 21st century professions. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (2000). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Cho, H. S., & Mosselson, J. (2017). Neoliberal practices amidst social justice orientations: Global citizenship education in South Korea. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(6), 861–878 Cohen, J. L. (1999). Changing paradigms of citizenship and the exclusiveness of demos. International Sociology, 14(3), 245–268. Council of Europe (CoE) – North South Centre (1997). The Global Education Charter. Retrieved 18-11-2017 at Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational review, 58(1), 5–25. Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Forghani-Arani, N., Hartmeyer, H., O’Loughlin, E., & Wegimont, L. (2013). Global education in Europe: Policy, practice and theoretical challenges. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. Francesconi, D., & Tarozzi, M. (January 01, 2012). Embodied education: A convergence of phenomenological pedagogy and embodiment. Studia Phaenomenologica, 12, 263–288. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley, MS: Bergin & Garvey.

Educating to Global Citizenship 101 Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2016). International elite, or global citizens? Equity, distinction and power: The International baccalaureate and The rise of The South. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(1), 1–29. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 68–85. Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. New York – London: Routledge. GENE (2018). The state of global education in Europe 2018. Retrieved on 15-092019 from Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Citizenship education redefined – A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 170–183. Hartung, C. (2017). Global citizenship incorporated: Competing responsibilities in the education of global citizens. Discourse, 38(1), 16–29. Heater, D. (2002). World citizenship: Cosmopolitan thinking and its opponents. London: Continuum. Jefferess, D. (2008). Unsettling cosmopolitanism: Global citizenship and the cultural politics of benevolence. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 2(1), 27–35. Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237–57. Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22. Joppke, C. (2010). Citizenship and immigration. London: Polity Press. Joppke, C. (2017). Is multiculturalism dead? Crisis and persistence in the constitutional State. Malden, Mass: Polity Books. Kymlicka, K. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. In S. Vertovec, & S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices, 32–49. London: Routledge. Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 443–456. Morin, E. (1999). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO Publishing (Or. Ed. Les sept savoirs nécessaires a L’éducation du futur) Retrieved on 15-09-2019 from 0011/001177/117740eo.pdf Nixon, J. (2011). Higher education and the public good: Imagining the university. London: Continuum. Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144–164. Peters, M. A., Britton, A., & Blee, H. (Eds.). (2008). Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

102  Massimiliano Tarozzi Reimers, F.M., Chopra, V., Chung, C.K., Higdon, J. & O’Donnell, E.B. (2016) Empowering Global Citizens: A world course. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Schattle, H. (2009). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, 3–20. New York, NY: Routledge. Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248–58. Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stein, S. (2015). Mapping Global Citizenship. Journal of College and Character, 16(4), 242–252. Tambini, D. (2001). Post-national citizenship. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(2), 195–217. Tarozzi, M. (2005). Cittadinanza interculturale. Esperienza educativa come agire politico. Intercultural Citizenship. Educative experience as political acting. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Tarozzi, M. (2015). Dall’intercultura alla giustizia sociale. Per un progetto pedagogico e politico di cittadinanza globale. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. A. (2016). Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism. London: Bloomsbury. Tarozzi, M. & Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: A comparative study in four European countries. London Review of Education. 17(2), 112–125. Tawil, S. (2013). Education for ‘global citizenship’: A framework for discussion. Paris: UNESCO Education Research and Foresight. [ERF Working Papers Series, No 7.] Torres, C. A. (2015). Global Citizenship and Global Universities. The Age of Global Interdependence and Cosmopolitanism. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 262–279. Torres, C. A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education. New York: Routledge. UNESCO (2014). Global citizenship education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (Eds.). (2010). The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge. Veugelers, W. (2011). The moral and the political in global citizenship: Appreciating differences in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 473–85. Wang, C., & Hoffman, D. M. (2016). Are WE the world? A critical reflection on selfhood and global citizenship education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(56), 1–18. Wieviorka, M. (2014). A critique of integration. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21(6), 633–641. Zoletto, D. (2012). Dall’intercultura ai contesti eterogenei: Presupposti teorici e ambiti di ricerca pedagogica. Franco Angeli: Milano.


Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics Maureen Ellis

8.1 Introduction The Critical Global Educator: Global Citizenship Education as Sustainable Development (Ellis, 2016) made the following abbreviated recommendations: 1 Teacher educators and regulatory bodies in every discipline should implement and assess critical discourse studies – theory, analysis, and application – as methodology that coherently embodies Global Citizenship Education (GCE) as Sustainable Development (GCESD) in teacher education; 2 Curriculum developers and teacher educators should unequivocally direct personal passions and professional understanding to the political economy and cultural politics of their disciplines; 3 Policymakers, at all levels, should infuse policy discourse with explicit references that generate politically oriented GCESD; 4 Theorizing modality, distinguishing material, sensorial, spatiotemporal, and symbolic modes and applying Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) analysis to multimediated genre, educators should integrate critical action research; 5 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) assessment frameworks should implement and evaluate critical GCESD, coordinating interdisciplinary school–community–university partnerships; 6 HEIs should establish long-term, stable, and mutually beneficial teacher–education– research alliances that draw on international nongovernmental development organizations (INGDOs) for political-economic and legal expertise; 7 University educators assessing systemic risk in global discourses should speak truth to power, building research capacity through transnational partnerships; and 8 Funding criteria should stipulate transdisciplinary, international, and multistakeholder research that supports thematic global networks.

104  Maureen Ellis This chapter will extend these recommendations, justifying Critical Realism (CR) philosophy for methodology and Systemic Functional Semiotics (SFS) for practical methods toward GCE, as elaborated in the more recent publication of Critical Global Semiotics: Understanding sustainable transformational citizenship (Ellis, 2019).

8.2 Five Critical Realism Concepts as Foundational to Global Citizenship Education: Systemic, Dialectic, Holistic, Heteroglossic, and Transformational This section explains five CR concepts which I consider foundational to GCE, highlighting its essential systemic, dialectic, holistic, heteroglossic, and transformational nature and links to Semiotic studies. 8.2.1 Systemic A systemic approach, a layered or laminated ontology, is in keeping with Chaos theory and Capra’s Systems Theory. Multiple, overlapping, contradictory systems of global governance today constitute systemic risk, as political–economic, security–military and cultural–media networks unaccountable to representative authority (Capella, in Burbules & Torres, 2009; Weber & Duderstadt, 2012), manipulate, downsize, and disregard normative legal institutions of modern citizenship. Rather than focus on individuals and events, CR analysis treats all data as “texts” in “context”, extending inquiry into the causes, circumstances, conditions, implications, and repercussions within which they occur. Investigations relate family, food, finance to climate, conflict, commerce and trade in drugs, arms, even human beings. Scientists for Global Responsibility (Langley et al., 2008), “soldiers in the laboratory”, track commercial, corporate, and military funding that prevents university research, particularly in business, engineering, science, and technology. UNESCO (2014) stipulates that ESD requires methods, such as critical thinking, imagining future scenarios, clarifying one’s own values, systemic thinking, and applied learning, which explore the dialectic between tradition and innovation. Semiotics, firmly rooted in Philosophy, Logic and Science, the life-work of founding father Charles Sanders Peirce, provides firm bases for a truly transdisciplinary cosmic project. Semiotics is the science of signs, insight into how signs emerge, and develop into symbols, in short how meaning is made. CR’s systemic ontology aligns sustainability as semiotic domains (cyto-, bio-, zoo-, …) and subdomains (proto-, necro-, and endo-) as linguists might layer genres and subgenres. Sebeok (2001, xiv) demonstrates that “nonverbal signing is more fundamental to survival, both phylogenetically and ontogenetically, than is verbal signing”, that “semiosis is life”, “the basic survival strategy in all life forms”. With origins in

Global Citizenship Education 105 medicine, semiotics supports a search for coherent ontology as endosemiotic systems, such as the genetic, immune, metabolic, and neural codes are unified, tethered, integrated, and then transmitted and expressed in the external world. Semiotics tracks a chthonic man, scrutinizing Jacob’s ladder of domains and disciplines from earthly, physical materiality to metaphoric, metaphysical, and intangible truths. Systemic functional semiotics (SFS) is an extensive emergent field which covers the entire range of signs, codes, and modes across cultures, geography, professions, and disciplines. SFS takes as its basis Wittgenstein’s assertion, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world” (Wittgenstein, 1922/2010). Initially conceived by Michael Halliday at University College London as systemic functional linguistics, today SFS encompasses myriad communications, multilingual multimodal texts, in context, i.e. manifold discourses, languages in action, everyday drama, and daily dharma. Semiotics provides methods for analysis which can be happily taught and progressively applied from Kindergarten to “Universe-city”. Critical Realism, rooted in Vedic, Taoist, and Buddhist beliefs, is frequently encountered as Critical Theory or in more accessible terms as Critical Thinking. However, it is unfortunate if these varying depths of engagement are not aligned, so that they nest (w)holly in meaningful wholeness. 8.2.2 Dialectic Dialectic confrontation yields the transcendent psyche, as representations engender cultural variants from ancient religious existential semiotic trinities (Buber, 1958); Vedanta’s Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Preserver), and Shiva (Destroyer); Taoism’s yin/yang dialectic; Greek fates Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos; Christianity’s thought, word, deed; the scientists’ solids, liquids, gases; the grammarian’s past, present, future; to recent accessible metaphors framing body, mind, spirit; head, heart, and hands. Moving beyond dialogic relations to dialectics, Critical Realism inserts the third emergent factor, insisting like Peirce on triads, semantic triangles and semiotic trinity. Charles Sanders Peirce’s iconic, indexical, and symbolic signification submerges pedestrian human antics in semantic triangles revealing thought as semiotic, manmade manifest through sign. Although it may be easier to distinguish finance and power from cultural globalization, it is “the interplay between the economic and political contexts of globalization that has driven most discussions of the need for educational reform” (Burbules and Torres, 2009: p. 29). Using word association exercises to unravel bundles of trapped psychic energy and to dissolve neurotic structures, talk therapy, and Jungian psychotherapy helped psychotic patients beyond a medical-based psychiatry. Critical realists examine this interaction, the sociocultural risks, the cultural politics arising within and emerging from a global political economy (Klein, 1999, 2008; Shaxson, 2012; Chang, 2010). Vedic dharma,

106  Maureen Ellis Greek drama, forgotten wisdom from the East, gives contemporary resonance to Teilhard de Chardin’s (1965) iconic imagery of body and blood, (w)holesome “internetted”, holy communion. “Only this East is not a Tibetan monastery full of Mahatmas, but in a sense lies within us. It is from the depths of our own psychic life that new spiritual forms will arise; they will be expression of psychic forces which may help to subdue the boundless lust for prey of Aryan man”. (Jung, 1933, p. 221) 8.2.3 Holistic Applying CR’s systemic view to individual development means that we see human identities as discourse competences (Greimas, 1976). Jung’s Buddhist references brought to Western psychology Vedic understanding of the stratified embodied self, seven wheels or chakras, from root, sacrum, solar plexus, heart, throat, mind’s eye to crown. Kine-ikonically binding word to image and icon, “individuation” signifies transitive, symbolic movement toward indivisible unity, (w)hole, holy or holistic spiritual completion, “the process of integrating the contents of the unconscious and achieving awareness of the self” (Jaffe, 1979, p. 125), and not to be confused with individualism. Jung insists, “the selfcomprises infinitely more than a mere ego. Individuation does not shut one out from the world, but gathers the world to oneself” (Jaffe, 1979, p. 228). Jung’s Modern Man in Search of a Soul diagnosed that: The ego is ill for the very reason that it is cut off from the whole, and has lost its connection with mankind and with the spirit. The ego is indeed the “place of fears” but only if it has not returned to the “father” and “mother”, i.e. translated spirit and nature (Jung, 1933, p. 125). Explaining the essentially metaphoric nature of thought, language, and development, cognitive linguists Lakoff and Johnson (1980, p. 196–197) link surface frames to deeper conceptual root metaphors, demonstrating that “most of the conceptual structure of a natural language is metaphorical”, around 90% in some datasets. Like sacred Greek amphora, metaphors store precious defining aphorisms. Symbolically represented in Sanskrit ritual by potentially lethal camphor, a decongestant that burns without residue ash, metaphor intuitively eases absorption. Magi see metaphors magically absorbed, potent as at Hindu funerals, subliminally affecting noumenal conversion. Similarly, Peirce’s metaphors iconically, immediately, and dynamically usher human cognition from sensation to perception and conception. Kant (1781, p. 182) explains “the schematism of pure understanding. … The schema is in itself always a product of pure imagination”. Concepts and experience always stand in immediate relation to the

Global Citizenship Education 107 schema of imagination, as a rule for the determination of our intuition, in accordance with some specific universal concept. Cognitive metaphor theory, developing work on Metaphors we live by (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980) traces patterns of conventional metaphoric use which reflect conventional conceptual metaphors. Schemata synthesizes perceptions, establishing abstract universal concepts. Individual imagination is “in-formed”, synthetically processing prior memories with actual stimuli. Imaginations depend on Reason while borrowing images, imagery, from the senses in a “figurative” art – a deep hidden transfiguration of the human soul. From genesis to genetics, genres (Bakhtin, 1991) emerge, variously combining form, function, and purpose; narrowed “confirmations” of genre, disciplinary fragmentation fractures conscientization, tethering vision, and mission. 8.2.4 Heteroglossic In contrast with Habermas’ (1984) structural, procedural role for language, the Russian philosopher, semiotician and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1991, pp. 271–331) poststructural theory treats metalanguage as “relativized, Galilean linguistic consciousness” (1991, p. 327) inextricably binding language to human development. Polysemic metaphors signal potency, potential, empty signifiers distinct from full populated signs, powerfully deployed in open-ended heteroglossic range of genres, sub-, and hybrid-genres for varied human purposes. The icon does not represent unequivocally an existent thing – icon depicts while index denotes and symbol connotes. Both CR and Semiotics identify emergence, signs evolving into symbols, Om or revealed and yet to be revealed omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent knowledge. Both frameworks question the process of meaning-making; cultural shifts, power differentials and authority which allow dominant meanings, impositions, manipulation of meanings. Like the Critical Realist philosophy of Roy Bhaskar which reaches back to ancient Vedic, Taoist, Buddhist principles and enlightenment, Semiotics values Tyche (Greek) or Tai Chi (Taoist), spontaneity, intuition, chance as well as Continuity or Syneche, and consequent Pragmaticism. Like CR’s stratified differentiated ontology, Bakhtin’s “heteroglossia” entails “putting the voices back into the dialectical consciousness, thereby recovering the dialogical vitality of the utterance”. Bakhtin’s claim that The symbol has a “warmth of fused mystery” (ibid. p. 433) incarnates metaphoric “Word made flesh” (John, 1:14) that dwells amongst us. Word as Voice, the phonetician’s schwa roots breath, being, essence, in Sanskrit hava (wind), Hebrew YHWH. Our dreams, memories, and reflections offer consciousness a “window” into the unconscious shadow. Jung’s collective social psyche confirms sociopsychologist Erving Goffman’s (1969, p. 243) belief that “As performers, we are

108  Maureen Ellis merchants of morality”. The “Wind which bloweth where it listeth” (John, 3:8) is not shaken by surface choices of bridesmaids, virgins, or milkmaids. Word as sacramental magma, universal semiotic material of inner life means “we repeat, when discourse is torn from reality, it is fatal for the word itself as well; words grow sickly, lose semantic depth and flexibility, the capacity to expand and renew their meanings in new living contexts” (Bakhtin, 1991, p. 353). 8.2.5 Transformational Complex global issues of social justice, human rights, conflict resolution, environmental sustainability, and diversity do not fall neatly into disciplines. Globalization means citizens daily encounter composite “texts”, multimodal combinations of logos – written/spoken word, picture, moving image, number, color, sound, music, gesture, dance, and performance. Social- and multimedia newspaper articles, websites, radio commercials, TV advertisements, photojournalism, and films convey an overwhelming host of genres and subgenres – politics, law, finance, and medicine, via manifesto, contract, bank accounts, and prescription, alongside mission statements, statistics, pop lyrics, and the rest. The myriad ways in which the senses are conjugated in different cultures suggest crossmodal plasticity or synesthesia as a “more productive model for conceptualizing perceptual processes” (Howes, in Jewitt, 2009, p. 226). Synesthetic literacies sequence experience, conceptualization, analysis, and application. Just-in-time disciplinary naming weaves theory and critique, social fabric, and moral fibre in formal, informal, nonformal subjectivity. CR’s expansive Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) acknowledges hybrid genre, multiple intelligences, multimodal literacies as citizens deploy positions and practices toward Eudaimonia, good spirits, flourishing. Critical Global Semiotics (CGS): understanding sustainable transformational citizenship (Ellis, 2019, henceforth CGS), sought to combine these two frameworks – Critical Realism (CR) for methodology, philosophy and theory, with Systemic Functional Semiotics (SFS) for analytical methods, practical application, or praxis. CGS incorporates powerful integral concepts which make explicit a developing global consciousness. It explores transdisciplinary “commonwealth” through focus on multimodality, media, and metaphor. Every day, global citizens embodying philosophy encounter an overwhelming host of genres and subgenres, emergent semantic triangles, evolving semiotic trinity. Challenging daily drama and performative dharma, applying elements of CR and SFS, incorporating active engagement, scrutinizing the political economy and cultural politics of their professional faculties and personal lives, these 24 analysts from 13 countries present current issues in Anthropology, Architecture, Dance, Feminism, Film, Health, Law, Management, Medicine, Music,

Global Citizenship Education 109 Politics, Pharmaceuticals, Sociology, Sustainability Education, and Urban Development. The book’s integrative, unifying foundations will be of interest to researchers, educators, and postgraduate students in the fields of linguistics, semiotics, and critical realist philosophy, as well as to policymakers, curriculum developers, and civil society.

8.3  Dialogue with Maureen Ellis EMILIANO BOSIO:  What

are in your opinion three key elements of GCE in the modern higher education institution? How do these link to your journey as an educator and scholar? MAUREEN ELLIS:  To take these in turn – first, the need to theorize passion, the vital role of theory in translating personal interest into investment; intuition and opinion into knowledge as justified true belief; passionate en-theos-iasm into coherent, articulated, sustaining dialectics. Unless sustained by philosophical foundations and theoretical justifications, research revealed that conviction alone proved unequal to politically just societal transformation. CR’s laminated ontology distinguishes, “the value-impregnating character of factual discourse” (Bhaskar, in Archer et al., 1998, p. 412), discriminating criteria unconsciously ingested. To value passion is to understand logogenesis, discourse, dharma, faith in action, the dialectic absent/present Tao Way in which meaning unfolds through the semantic trio. Discursive social psychology elucidates genuine dialectic as history, data and warrant (Toulmin, 1969) for beliefs and attitudes, seeing each human being as i) Text in ii) Context, sustaining iii) Critique. Sanskrit’s duo (two), Buber’s interactive “I and Thou” duality generates this third Way, convincingly elaborated by Speech-act theory (Austin, 1975) and Searle’s (1995) construction of social reality. Theorized passion spells integrity – aligning thought, word and deed as personal transformative experience expands into professional transactions, i.e. professed disciplinary faith, institutional affiliation, association and engagement in the political-economy and cultural-politics of one’s discipline, domain or theatre of operation. The Critical Global Educator (Ellis, 2016) identified logogenesis, vital existence, Bakhtin’s internally persuasive device, sustained internal dialectic, an etymological conversion process with/in CR’s realist ontology and relativist epistemology which leads to confident moral judgmental axiology. GCE (Ellis, 2016, p. 202) demonstrated that “attitudes, beliefs and opinions, theoretically reinforced by critical content, analysis, and application, correlate with degrees of transformational purpose”. Notwithstanding meta-real “hooks” and “crooks”, constrained, embarrassed, and apologetic teacher educators reported inadequate resources to weave critical zeal into

110  Maureen Ellis transformational goals” (ibid, 211). Without history, critical theory, or regulatory provision to manage normative power, intellectual impoverishment delayed development from personal transformative experience to collaborative professional transaction and eventually collective political transformation. For me, key elements at an individual level have implications and repercussions for institutions as well. GCE as Critical Global Semiotics probing metaphoric, “ether-real”, transformational learning, relates Genesis to genetics, bibles to bibliographies, personal search to public research. Development dedicated to lifelong learning must incorporate the zest of youth and the wisdom of age, benefiting disciples across disciplines, professions, and cultures. The most recent neuroscience investigation into quantum consciousness, CRISPR technology, and tardigrades supports and justifies such personal agency and institutional agenda. Transformational power, able to relate individual vision, mission, and (com)passion to Semiotics’ most comprehensible canvas possible, must not be sneezed at; Global Citizenship educators must refrain from settling for amateurish practice when we can choose transdisciplinary praxis; GCE as trajectory from kindergarten multimodality to globally unifying linguistic anthropology; from personal to professional and political transformation. Conversion from individual transformative experience to transactional and transformational efficacy is only possible through association, collaboration, involvement in collective, shared agenda. International NGOs currently have legal, political, financial expertise which constitute a valuable, pertinent, and critical resource, frequently just desks away from their education departments. My research revealed the potential for further exploitation of this highly relevant and vital energy, unfortunately constrained by regulations which separate campaigning from education, fracturing NGO and union procedure and practice, preventing the flow of funds and righteous indignation. Focused efforts to align GCE with international NGO priorities can be achieved without loss of critical perspective, and should be treated as acknowledged, justified objectives. A third theme or consideration is the need to relate GCE to a global programme, a goal possibly made more difficult as Britain leaves the EU, an admittedly imperfect union, but currently a working “laboratory” of idealized global citizenship. The European Development Education Monitoring Report: DE Watch (Krause, 2010, p. 73), on behalf of the Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group, stated – “The UK is not so active at the EU level”. A leading GCE teacher-educator described the dysfunction between national GCE in the UK and European projects with unconventional force. Insufficient resources and “the failure of the whole UK movement to engage with what’s

Global Citizenship Education 111 going on in Europe” left this farsighted professional “feeling that we’re rather up our own arses here”. Consistent policy and stringently applied research funding criteria at national and regional levels would demand representational legitimacy, interdisciplinary expertise, and stable cross-sectoral engagement in equitable global partnerships based on thematic research networks. For an example of how these connect with my own journey, … for many years promoting English Language and Literature in developing countries, I was unaware of the politics and economics beneath this linguistic imperialism until I witnessed a child in Africa, and a plaintiff in a South American law court still run on colonial routines, struggle with English as fourth or fifth language. Seeing Western teacher-trainers exploit the hospitality of foreign universities provided a rude awakening to the ease, folly, and irresponsibility with which Western rationale and teaching methods were being inappropriately foisted on developing systems while serious Indigenous needs were studiously and callously ignored. Consultancy assignments for international organizations and foreign Ministries of Education made me aware of transdisciplinary ramifications, corporate policy, and global consequences. BOSIO: Can you discuss how the notions of critical global semiotics (Ellis, 2019) and critical global educator (2016) may be translated into pedagogical practices in higher education, for example, in the classes that you teach currently or taught in the past? ELLIS: The semiotic stance undermines cavalier claims to objectivity; its relativist epistemology is substantiated by the conviction that all thought and knowledge is acquired through signs (CP 8, p. 338); that every thought is a sign and in signs (CP 5, p. 265, 1868); that the purpose of the sign is “to communicate ideas” (CP MS 283, p. 101) from one state of mind to another future state of mind, evolving across time and space. String theory, Maxwell’s Demon, atoms, cells, force fields, bull and bear markets, rising and falling prices, affirm imagery, imagination, metaphor across disciplinary borders. Transdisciplinary scientists expressing ultimate concerns choose metaphors with care. “Critical Global Semiotics” (2019) highlights the combined strength of CR and Systemic Functional Semiotics as vehicles for global transdisciplinary projects from kindergarten to adult activism, moving the agenda purposefully beyond educational walls, from curriculum and campus to community and glo/cal communication. Fortifying CR concepts of emergence and eudaimonia, lending such notions renewed cosmic depth, and evolutionary purpose reminiscent of Teilhard de Chardin’s vision, Peirce’s (1958) agapeistic evolution (CP, v. 6. para 302) exposes Science’s reliance on metaphor, its feigned objectivity and predictive power, and the most regrettable race for other disciplines, such as Economics, to pose as “scientific”.

112  Maureen Ellis Attention to metaphor means a renewed interest in the individual developing consciousness, the sources of a learner’s beliefs and opinions, the power of conver(t)sation, the internal processing of what is presented to learners, the incremental absorption process. Most importantly, it means a deliberate move from the what and how to the why in all our analyses, constantly bringing the learner back to the foundations of his/her reasons and reasoning, the need for explanation and justification, for personal conviction and developing passion. It means unearthing the ethics beneath each choice, each decision, each affirmation of value, making these values explicit, and encouraging learners to sustain argument, seeing arg (Sanskrit aag) as the fire within. The curriculum is rich in ethical issues, and as science and engineering make life more complex, citizens tread a minefield, frequently unaware of the implications and consequences of purchases. Ingrained loyalty and faithfulness to one’s own discipline, causing a blind-spot, can, in fact, delay progress as global citizens. The combination of Critical Realism and Semiotics means that learning and teaching transcend disciplinary, cultural, geographic and professional borders. It means a focus on the learner’s consciousness, on the development of the learner’s imagination as an active site of being, having, doing. Learner autonomy means self-esteem as a constant star in all pedagogical practice, at every stage within and beyond education’s walls. Carved on the lintel of Jung’s home, the Delphic Oracle summarizes political efficacy – “Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit” – “Invoked or not invoked, the god will be present”. Uncovering gods, goods, and goodness as proper, common, collective, and abstract enunciations/annunciation of the Divine, requires coherence between formal and informal learning, internal and external, curricular and extracurricular activity. “When the god is not acknowledged, egomania develops, and out of this mania comes sickness” (Jung, cited in Read et al, 1973). I encourage my Open University students to apply all insights to their own developing self-consciousness. Critical reading involves the reader as (re)searcher, examining the sources being used to persuade, aware of the necessity yet limitations of ethnographic research. Understanding the ubiquitous nature of metaphor enables students to resist the narrowing colonization of metaphor, and through understanding of entailment, presupposition, and implicature, yields potential for overcoming such barriers. Semiotic analysis encourages the scrutiny of harmful metaphor, blended metaphors, and schema manipulation as in the portrayal of chemical giants like Monsanto as savior despite suicides and deaths of farmers in developing world contexts (Shiva, 2014). Semiotics distinguishes iconic signs from indexical reference and symbolic interpretation, immediate from dynamic objects and interpretants.

Global Citizenship Education 113 Thus, students see themselves as “texts” in “contexts”, recontextualizing third way “critique”; as products, actively engaged in or passively subject to processes, with varying power to determine the purposes which they serve. This means they are constantly aware of what processes are at work, whose purposes are being served, and their response-ability. As sacred “texts”, raised Lazarus-fashion to life and re-“levance” (French lever = to rise), Bakhtin’s hermeneutics values internal dialogue, personal evaluation, reasoning and, above all, the evidence for evolving individual interpretations. French anthropologist Dan Sperber and pragmatic linguist Dierdre Wilson (1986) reduce Paul Grice’s maxims of Quality, Quantity, Manner, and Relevance to just Relevance. For instance, Corpus linguistics, reliant on technology, a quantitative method at the more objective end of the spectrum of sociological fact-checking, encourages the more scientifically inclined students to undertake mixed methods research. Without analytical frameworks, teachers and teacher educators reliant on implicit agendas, shared ideological convictions and sincere commitment still lack critical transformational purchase. In an age plagued by mental disorder Alzheimer’s, commemoration and celebrity or what one might term “celiberation”, a genuine search for meaning and value beneath superficial trends and passing fashions will satisfy humanity’s yearnings the way a plant’s leaves search for sunlight while strengthening re(search) roots which seek water. BOSIO: Your critical global semiotics (Ellis, 2019) framework aims at “moving the agenda purposefully beyond educational walls from curriculum and campus to community and glo/cal communication”. Can you describe how you would design a curriculum for GCE that would engage students with the glo/cal community? Why is “glo/ cal” an important element in your framework? ELLIS: A systemic view allows for trans- and crossdisciplinary research, identifying the spatiotemporal, symbolic, sensorial, and material as four major modes and codes in the vast diversity of humanity’s ways of being, having, and doing. As students move constantly between the individual and the collective, the personal and the public, the long- and short-term, seeing the systems at work beneath surface developments, they should be encouraged to report and record on events in the wider community. Wise curriculum and pedagogy relate personal physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, and ethics to available information. accessible knowledge in these domains, making education a healthy interaction of educere and educare as in ancient Greece. As family and familiar (mis)fortunes center “investigative journalism”, project work integrates concerns related to social injustice, environmental damage, conflict, media (mis)management. Motivated interest in national and international NGOs, civil action, governance, and Government policy means global and local merge glocally.

114  Maureen Ellis Semioticians like Greimas offer us anthropologically sound tools of analysis which are simultaneously generative and can keep pace with change and development. Frameworks, such as Greimas’ semiotic square, his actant analysis grid, modality and multimodality frames are capable of application across the disciplines and await exploratory application. Semiotic frameworks can be introduced early in education, and developed gradually through primary, secondary, and tertiary (st)ages of study. They offer comprehensive, coherent unified foundations of a transdisciplinary curriculum, understanding cultural similarity and difference, whether at the level of disciplines, cultures, geographies or professions. The advantage of a semiotic approach would be the focus on citizens systematically acquiring disciplinary knowledge from kindergarten to Universe-city, sharing a critical multimodal base of fundamental linguistic concepts, such as narrator positioning, deixis, personification, tense, and aspect (Kirtchuk, 2008). For Greimas (1976), the process of enunciation, expression of a general communication predicament emerges from the deep psychosociological context, relating individuals to communicative and cultural memory. His logical model, the semiotic square, articulates the depth semantic structure of cultural artefacts, visually representing logicosemantic relations of complex terms. “Enonce”, annunciation, is the end result of a textualization process, moving from deep, latent noumena to manifest phenomena; from competence to performance, from being to doing (Greimas, 1976, p. 67). His canonical narrative process or generative trajectory traces Aristotelian logic from i) deep semiotic virtualities, abstract values, axiology, semes, or elementary significations of plot; through ii) intermediate semionarrative; to iii) surface discursive concrete and particular structure with distinct syntactic and semantic components. Greimas’ actantial analysis enlarges two-stage subject/object interactions of desire and power, assisted or opposed. A third relationship of sender, object, receiver, as the line of communication, encompasses mandate, action, and evaluation. Cognitive Linguistic theories of politeness, default mental networks, particularly Cognitive Metaphor theory, schema and schema blending can be graduated to learner capacity. Practical tools such as the semiotic square, actantial analysis, modality, transitivity, and discourse representation of speech and action, currently being developed in the enlarged, expanding field of Stylistics, together constitute rich bases for unified global curricula. Working at this metalinguistic level would also correct imbalances in the value societies place on verbal, visual, audio- and performative development. For examples of such attempts, see CGS where these tools are used in Literature, Art, Music, and Environmental Studies.

Global Citizenship Education 115 BOSIO: You

suggest that “Global Citizenship educators must refrain from settling for amateurish practice”, what do you mean exactly? In connection to this, what knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and experiences are teachers expected to nourish in order to foster the “global citizen”? ELLIS: I use the term “amateurish” in contrast to “mature”. It’s easy for pupils and students who have worked well in school projects to be disillusioned when they leave educational institutions. Indepth research discloses the complexity beneath global issues and prepares students to cross artificial disciplinary boundaries of current curricula. Degree inflation, overinvestment in education and “rather tenuous and complicated links” with “productivity” (Chang, 2010: 189) require serious redefinition or engender sore disappointment. Polite questions to guest speakers in educational contexts reveal gaps between political correctness, micropolicy and macropolitics. By “amateur practice”, I mean a warm, loving desire to improve the world which denies, dismisses, or overrides the powerful knowledge of one’s own discipline. One’s discipline and developing disciplinary expertise must serve constantly as the lens through which greater efficacy is achieved, turning theory into praxis. The educator of global citizens must enable students to use their disciplinary dispositions, knowledge, skills, values, and experiences in transdisciplinary collaboration. They must scour current affairs, news, media for content, and issues related to their discipline, enabling them to take “response-ability”. This demands a curriculum focused on real complex global situational learning, not relatively safe but innocuous hypothetical simulations. As early as possible, students can be involved in the research being conducted by their teachers, lecturers, professors, sharing passions, practicing the skills of fact-checking. Today’s technology allows for extensive collaboration, linking campus, and community with INGO agenda. A good example of “safe”, “innocuous” curriculum is curricular attention to personal finance even at senior school, rather than the skills required to understand banking, commercial, and financial practice in society, the role of insurance companies, government policy, tax legislation, and international exchange. Recent crises, dramatically featured in national news, reveal how inadequate our “experts”, even educators in maths faculties, are in explaining global disasters, let alone anticipating them, and the inevitable ignorance of the consumer-driven public. The fact that the fashion world is more environmentally destructive than all shipping and airline activity combined is a shameful indictment of society today in a world still riven with inadequate health and education provision. BOSIO:  Ultimately, what are three themes a higher education curriculum for GCE should include in your opinion?

116  Maureen Ellis ELLIS:  First,

a close interest and understanding of politics, seeing that all human endeavor is a matter of “power”, whether seen as innate, man-made, or God-given, a question of how we choose to direct and deploy our powers for a fair and just world. Early political literacy, an informed engaged polis, is vital to vigilant democratic monitoring of public service; everyday investigative journalists realize there is no logical way to be apolitical or nonpolitical. A semiotic curriculum which magnifies Word, i.e. one based on Linguistic anthropology, takes as focus Critical Discourse analysis within each discipline (medical, legal, political, social, religious, economic). It does NOT impose another subject, another agenda, another layer on the current curriculum. Global semioticians systematically unpick nominalizations (CP 6.452–521) – development, intellectual property, poverty, trade remedies – opaque mystifications which conceal agency; absent spatiotemporal specificity; inarticulate opposition; ambiguous modality; alienable possessives; generalizations selectively particularized by English articles; unmarked norms versus marked deviations; tabulated classification (itself an instrument of “technical” control). Clines, componential analysis, gradable antonyms, and semiotic squares dis-/uncover alternative governance. Secondly, respect for Word made flesh as breath, being, essence, expression, Einstein’s energy, multimodality performed, which spells accountability! Ability to decipher metaphor gifts humanity with supervision, vital physical and metaphysical integrity in critical discourse – semantic triangle or semiotic trinity of gold as authenticity; frankincense as genuine communication; and myrrh which addresses global pain. Logocentric love of language liberates metaphoric word-power relating token to type, source to target, figure to ground, material to ethereal, or mother care to father’s “busyness”. Understanding multimodality means reading the world beyond the word, seeing verbal, visual, performative metaphor, metaphysics, metareality at work. Literal rather than liberal reading indicates autism rather than authorship, authority, authenticity. Treated literally, words merely represent empty signs, text devoid of context, prison rather than prism. Time was when metaphysics was considered the queen of all the sciences, tying evidence, argument and justification whether through induction, deduction or abduction (Toulmin, 1969). Ancient, revered texts reveal successive renamings, fresh “baptisms” – metaphoric messages in time’s shifting sands, dirt, in-dust-ry – yet today there are those manipulated to take literally 2,000-year-old messages, spatiotemporally modified “passion of the cross”, a-“cross” several foreign “languages”. Citizens “catching the bus” or “taking the last train home”, enthusiastically agreeing “I see what you

Global Citizenship Education 117 mean”, should not be left to “figure” out this metaphoric power. Linguistic anthropologists, familiar with source ~ target, vehicle ~ tenor, figure ~ ground, recognizing multi- ~ trans-disciplinary cultural entextualization, actively trans-languaging, must enlighten global citizens. Suffused in metaphor, vital to expression, absorption, and abstract thought, “consumers” need to “drive” carefully, motor nerves as vital to mental health as material “vehicles”. GCE seeks as crucial the direction and purposes which drive the present system and ensures a deeper challenge; we need to move from the what and how to the why of education! “Critical” means a significant shift in assessment criteria, and funding, not only at the level of individual student work, but also in our assessment of institutions, and consequently funding, and explicit defining of what we value as impact. Multimodal intelligence challenges the dominance of the written word. Prior learning, social work, performative arts, innovative ICT, vlogging or podcasts, critique of policy, curriculum or practice, all constitute technologies for community outreach. Formative and summative self- and peer-evaluation, iportfolios, personal networks, collaborative teamwork, and public exhibition identify frequency, occasional, topical, peripheral, integrated, or embedded approaches. Evolving spatiotemporal criteria include spontaneity, online availability, interactivity, potential for global dissemination, transfer value, and transactional ‘use’ rather than ‘usage’ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007). Global, transdisciplinary semiotics leads us to note how meaning itself emerges, evolves, is multimodally managed, and involves powerful maneuvering, whether by advertising, commerce, finance, or powerful sociopolitics. Semiotics encourages citizens to identify shareholders from stakeholders, to monitor controlling factors, to discern shifts in meaning, which meanings are being advantaged, to whose benefit, and to note which voices are being ignored, suppressed, repressed, silenced. It invites us to challenge hegemony, “virgin assumptions”, presuppositions, unquestioned beliefs, takenfor-granted value systems, schema and scheming! What’s more, Semiotics offers analytical frameworks and practical tools which enable us to separate Psychology from Science and Sociolinguistics, yet see them working together in human development. In Hallidayan terms, this linkage of the Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual macrofunctions of language offer a holistic framework for understanding human communication, (w)hole community, holy communion. Thirdly, and related to this multimodality, an understanding of Soul as Spirit of Unconditional Loving, an appreciation that the greatest minds of our time, from Teilhard de Chardin, Einstein and Maxwell to Peirce, Bakhtin, and Jung have all pointed to spiritual power, the collective consciousness, the zeit geist. Psychotherapist

118  Maureen Ellis Jung, linguistic philosopher Bakhtin, anthropologist Lévi-Strauss (1972, p. 21) demonstrate that “If, as we believe to be the case, the unconscious activity of the mind consists in imposing form upon content, and if these forms are fundamentally the same for all minds – ancient and modern, primitive and civilized (as the study of the symbolic function, expressed in language, so strikingly indicates) – it is necessary and sufficient to grasp the unconscious structure underlying each institution and each custom, in order to obtain a principle of interpretation valid for other institutions and other customs, provided, of course, that the analysis is carried far enough”. Identifying salient properties of the mythical skate that captured the South Wind, Lévi -Strauss (1978, p. 7) finds, “So, there is really not a kind of divorce between mythology and science. … we are witnessing more and more that science is becoming able to explain not only its own validity but also what was to some extent valid in mythological thinking”. As commercial interests continue to exploit natural and epistemic Indigenous treasure, Universe-cities which claim to harvest universal truths, valuing the integrity of knowledge, promise respect in contrast to today’s biopiracy. Teilhard wrote of body and blood “internetted” as the Mass (scientific? religious? social?) on the World; Einstein writing to his daughter explained how Energy in his formula (baby food?) stands in lieu of the ultimate power of Love which the world was not ready to acknowledge, Maxwell’s used a “demon”, a thought experiment derived from sociology to demonstrate thermodynamics and electromagnetism. Peirce spoke of Agapeistic Evolution (CP, v.6. para 302), Bakhtin of the internally persuasive dialogue and, together with Jung’s collective consciousness, confirmed E.O. Wilson’s (1998) Consilience, the integrating of the Sciences in relation to individual “con-science”. More recently we have Rom Harre’s (2002) Positioning theory which should help us distinguish positioning from posturing, and Roy Bhaskar’s critical realist road to Eudaimonia. Peircean pragmaticist answers to today’s ills would empower global citizens and, like the best truths, can be adapted for delivery to any (st)age in life, enabling citizens to name (baptize) and seek verification, evidence, confirmation, or otherwise of their own experiences of Go(o)dness. BOSIO:  In closing, Maureen, you have a significant experience in teaching at university level in the UK. Why is or is not GCE necessary in the modern university, particularly in the UK? How can GCE be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in British universities? ELLIS:  I believe GCE is sacred in its humanist vision, but currently intellectually impoverished in its capacity to provide essential philosophical and theoretical justification. As long as these are absent, it will remain marginal, peripheral, uncoordinated, low in prestige, with

Global Citizenship Education 119 limited appeal, and predominantly a school-based project which does not threaten the status quo. GCE rests on the principle of each human being as a unit of moral worth, capable of active participation in reflective, deliberative democracies working toward global peace and harmony. Capacity-building would mean educators themselves need a deeper philosophical and theoretically sound base if they are to appeal across geography, cultures, professions, disciplines, modes and codes; that students are introduced early to motivating research projects which lecturers and faculty advertize, as “secret”, “sacred” academic, and professional truths generously shared with our disciples. This entails an honest acknowledgement that “neutrality” can mean “neutered”, that passion and compassion demand expression and justification, that bias can only be countered by practical analytical tools energetically exercised. It is important that research bodies like the ESRC only allocate funds to transdisciplinary problem-solving; that sufficient time is allowed for a thorough search prior to the funding stage, so that smaller projects are coherently related to larger and more comprehensive plans, avoiding duplication, fragmentation, and frenetic, futile research which devalues the “currency”; that international NGOs are involved in identifying needs and that global academic networks are strengthened. Research will electrify if it is seen to be directed to current affairs, real issues, complex yet urgent conflicts and contradictions. Protests like Extinction Rebellion are signs of youth politics, engagement which can be channeled into fueling arguments, educating media, supporting research, pressuring governments, challenging private enterprise. Universities need to collaborate with fire-fighting International NGOs identifying and locating critical research, and universities must be obliged to collaborate with NGOs according to their specialisms. Funding must be closely tied to long-term plans and accountable for impact. Good examples are available.

8.4 Conclusion This chapter has sought to highlight the essential need for theory in GCE; the importance of passion as power – in Greimasian terms, virtual potential actualized, then nurtured, realized, directed so as to unify product, process, and purpose; the vital role of disciplines as root and route to political efficacy; critical focus on political economy and cultural politics; and collaboration with international NGOs toward transformational goals. Describing Semiotic study as a comprehensive, coherent global approach to understanding cultural similarity and difference, across spatiotemporal borders, it has pointed to the advantage

120  Maureen Ellis of methodology and methods which can be systematically addressed across disciplines from kindergarten to Universe-city. Systemic Functional Semiotics, adopting fundamental trans-lingual concepts such as personification, tense, aspect and deixis can crosslinguistic barriers. Cognitive Linguistic theories of politeness, schema, and schema blending, default mental networks, particularly Cognitive Metaphor theory, and features of modality, transitivity, discourse representation of speech and action are supported by practical tools, such as the semiotic square, actantial analysis. Anthropological semiotic frameworks, currently being developed in the inclusive field of Stylistics, enable analysis across diverse global modes, media and modality. Truly vocational education crystallizes Vedic harmony, Sanskrit Rta, Greek Arête or excellence. Critical global education as Art. Evolving articles of faith, artists evidence emergent ecological post-cosmopolitanism, sustaining personal, professional, and political, individual and institutional integrity. Uniting locution, illocution and perlocution (Austin, 1975), “quaking” with awe, wonder and epistemic humility, constructing allegiances, and alliances, GCE asks each Friend to explore and enunciate “that of Go(o)d in YOU”. Extended arms passionately linking disciples to discipline in dharmic performance, acknowledging fresh doorways, whirling dervishes approach Mysterium Tremendum/ Mysterium Fascinans, Lord of the Dance.

References Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds.). (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1991). Dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (2nd edn; Trans. R. Gregor-Smith). Edinburgh: Clark. Burbules, N., & Torres, C. A. (eds). (2009). Globalisation and education: Critical perspectives (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Chang, H. (2010). 23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism. London: Penguin. Ellis, M. P. (2016). The critical global educator: Global citizenship education as sustainable development. London and New York: Routledge. Ellis, M. P. (2019). Critical global semiotics: Understanding sustainable transformational citizenship. London and New York: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin. Greimas, A.J. (1976) On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. Trans. Perron, P.J. and Collins, F.H. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Volume I: Reason and the rationalization of society and volume II: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press (originally published 1981).

Global Citizenship Education 121 Harre, R. (2002). Public sources of the personal mind: Social constructionism in context. Theory Psychology, 12, 611–623. Jaffe, A. (1979). C. J. Jung word and image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jewitt, C. (ed.). (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge. John 1:14, Holy Bible: King James Version. Jung, C. J. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Kant, I. (1781) (2000). Critique of pure reason (trans. Norman Kemp-Smith). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirtchuk, P. (2008). ‘LUIT: Language, a Unified and Integrative Theory’. Available at: (accessed 17 June 2019). Klein, N. (1999). No logo. New York: Random House. Klein, N. (1999, 2008). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. London: Penguin. Krause, J. (2010). European development education monitoring report: DE Watch. Brussels: DEEEP. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Langley, C., Parkinson, S., & Webber, P. (2008). Behind closed doors: Military influence, commercial pressures and the compromised university. Available online at (accessed 25 February 2020) Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York: Peter Lang. Available online at Sampler (accessed 25 February 2019). Lévi-Strauss, C. (1972). Structural anthropology (trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1978). Myth and meaning. London and New York: Routledge. Available at: (accessed 10 December 2020) Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). The Collected Papers (vols. I–VI, eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935 (vols. VII–VIII, ed. Arthur W. Burks) (same publisher, 1958). Read, H., Fordham, M., & Adler, G. (1973). Collected works of C.G. Jung: The first completed English edition. Princeton: Bollingen Series. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin. Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Shaxson, N. (2012). Treasure islands: Tax havens and the men who stole the world. London: Vintage. Shiva, V. (2014, 15 December). ‘Seeds of truth: Vandana Shiva and the New Yorker’, Independent Science News. Available online at www.independentsciencenews. org/unsustainable-farming/seeds-of-truth-vandana-shiva-new-yorker/(accessed 25 February 2015). Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1965). Hymn of the universe. New York: Harper & Row.

122  Maureen Ellis Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. UNESCO. (2014). Shaping the Future We Want: UN DESD final report. Available online at Weber, L. E., & Duderstadt, J. J. (2012). Global sustainability and the responsibilities of universities. Paris: Economica. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wittgenstein, L. (1922/2010). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Logischphilosophische Abhandlung. London: Keegan Paul. (Side-by-side-by-side edn, Version 0.21, published 2010, containing original German, alongside both the Ogden–Ramsey, and Pears–McGuinness English translations).


Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global Citizenship Education Miri Yemini

9.1 Introduction This chapter aims to highlight several important links between the concepts of internationalization, GCE, and neoliberalism in the context of higher education. I draw here on my previous research on each of these three topics and the intersections between them to offer some practical implications for scholars working and teaching in this area. First, I will set the scene for the discussion by briefly defining each of the concepts, then I will explore the possible links between each of them and the others, and list the possible implications of these connections for higher education system, and, finally, I will draw on several examples from Israel to suggest future directions for research and teaching. Internationalization is a widely debated and controversial concept, with prominent presence in strategies, policies, and declarations in the field of higher education, both within the institutions and at higher levels of governance at local, national, and global levels. While most of the scholarship in the field is using Jane Knight’s definition1 (Knight, 2004), which is rather narrow and pragmatically oriented, some of the critical scholarship problematizes the concerted direction of the process, and its decontextualized assertion, while offering spatial and humanistic definitions of the term (Larsen, 2016; Yemini, 2015). While internationalization is generally described and operationalized as a phenomenon at institutional or national levels which aimed to get the institutions the global outreach, GCE is depicted more as a process with implications for individual learners. I would argue that global citizenship can be conceptualized as an outcome of internationalization, or, in other words, GCE is the road to be taken by the learner to access a certain state of mind that can imply globally oriented disposition (acknowledgeable, proactive, and reflective). Similarly, to the internationalization discourse, the definition and the contents of GCE are highly contested. Various typologies were developed (some examples: Andreotti, 2011; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Veugelers, 2011)

124  Miri Yemini to exactitude the skills, contents, and activities expected from GCE, but no widespread agreement was achieved and scholarship in the area provides a rather dispersed understanding of the concept. GCE is sometimes perceived as an extension to national citizenship (Pashby, 2011), and a normalized notion of good-doing of the Global North for Global South (Andreotti, 2011). Most of the critiques of these two terms (internationalization and GCE) are embedded in the notion of the third concept that is in the focus of this chapter. Neoliberalism complies a general and all-encompassing term, which, broadly speaking, describes the belief in power relations that are sustained and developed through the unstructured and undirected self-balancing function of the market, where demand and supply of services, resources, and knowledge are managed according to the market forces. In general, neoliberalism can be referred to as a mode of governance, which prioritizes minimum state’s regulation and funding, allowing individuals to fulfil their wishes and wants based on the economic models of efficiency and individualism (Gerrard, Hursh, Lubienski, Rowe, & Skourdoumbis, 2019). In education, neoliberal approach claimed to be associated with privatization, commercialization, and commodification of education (Yemini & Gordon, 2017), which usually lead to less equal systems, where the universal right for education is harmed and even emptied from its original meaning. Internationalization and GCE are thus being critiqued for acting mainly according to the financial rationales, not being sensitive to less vulnerable parts of the local and global societies, and for preserving and reinforcing the global hegemonic power relations between the west and the rest, both globally and within the nation states (Pashby, 2011). Thus, within discussions of internationalization and GCE and their effects on society, much of the scholarship in the past decade has addressed its potential for widening social and economic gaps both on a global level and within countries and regions (Myers, 2016). Indeed, the research shows that internationalization (and GCE) can deepen social inequality through its impact on wages and opportunities for mobility (Bamberger, Morris, & Yemini, 2019). One way in which these ideas could potentially be coupled with neoliberal notions and expand social inequality within nation states is through the changes in the modern workplace and the expansion of the global labor market acting within the notion of neoliberalism. The modern, globalized workplace requires certain competencies and skills that only some institutions provide their students, either since these institutions possess more appropriate awareness and resources or due to the perceptions of educators that GCE is suitable for only certain kinds of students. These developments have led to a growing trend of policies and curricula seeking to advance internationalization of education so as to educate

Intersections of Neoliberalism 125 in compliance with GCE (which might be treated as an outcome of internationalization at the individual level). Education for Global Citizenship has emerged both in the literature and in practice under the assumption that education systems should be preparing students to be able to compete in the global workforce. However, this acceptance of the need to internationalize is not uniform within nations or even within schools and higher education institutions; differences in this regard could lead to further widening the gaps between students from different backgrounds in their ability to compete in this globalized, highly individualized society. Moreover, the skills-oriented approach of GCE is potentially harmful to the essence of GCE, which ideally would suggest moral dispositions and proactive desire to change the hegemonic power relations at various levels and not only to prepare graduates who would compete over the chance to participate in the existing hierarchies. Internationalization – or in other words, purposeful attempts to link with the broader world mainly through connections with other countries, languages, cultures, religions, and traditions – has become a norm in higher education institutions. Institutions of higher education are pressured by the neoliberal governance (at institutional and national levels) to prepare globalized graduates who are ready to engage with the globalized workplaces. In recent decades, institutions, and countries engage in internationalization due to financial and political reasons on top of academic and social ones. Moreover, the increasing levels of migration and certain counter-responses to globalization also create impetus for change; Universities (and schools to an increasing extent) thus must find a way to serve a heterogenous population while also seeking to develop empathy and mutual understanding as a sense of global citizenship or cosmopolitanism. Nowadays, the outcomes of internationalization at the individual level are mainly understood and practiced as an additional marker of privilege or as part of the broader transformations of education systems in light of the hegemonic neoliberal mindset that includes privatization, commodification, and marketization of education. Recent attempts by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to measure the outcomes of internationalization in the form of global competencies or similar terms (e.g. global citizenship, cosmopolitanism) may cause further curricular changes and system-level adjustments to conform to demands for internationalization, thus causing more inequality (Auld & Morris, 2019). In the discussion below, and based on my recent study of GCE in Israel (Goren & Yemini, 2016, 2017a; 2017b, 2018; Yemini, Tibbitts, & Goren, 2019), I would argue that while we must acknowledge the neoliberal spirit as a dominating force in Higher Education (HE), there are certain pedagogical and curricular steps that we as scholars and educators can take to ensure that GCE is given a true chance to be delivered as a transformative process, equally important for students and scholars.

126  Miri Yemini

9.2  Dialogue with Miri Yemini EMILIANO BOSIO:  What

is your understanding of GCE? How has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped the understanding of GCE? MIRI YEMINI:  This is a great question to start with. I guess my interest in GCE emerged through two parallel trajectories. First, it is my personal experience of exclusion that accompanies me from my childhood as the only Jewish girl in the class in a small provincial town in Ukraine, where experiences of antisemitism were common both from teachers and from fellow pupils. This experience was replicated in a way, when I was bullied for being Russian (as opposed to Jewish Israeli), in the Israeli classroom, again the only Russian origin student in a class full of Israeli kids, in the nineties, when my family escaped from the collapsing SSSR and found what it was seen to be a safe place in Israel. I guess this feeling is still prominent in times when I am struggling with English in my academic writing or trying to fit into the new environment while living in London and now in Berlin. This sense of permanent and prominent exclusion, which is experienced by so many people around the world, ignited my thought of a way to ease such experiences by developing a framework that will allow unconditional affiliation and I would argue that GCE might play this role in certain reality. Second, as an educator and a person who frequently travels internationally, not necessarily within the western world, I came to be aware of various meanings of agencies, expressed and experienced by young people, agencies of a potentially transformative nature that can change one’s own immediate environment but also foster wider transformations at global levels. I believe GCE can act as a facilitator for such agentic actions and thus make the change leading to more equal and just society possible. GCE for me means continuous selfreflection, knowledge of the past and present anchored through various narratives and contexts and proactiveness, enabling one’s agency. BOSIO:  The notion of global competence emerges in your description of GCE in ever-increasing globalized societies. What is global competence and how do you foster global competence in your students in the classes that you teach currently and taught in the past? YEMINI:  Global competence is a term that used by OECD, addressing the “the capacity to examine local, global, and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and worldviews of others, to engage in open, appropriate, and effective interactions with people from different cultures, and to act for collective wellbeing and sustainable development” (OECD, 2018). I would argue that global competence might encompass the practical skills that are related to GCE, but it should be used with great caution, since these proposed skills may be culturally biased and contextually complex. In my graduate module taught at Tel Aviv University and

Intersections of Neoliberalism 127 called “Global dimensions in education”, I aim to engage with students in a way that will provide them an adequate toolbox enriched with deep theoretical understanding of the field, supplemented with insightful examples and with capabilities to understand various situations and critically reflect on that understanding. For example, some of the sessions in my class are designed and led by students themselves and the students are required to explain and provide an actual experience of various situations that these future education leaders might encounter in their classrooms. BOSIO:  Do you see links between how GCE is being taught in schools and in higher education? YEMINI:  I will argue for a rather optimistic view to the possible future of internationalization and its outcome (e.g. GCE) using the example of compulsory education. Perhaps, this can constitute a first attempt to import several insights developed in this field in the school sector, to higher education, while, till now, most of the imports have been processed in the opposite direction (from higher education to schools). I argue that the trickling down of internationalization into local schools might actually offer some practical means to tackle inequality. Moreover, I suggest that in addition to the mounting critiques of the structural injustice that might be apparent when schools engage in internationalization, some attention should be devoted to the school agency (i.e. that of teacher-heads, teachers, parents, community members, and students) that might be enacted explicitly or implicitly, thus allowing some room for outcomes other than those often expected. Therefore, research into such agentic practices and telling the story of resilience within internationalized schooling might forge a path toward a more nuanced understanding and practice of internationalization in various contexts. Correspondingly, I would like to point out some contradictions in the common assumptions and starting points of this field of research. I argue that in practice, internationalization appears more commonly than usually acknowledged in schools and communities serving communities of lower socioeconomic status, due to the higher cultural, ethnic, and political heterogeneity of the population in these localities. At such schools, pupils more often encounter “the other” than in more privileged and sometimes more isolated settings. If internationalization is about interactions with “the other,” then such encounters most likely happen spontaneously in less privileged school settings. I suggest that efforts to better understand and conceptualize these processes of “internationalization from below” might bring into the field the much-needed fresh theoretical base and, consequently, policies informed by the need for more equal grounds.

128  Miri Yemini Moreover, it seems that measures of surging nationalism (e.g. Fundamental British Values in the UK, the new citizenship curriculum in Israel) are coupled with the even more urgent desire of countries to lead internationally, which, in turn, contributes to the curriculum globally oriented contents. Future research may address these two trends less as contradictory or sovereign, but rather as interwoven and even synergic, as governments pursue both of these goals. This conceptualization adds more complexities to the field of internationalization research (e.g. regarding internationalization at Russian schools, see Pevzner, Rakhkochkine, Shirin, & Shaydorova, 2019). The internationalization discourse usually involves market-based notions stemming from the higher education industry, including university rankings, students’ levels of mobility, and the race for dominance within the field. Internationalization in higher education seems to be driven by economic considerations, alongside several local interpretations on the role of the state (as in Israel, Cuba, or China; see Bamberger et al., 2019). If schools are imitating universities and exclusive elite international schools when aiming to internationalize, then accordingly the latter may look for other positional advantages to differentiate them, perhaps becoming more nationally oriented. Indeed, Rachel Brooks and Waters (2015) documented such a development at elite British schools, which advertise their facilities to international pupils by stressing the local English space they offer. In another study, we showed that globally mobile professionals succeed in cultivation strategies through parenting oriented to certain forms of nationalism (Maxwell & Yemini, 2019). Having said that, we do see the sincere attempts of some schools, educational leaders, teachers, and parents to address this new landscape with agency, challenging the existing schemes of internationalization. For example, a school serving mainly refugee families in Israel developed pedagogies of care to address the needs and life circumstances of these children, leading to some real successes (Dvir, Aloni, & Harari, 2015). GCE can take postcolonial and critical means, despite the urging machinery of neoliberalism. As such processes are taking place in schools, we might anticipate seeing, documenting, and investigating similar processes in the higher education system. BOSIO: Can GCE represent an educational approach that positively addresses issues related to refugee families, for example, in Israel? YEMINI: Migration is no longer an exceptional condition but rather a reality in many classrooms around the world. Forced migration, brought hundreds of thousands of young people, potentially inspired to attend higher education institutions in reception countries and programmes for successful integration in higher education have been developed by European Commission, individual EU countries like Germany and in other regions as well (Turkey, Canada).

Intersections of Neoliberalism 129 The experience of refuge-seeking individuals, families, and communities is affecting every sphere of life, including that of education. Successful integration is challenging and within the efforts made by institutions, I argue that GCE might serve as a useful tool for the incoming students and for the local students as well. The aim to educate toward common (global) identity, which is fully aware of and taking the responsibility for and acting proactively to tackle the reasons behind the forced migration (climate changes, colonial past, current wars) may potentially positively contribute to the absorption process. In Israel, most of the attempts have been made at school level, with some successful examples for integration (see Dvir, Aloni, & Harari, 2015). Such experience can potentially be transferred to HE. I argue that GCE can be used not only as a means for better assimilation, but also as a way for local students to benefit from knowledge and experiences brought up by the students with refugee backgrounds. GCE potentially can facilitate effective two-way communication, while decreasing the differences between individuals and groups. BOSIO:  Miri, you have significant experience in teaching global citizenship-related subjects and researching on the topic of GCE at the university level in Israel and beyond. Why is or is not GCE necessary in the modern university, particularly in Israel? YEMINI:  It seems that universities in Israel and all over the world are working in an increasingly competitive environment, heavily influenced by continuous financial cuts and the pressures to perform well on international rankings. While the research-oriented traditional faculty is pressured to mainly perform well on research-related measures, most of the teaching in higher education is left to adjunct faculty, who usually work in precarious conditions, on several jobs, without any prospective for secure and fair employment contracts. These adjunct faculty in practice are mainly responsible for teaching toward GCE and in many programmes, the conditions are just impossible to perform this task. I believe that universities cannot wash off their responsibilities for developing society in a broader sense and thus GCE should indeed be thoroughly incorporated into the curricula, all over the campus. In addition, appropriate conditions should be assured to the teaching staff, so that proactivity, independent thinking, commitment to long processes instead of short-term results, etc., to ensure that GCE is applied in the best possible way. Then GCE would become one of the tools that make our society better. BOSIO:  What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators toward GCE in higher education, particularly in Israeli universities? YEMINI: The vagueness of the term contributes to the array of mixed attitudes toward GCE in HE. Mainly the dissonance exists between

130  Miri Yemini the functionalist and the ideological approaches, where functionalist approaches are focused on the skills to cope in a globalized workplace, while ideological approaches focus on a more comprehensive worldview, including education for proactiveness. I reckon that in Israel, the functionalist approach is dominant, especially in first-tier research-intensive universities. Sometimes ideological approaches can be witnessed in second-tier institutions, where the demands for academic excellence are buffered by the social missions of the institutions and where students many times are nontraditional (first-generation, immigrants, geographical periphery, adult students) (Yemini, 2017). BOSIO: How can education for global citizenship be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in Israeli universities? What knowledge, skills, values, dispositions and experiences are graduates expected to acquire in order to become global citizens? YEMINI: GCE can bring aboard some real benefits to the Israeli students. Countries engaged in intractable conflict may be especially concerned about the possible perils of global citizenship, and they may forego GCE for fear that it may threaten their sovereignty. As a country located in the midst of intractable conflict, GCE can, in fact, function as a bridge toward the “other” situated in a similar conflict and, thus, prompt peace-oriented approaches, especially amongst students who will implement and further disseminate these approaches in their future careers. BOSIO: You are suggesting that “the modern, globalized workplace requires certain competencies and skills that only some educational institutions provide their students”. What do you mean by “only some educational institutions”? Is GCE in the modern university, particularly in Israeli universities, more about knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, or some combination of all four in your opinion? YEMINI:  I think that the expansion of higher education, which brought a much more diverse student body to the academia, placed the universities in a problematic position, where they need to cope with students that are not sharing anymore the tacit knowledge of the basics of academia, which was obvious for the student cohort thirty years ago. With the rise in the demand for higher education, second-tier institutions experienced significant development, and the older and more established institutions had to struggle with financial cuts and increasing all against all competition, over students, staff, and resources. Such transformation of the system, and in parallel, the changes in students’ composition, forced the higher education institutions into struggles over their identities and their visions of their prospective students. Furthermore, institutions that are mainly serving first-generation students, located away from the main cities might decide to focus on more practical issues, especially related to academic outcomes,

Intersections of Neoliberalism 131 to testing regimes in professions where national exams are required (law, teaching, etc.). In such cases, GCE might be labelled as irrelevant, abstract and nonuseful for such students, when I would reckon that the opposite is true. This is especially the case for heterogenous classrooms both in schools and higher education. There students meet “the other” and engage with each other on a daily basis, thus allowing a great opportunity for change to happen. BOSIO:  How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, disposition) be identified? YEMINI:  I think we should stay away from the obsessive need of measuring and ranking everything that became so common in the field of education in recent decades. GCE is a process that aims to interfere with the students’ disposition and their future behaviors. I would base most of the assessment on the self-reporting and self-reflecting practices when the pedagogical approach is based on students’ proactiveness and continuous processes of learning incorporated and implemented through the whole programme. BOSIO:  What are three themes a higher education curriculum for GCE should include in your opinion? YEMINI:  To choose three themes is not an easy task, but I would suggest that these would be (1) in terms of curricula – at least one language class on top of English should be taught in each programme, issues related to environment-related education should be incorporated in each programme and issues related to hierarchies of power and knowledge should be addressed; (2) in terms of pedagogy – I believe that GCE can be effective if proactive, students’-led initiatives would be incorporated in the curricula, followed by strong staff commitment to students’ support; (3) finally, in terms of the role of GCE in HE teaching, I believe that to be meaningful, it must be supported by the institutions’ missions and visions.

9.3 Conclusion To conclude, in this chapter, I tried to highlight the connections between three themes that are dominating the HE discourses in recent years. While neoliberalism, internationalization, and GCE are distinct and quite different concepts, their implementation, and implications in higher education is interwoven and blended. Through the introduction and the discussion above, I argue that while internationalization and GCE have been accused and sometimes used within the neoliberal point of view, the educators may develop agency to interact with these processes, by creating a sound alternative for their learners. Such an alternative has to be developed jointly by the faculty and students, in a fully knowledgeable system, where theoretical underpinning of GCE is anchored in the contemporary discourse over the means and implications of GCE.

132  Miri Yemini In an open and continuous process, where all the participating actors are actively involved, the higher education system can offer a real transformation. GCE can be part of this process which will develop graduates who will fight for more equality and just society locally and globally. In addition, I would argue that students should be treated as full partners in this process, when questions about subjectivity and action are posited. Writing as a scholar teaching in a conflict-ridden country (Israel), I must be critical about my own assumptions and standpoints. It happens often when teaching about internationalization in mixed classes with Jewish and Muslim students, who represent competing narratives regarding citizenship and its possible global extensions.

Note 1 The process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of postsecondary education (Knight, 2004:11).

References Andreotti, V. D. O. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 381–397. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2019). Science by streetlight and the OECD’s measure of global competence: A new yardstick for internationalisation? Policy Futures in Education, 17(6), 677–698. Bamberger, A., Morris, P., & Yemini, M. (2019). Neoliberalism, internationalisation and higher education: Connections, contradictions and alternatives. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 1–14. Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2015). The hidden internationalism of elite English schools. Sociology, 49(2), 212–228. Dvir, N., Aloni, N., & Harari, D. (2015). The dialectics of assimilation and multiculturalism: The case of children of refugees and migrant workers in The Bialik-Rogozin School, Tel Aviv. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(4), 568–588. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2016). Global citizenship education in context: Teacher perceptions at an international school and a local Israeli school. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(5), 832–853. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017a). Global citizenship education redefined – A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 170–183. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017b). The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perceptions of the relationship between global citizenship education and students’ socio-economic status. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 9–22. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2018). Obstacles and opportunities for global citizenship education under intractable conflict: The case of Israel. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(3), 397–413. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.

Intersections of Neoliberalism 133 Larsen, M. A. (2016). Internationalization of higher education: An analysis through spatial, network, and mobilities theories. London: Springer. Maxwell, C., & Yemini, M. (2019). Modalities of cosmopolitanism and mobility: Parental education strategies of global, immigrant and local middle-class Israelis. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 1–17. Myers, J. P. (2016). Charting a democratic course for global citizenship education: Research directions and current challenges. Education policy analysis archives, 24(55–59), 1–16. Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. Pashby, K. (2011). Cultivating global citizens: Planting new seeds or pruning the perennials? Looking for the citizen-subject in global citizenship education theory. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 427–442. Pevzner, M., Rakhkochkine, A., Shirin, A., & Shaydorova, N. (2019). Internationalization of schools in Russia. Policy futures in education, 17(6), 715–731. Rowe, E., Lubienski, C., Skourdoumbis, A., Gerrard, J., & Hursh, D. (2019). Exploring alternatives to the ‘neoliberalism’ critique: New language for contemporary global reform Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 40(2),147–149. Veugelers, W. (2011). The moral and the political in global citizenship: Appreciating differences in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 473–485. Yemini, M. (2015). Internationalisation discourse hits the tipping point: A new definition is needed. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19(1), 19–22. Yemini, M. (2017). Internationalization under intractable conflict: The influence of national conflict on Israeli higher education institutions’ internationalization efforts. European Education, 49(4), 293–303. Yemini, M., & Gordon, N. (2017). Media representations of national and international standardized testing in the Israeli education system. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(2), 262–276. Yemini, M., Tibbitts, F., & Goren, H. (2019). Trends and caveats: Review of literature on global citizenship education in teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 77–89.

Part III

Flourishing, Awareness, Responsibility, Participation, and Humanism as the Underpinning for Global Citizenship Education

10 Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education William Gaudelli

10.1 Introduction Globalization, or the compression of time and space in many aspects of daily life, has contributed to any number of existing problems, from exacerbating global warming to increasing income inequality to the proliferation of weapons technology to increasing insecurity of being online, to name just a few. Globalization has also created distinctive advances, including the ability to move and communicate more easily, the intersections of discourse and engagement in ways that were previously limited along with the ability to understand how actions in one part of the world have consequences in myriad elsewheres. There is no easy way to broadly reconcile the balance sheet of what globalization has wrought, for ill and for good, and this calculus is certainly beyond any simple description. But a plus/minus analysis of globalization does suggest an underlying belief that society can and should improve, both for individuals and in aggregate. This may seem to be a matter-of-fact statement about the world today, though in historical contrast, it is noteworthy. In feudal systems, there was not a shared sense that social conditions could or ought to improve; rather, one’s station in life – say as a lord, peasant, or knight – was just that. The idea that an individual or group could improve that position was not part of feudal discourse. Life was something to be endured rather than improved, which explains the omnipresence of churches and ecclesiastical artwork, since life after death offered the only hope of betterment, assuming one’s life was pious and obedient. Modernity, an epoch closely associated with the 20th and 21st centuries, dramatically altered these outlooks, giving preference to novelty over tradition and the present/future over the past. Today, the idea that an individual can improve their situation and promote development among others is widely, if not universally, shared as a norm. Most would not find the claim that “more people can and ought to live a fulfilling and meaningful life” controversial; indeed, most view it as affirming something inherently human. Thomas Pogge, taking up this broad criterion of social life, arguing for the utility of human flourishing in development and

138  William Gaudelli justice on a global scale (Pogge, 2012). Human flourishing has accrued meaning over the last seven decades and arguably since the ancients as its antecedent, eudaimonia, was theorized by Aristotle. When a person flourishes, s/he is fully realizing her/his talents and capacities in ways that are beneficial to themselves and to society. Flourishing is a challenging criterion by which to judge development and societies, especially in the context of globalization. Flourishing is necessarily broad so as not to be readily translatable into benchmarks and standards for how people and societies live and develop. Pogge (2012) argues that the criterion of human flourishing has meaning for ourselves, for the judgment of others, as well as for the social institutions that operate socially. In the case of our own lives and the lives of those around us, he points to four dimensions of flourishing, including experience, success, character, and achievements as suggestive, though not comprehensive, for what it entails. Experience refers to activities that are “enjoyable, intense, interesting, rich, and diverse,” offering a thin interpretive layer upon which myriad activities can occur, from snow-boarding to book reading to academic conference-going (p. 35). The experience dimension demonstrates the inherently perspectival nature of flourishing, such that a person might find fulfilment in snowboarding while another would view this activity as torturous, so no ready standard of “doing that” would ever be sufficient. Too, since desirable experiences are as varied as the people having them, agency and autonomy undergird the concept or the choice-making that inherits within what divergently constitute fulfilling experiences. Success has strong social norms associated with it, such as having financial wellbeing and living well in a community of others. These attributes are highly dependent on context since one person’s economic fulfilment might be viewed by another as barely tenable. Pogge (2012) addresses this incongruous situation in arguing that all people should have access to a baseline of economic wellbeing, or what he refers to as a “minimally adequate share” of food, drink, clothing, shelter, and basic health care along with education, freedom of movement, and access to economic participation (p. 44, 55). Here again, the concept of flourishing represents a thin baseline that equips all people with the ability to grow and develop, rather than a prescriptive one that exceeds minimum standards. Success, like the dimension of experience, has both internal and external qualities. A person may be viewed as a success by others but have an inner experience that is one of desperation and want, such that external markers of success alone cannot constitute what it means to flourish. Character, according to Pogge (2012), is constituted by “a person having admirable aims and ambitions, virtuous maxims and dispositions, noble feelings and emotions” (p. 35). These characteristics are closely associated with intentions, or from what basis one acts in the world

Flourishing and Global Citizenship 139 and toward what ends. Care for others, concern about the community, acting for development of social good, all of these illustrate flourishing in the domain of character. This aspect of flourishing underscores the importance of ethics within people and in society, such that a condition of our flourishing is bound up by the interdependency of other people’s flourishing. Achievements are the outcomes associated with having strong character, or what one is recognized for as ethical and important contributions to one’s society, to the world. Here again Pogge (2012) contends that character and achievement cannot be separated from each other, since one can achieve for doing good in the world, but having done so with treachery and larceny in one’s heart rather than with “virtuous maxims”. Flourishing requires, then, goodness of intentions as well as outcomes. Each of these dimensions—experiences, success, character and achievement— is sufficiently contextual, perspectival and ambiguous as to create uncertainty that shades the whole of human flourishing. Pogge (2012) acknowledges this problem and points to the importance of autonomy as a guide to balancing the relative importance of these four dimensions. “To accept the autonomy of another, however, means to accept her measure of human flourishing” (p. 36; italics in original). Thus, from the perspective of any one individual, it is a respect for autonomy that generates a sense of purpose of one’s own making. Temporally, then, flourishing would also need to be examined in light of prospective and retrospective domains. The prospective, or what should be frontloaded to support flourishing among youth, would be oriented by experiences and character since these are generative and ethical dimensions that help one to act meaningfully and virtuously in the world. The retrospective, or what can be used to evaluate one’s life and impact at a later age, would fall more to the realm of success and achievement, as it would be unrealistic to hold these up for assessing the life of a young person. Flourishing, as described above, focuses mainly on our own lives and those of people around us, yet it also has bearing on social institutions and policies. Pogge (2012) examines the social aspect as part of his thinking about justice, or what could be simplified as equitable treatment, or giving to each to what they are due. In the realm of social institutions and policies, again, the aim is to articulate a thin, or minimal standard, by which social institutions operate to create conditions for flourishing, or what he calls “a measure of low specificity” (p. 56). He raises concerns about paternalism or the belief that allowing government or some governing entity to articulate standards, even of a minimal type, might lapse into paternalistic overreach about how people ought to live their lives. Pogge (2012) defaults toward a thin conception or a modest universal threshold of justice that allows for myriad justice systems now operating

140  William Gaudelli in the world, to create alternative processes toward equitable treatment yet still grounded in a conception of flourishing. Human rights discourse is the closest equivalent to what Pogge (2012) offers as a conception of justice that enacts human flourishing as its core value. In the various traditions of human rights, from the civic and political participation dimensions typical of Western countries, or first-order human rights, to the social and economic rights, or second-order human rights, moving toward tertiary conceptions such as those related to ecological preservation, cultural heritage, and sustainability, all of these in aggregate represent a thin conception of rights that all people everywhere ought to enjoy. Pogge (2012) shifts his attention in examining flourishing to the prevalence of poverty in the world since its effects do enormous harm to those affected by poverty. The presence of severe poverty, currently identified as those having a proportional spending power of less than 1.90 USD a day, affects over 9% of the world’s population or just under 689 million people, indicates that millions of people are not able to live full and satisfactory lives that allows them to thrive (World Bank 2020). Eradicating extreme poverty, which is Goal 1 of the Sustainable Development Goals, 2015-30, is necessary to set baseline conditions of human flourishing and while progress has been made on this benchmark since 1990, backsliding due to the COVID-19 pandemic will be significant (World Bank, 2020). In light of the full conception of flourishing examined above, however, even the Herculean task of eliminating poverty would fall short since attaining a minimum of material standards alone would be insufficient grounds for flourishing (Zetter, 2015). The remainder of this chapter focuses on my efforts and thinking about practicing this conception of flourishing in GCE. Two questions focus my thinking – What does it mean to be a flourishing person in the world? Relatedly, how does one educate for a flourishing world?

10.2  Dialogue with William Gaudelli EMILIANO BOSIO: 

What is your understanding of GCE? Particularly, how has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped this understanding? WILLIAM GAUDELLI:  Education for global citizenship, if followed to its logical extension, is coequal to education. The concept of “being educated” inheres within it a knowledge of one’s social conditions as a social being. And too, the idea that one is educated also presumes that one belongs to that social system, and, therefore, has the capacity to act to address problems with others. Both of these concepts – social belonging and engagement – sit at the core of what it means to be educated for global citizenship, and generally, what it means to be educated at all. Being educated in a narrow and overly technical sense is akin to knowing just what is in front of you or

Flourishing and Global Citizenship 141 the immediate situation that confronts a person. But in the broader social sense of education, knowing is a connected and interdependent way of being. John Dewey described the notion of interest in this way, beyond the narrow and toward the broadly social, when he writes about education as the “inter-esse” (inter-being, or -esse as the Latin form of “being”) of oneself to the world (Dewey, 1913). I came to understand this not so much from reading Dewey as much as through my own experience as a teacher. I began teaching a high school course called Comparative World Studies in 1990. The course focused on contemporary global issues around four themes – cultural diversity, human rights, geopolitics, and environmental issues. A guiding precept of the course was to illuminate how seemingly distant events and issues were linked to the lives of students. This theme was developed consistently throughout all of the focus topics – whether it was our study of the War in Kuwait, the Bosnian War, the HIV-AIDS pandemic, climate change, deforestation or the tactics of torture and extrajudicial killings by authoritarian regimes. All of these issues were drawn back to and connected with the lives of students so they could see the linkages that made them inter-beings. The course also included a civic dimension in that once knowing these points of connectivity, students were expected to act to address the issues that most resonated with them – from letter-writing campaigns on behalf of political prisoners to stream cleanups to calling for legislative action to address global warming. Looking back on that experience, it helped me solidify what it means to be educated – to know one’s place in and connectivity to the world and to act to address the issues encountered therein. Human flourishing was not a concept I had encountered at that point in my teaching, though I think it latently informed the way that I came to understand Deweyan thinking in practice. Understanding one’s presence in the world, how wider events and issues are shaping our times and how we could engage on those same concerns made this clearer. An important part of what it means to be human is to grasp the interdependence of our lives, to be educated not in a merely technical or functional sense, or learning for a test, credit or credential, toward a socially grounded learning or learning for life. The former way of thinking, one I encountered in many instances, was off-putting to me and I eventually came to understand why that is; as it inheres, among other qualities, a de-agented position that denies agency of the learner. My journey toward GCE is also connected to many travel experiences, ones in which I led students or those for my own research and scholarship. These afforded myriad learnings in the moments of contrast and similarity in diverse places. I often point to my exchange program with a school in St. Petersburg, Russia that I organized in 1992 with a colleague as a pinnacle event in my learning. The one-month visit in Russia that included an extended three-week homestay with a Russian family

142  William Gaudelli during a very challenging period of political and economic upheaval was instrumental in forming my outlook of what it means to be in the world. The most vivid aspect of this exchange program was my stay with a Russian couple, secondary teachers in St. Petersburg. They lived a very challenging existence in terms of material wellbeing, often lacking food while experiencing hopelessness about the future. We were approaching Easter weekend toward the end of my time there. My hosts asked me what I missed most from home and I made a colossal error of saying I missed citrus fruits. By the weekend, they delivered on their promise with four oranges, though I soon learned that it took them a day of shopping throughout the city and a month’s wages to deliver these gifts. I felt great shame in asking and apologized profusely but I also gained an important insight into the precariousness of economic life and how I took for granted the material abundance I had access to at home. I tried going to the grocery store on my return, confronted by vast amounts of fruit and left the store in disgust. BOSIO:  What are three key elements of GCE in the modern higher education institution? GAUDELLI: Higher education has increasingly taken on the responsibility, at least in the context of the US, to engage young people in GCE. This is due in part to the relative scarcity of the discourse in P-12 US education since curriculum there is much more focused on US history, citizenship, and other discipline-based subject areas. Universities have worked to fill this gap, though they have purposes above and beyond simply creating globally oriented students, namely attracting non-US students to study and inviting donors from a wider geographic region. The legacy of internationalizing higher education dates back to Erasmus of Rotterdam, the 16th Century scholar who travelled Europe and whose legacy is marked by an inter-European mobility program founded in 1987 (Dolby and Rahman 2008). Academic mobility, for scholars and students, turned in the 20th Century to a geopolitical angle as states like the US, USSR, and Australia sought to bring countries into their spheres of influence through this mechanism (Dolby and Rahman 2008). The contemporary scene is somewhat different in that many US universities see themselves less as agents of the nation and more in light of their humanistic mission on campus coupled with an aim to maintain or grow an economic foundation. More recently, there has been a deterioration among US universities of global engagement as an institutional priority, with a drop from 60% of universities including it in their strategic plan in 2006 to 47% by 2017 (Fischer, 2019). The aftermath of COVID-19 will surely underscore this inward-turning trend. Three key elements of education in the context of higher education include educators, experiential learning, and a diverse student

Flourishing and Global Citizenship 143 body. The focus of each area is somewhat different in that academic coursework is most likely to contribute to knowledge formation of students whereas the presence of a diverse student body contributes more directly to the skills and dispositions of what it means to be a global citizen in an experiential sense. The formal curriculum, or what is offered in courses, presents the most obvious place to introduce a wider spectrum of knowledge and perspectives to students. Undergraduate students in our global citizenship program at Lehigh University, for example, take a variety of identified courses in a wide-range of disciplines intended to broaden and deepen their knowledge about different places, people, and events in the world. These academic courses serve as a foundation for their learning while also providing opportunities to extend into experiences, ideally while being experiential themselves. The knowledge gained here ideally resonates in the field experiences that become part of their learning as well. Experiences constitute the second key component to global citizenship as students participate in a range of activities, from extended study-abroad periods to intensive offsite fieldwork to global conferences and excursions. These points of exposure are significant as they illuminate the everyday circumstances in being elsewhere in the world and provide glimpses of conditions in the wider world. While travel alone does not create global citizens, it is integral to broadening one’s perspective through interactions that challenge assumptions about daily life. Moving in the world requires students to become more facile with regard to their skills of interactions and reading a physical space as they will often be working outside of their home language context. This hopefully contributes to a sense of humility as they begin to see that their outlook is not universally shared while their challenges in navigating an unfamiliar space may spark empathy for others similarly situated. Lastly, diversity of the student body oncampus is vital to developing global citizens. Studying alongside a diverse peer-group is perhaps the most critical of all of these aspects since when people learn together they are in fact growing together while becoming more interdependent. A discursive context of give-and-take, be it in classrooms, over meals or in other conversations, creates unplanned learning that can inform all who participate. This interpersonal dimension of learning on university campus also helps build the confidence of university students to converse in different languages, developing work-arounds for times when they are not being understood and exploring the life worlds of their peers. A diverse student body also contributes to student knowledge as they learn about others through direct experience. This generates insights into places where visiting students are from along with the places they find

144  William Gaudelli themselves in as mobility students. And it also grows a disposition of openness to others and their experiences in a way that a nondiverse student body is unlikely to achieve. These conditions also create the grounds for human flourishing (Pogge, 2012). I draw on this principle in my thinking about GCE since it speaks to a deep need among people to live fulfilling lives. Education is the means by which people flourish as they come into fuller knowledge of themselves and their social situation. Through education, people can realize their fullest potential while witnessing conditions where others are denied access to education, and thus the right to flourish. An empathic reaction to this awareness can also lead to a commitment to act in the world in solidarity with others, to expand the conditions that help people flourish, education among those attributes. BOSIO:  What does the “right to move” suggest in the context of flourishing? How does flourishing relate to GCE? GAUDELLI: I became interested in movement as an issue primarily through travel and experiences outside of one’s immediate surroundings. I recall when I first started moving in the world the sense of alienation that I initially experienced, a feeling of otherness about the differences in daily life that I witnessed. But with increasing exposure to living outside one’s norm diminished this reaction greatly to a point now where I experience very little culture shock. Where earlier I felt a keen sense of not belonging, due to the initial strangeness of language, symbols, and activities, I increasingly felt more at home wherever I happened to be. The ease of seeing myself elsewhere led me to wonder more about what it means to belong and how this is commingled with physical places. In earlier centuries – and still in some places – the right to move freely was highly restricted so as to limit who moved beyond and where they could go. This created, perhaps unintentionally, a sense that those who were of a place both belonged to it and had a subsequent right to the place, wardens in a sense over those coming and going. While I respect that broad understanding and recognize the imperialist overhang of a past where those from the West trampled upon the rights of others to live peacefully on their land, I also imagine a time where the place one occupies moves away from exclusion and toward inclusion. This is particularly poignant when thinking about the current border conflicts related to economic migrants, like the situation playing out on the US southern border with immigrants from Central America. In light of the principle of human flourishing, afforded to all people regardless of the randomness of their birth, then the right to move suggests some form of world where borders are permeable and perhaps eventually nonexistent. This seems like a radical

Flourishing and Global Citizenship 145 suggestion in the current context and given the political rhetoric of today, yet the same could be said of early 20th Century Europe, which has now become in effect a borderless continent. This state would be unimaginable in the context of Medieval Europe, or even early 20th Century Europe, and yet it has indeed happened. I think this points to both the deterioration of the singularity of sovereign states, tightly bound, and a more fluid sense of borders that eventually, hundreds of years hence, disintegrates in any meaningful sense. Could a global polity be far behind? I recently read an article in the New York Times about the emergence of an European identity (Bennhold, 2019). In the article, a variety of people were interviewed and the contested nature of what “Europe” means was well illustrated, with a German professor saying Europe represented freedom, an Italian grandmother saying it was slavery and a French electrician indicating that it meant nothing. The idea of a polity having uncertain adherents is not altogether different from what early nations experienced in regard to making people believe they were part of something larger than themselves or part of a state. Eugen Weber’s classic work Peasants into Frenchmen (Weber 1976) illustrates this process poignantly and curiously the same themes of freedom, slavery, and nothingness are present in the making of the 19th Century French state. But what was most striking about the New York Times pieces was a picture taken on the streets of Naples with a demonstration by the Prima L’Italia, a far-right party. In the image, there are three people standing on a platform looking down on passersby, in the foreground, a young, black man passing the demonstration. The look of disdain on the face of the women on the platform is unmistakable as she literally and figuratively looks down on the young man as his face evokes uncertainty and anxiety. The image caused me to think – What right does this person have to believe that this other person does not have a right to live in this place? That seems to me the crux of the issue of movement and I believe that these concepts will increasingly be reconstructed as the 21st Century will be one of even greater migration than the previous centuries, particularly due to the loss of land due to climate change and the inundation and subsequent dislocation of many of the most economically vulnerable people on the planet, precisely what just happened in the Bahamas with Hurricane Dorian (Newburger 2019). There is another great irony with regard to movement in a global age, specifically related to the US It is a remarkable case of what I call “state amnesia” on the part of the US to deny how its actions—on climate change and undermining governments of other countries— have come home to deliver a poetic justice, if one generally unknown by those in the US. The collapse of farming in Central America due

146  William Gaudelli to climate change is forcing many farmers to give up their farms and head north in a desperate search for work. That the US holds the lion’s share of humanity’s annual carbon consumption, which links directly to the loss of farms in Honduras and Guatemala is critically important to this issue, and yet virtually unknown by those in the US. Similarly, the US government actively undermined socialist governments and political movements in Central America throughout the 1980s and 90s, rather successfully. In turn, the US helped create failed states where gangs organize society in the place of legitimately elected governments. That these failed states are no longer able to sustain a decent social life, sending people north in search of stability for their families, is unsurprising and one might say karmic as well, as the US is reaping what it once sowed (Bacon, 2015; Nevins, 2018). But the suffering, exacerbated by the creation of inhumane holding tanks on the southern border for those claiming asylum, is felt by those in transit. Immigrants from Central America are powerless, both in the wider historical antecedents that forced them to move (e.g. global warming and US foreign policy) as well as in their inability to create conditions for their flourishing to progress. They are victimized by the situation in their places of origin as well as at the hands of the regional, hegemonic power that will not allow them entry, despite contributing to the conditions that forced them from their homes. BOSIO:  Your conceptualization of GCE mentions the notion of “human flourishing”? How “human flourishing” is related to students’ global learning? GAUDELLI: Human flourishing is a criterion that I borrow from the work of the human rights theorist Thomas Pogge (Pogge, 2012) who invokes Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, or a life well-lived. The idea is very attractive as it gives us something to strive toward, an aspiration for human development, for the opportunity for all people to have a life well-lived while at the same time offering a clear sense that we are not close to where we need to be as a global society. I also appreciate the perspectival and temporal dimensions as noted in the introduction. Part of flourishing is to fully use one’s mind and capacities. So, to your question, the value of flourishing as an aim is that it unites the personal desire for attainment and achievement while helping to build the social capacity of all people as we encourage the growth of each other. This is fundamental to being human and developing one’s ability to think, to know, to reason, and to feel points always outward and beyond. As for students’ global learning, I emphasize in my teaching building the capacity of students to assess their own development and guide their inquiries. Agency in learning, as I noted above, is

Flourishing and Global Citizenship 147 crucially important as it provides the learner with the ability and motivation to go on learning ad infinitum. The breadth of “global learning” as a repository of aims and contents for learning can be daunting, but when viewed in the context of continuous growth and development, the notion of learners developing their own learning in collaboration with others is realizable. Too, the expectation that “global learning” will not be prepared and delivered to students readymade but developed over the course of a lifetime also contributes to a view of agented learning. BOSIO:  How would you incorporate the notion of “human flourishing” in curricular programmes for GCE? GAUDELLI:  I see this ethic as a broad aim of GCE programs, one that can unite disparate elements. Take the typical university office for global outreach. These offices entail many dimensions, including developing programs on campus, providing opportunities for mobility, inviting visiting scholars, and sustaining long-term collaborations with global partners. But these programs often lack a central ethic or concern and I think that focusing on a broad, foundational goal, such as promoting human flourishing would help unite these efforts in joint activities with a shared mission. It would also give a sustaining rationale for the question that often foils global programs on campus, namely Why are we doing this? Employing flourishing as a desirable state not only for our students but for all those whom they encounter, indeed universally for all people, avoids the overly constrained versions of “doing good” in the world that can lead to paternalistic interactions and simply ask the question, “What can be done to support flourishing in this community?” The breadth of the concept, though necessarily vague, place-based and perspectival, gives it a plasticity that allows it to be molded into many different contexts while providing something to ground the work and orient thinking. BOSIO:  William, you have significant experience in teaching GCE and researching on this topic at the university level in the USA and beyond. Why is or is not education for global citizenship necessary in the modern university, particularly in the USA? GAUDELLI: GCE teaching and research is positively necessary at universities, foremost because it fits the broad educational mission of universities building knowledge development and engaging in the broad society. More specifically to this moment, GCE is a vital task of universities because increasingly states see universities as part of their narrative and identity, as serving the interests of the state first and foremost. This is mistaken rationale as universities were established and maintained not in the service of a state but to the service of knowledge development, to all people. We have seen horrific versions of states being overly involved in the work of universities, among the most egregious when the Third Reich used

148  William Gaudelli the monumentally important higher education system in Germany for its own purposes, expelling Jewish students and faculty in 1933, funding “racially pure science” and otherwise aligning the Nazi party agenda to that of the universities. This was a gross perversion of free thought and inquiry and yet some resisted by resigning or fleeing the country (thankfully, Albert Einstein among them) while others went along. Indeed, some, such as Martin Heidegger, the renowned philosopher, joined the Nazi cause willingly and with broad affirmation of their beliefs. This was a catastrophic moment and while most contemporary versions are thankfully not as severe, the lesson is certainly the same; that universities require and deserve substantial independence from the state in which they happen to be so that they can serve the broader purposes of knowledge in the service of people and the biosphere. BOSIO:  What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators toward GCE in higher education, particularly in American universities? GAUDELLI:  I see a great deal of support and affirmation for this GCE at my current university and with those I have recently been affiliated. I periodically experienced resistance to global learning as a broad initiative while in Florida, though I think that had as much to do with the post 9-11 moment that we were in as it did with the social and political scene of the state. Where I witness some pushback or mild disagreement is either by those who believe that global engagement diminishes the local needs/service of a university, and that is, of course, possible and problematic, or from those who see GCE as something nice to have, but not necessary. There is a kind of benign neglect among those not directly and deeply engaged in the discourse not due to any ill will but more of a result of their focus on the immediate circumstances of their discipline, which also tend to be somewhat state-bound in discourse. BOSIO: How can GCE be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in American universities? What knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and experiences are graduates expected to acquire in order to become global citizens? GAUDELLI:  GCE has to begin with broadening students’ self-awareness and engagement with the world. University students, like most people, live as though they are unaffected by people and events around them coupled with a belief that they do not affect the same. Both sides of this dualism are false and helping students to determine the how, what, and why of being affected will begin (or continue, for some) developing an awareness of human interdependency as a foundational condition to our being. This awareness can lead to tracing out those points of connectivity, from the social sphere through interpersonal connections to the biosphere through environmental

Flourishing and Global Citizenship 149 connection to the ideosphere through dialogical/thought connections to the cultural sphere through ways of living connections (Appadurai, 1996). This process necessarily entails using knowledge of the connections themselves but can also promote an empathic understanding of how people affect one another. Migration, a form of global movement, is a rich venue for thinking about how GCE can become part of university curriculum. Student mobility is an obvious beginning, recognizing the various ways people enroll in a university, the requirements of studying abroad by home and host countries and the various systems that make such interactions possible, along with recent threats to student mobility in places like the US due to denials of student visas since 2017. If approached thoughtfully, these learning spaces can be mutually informative and help develop empathy, particularly toward the challenges found by those choosing to study in another country. Focusing on student temporary migration patterns can also lead to a more robust conversation about how others, such as unskilled labor or political refugees, are often compelled to relocate as a result of conditions beyond their control. Widening the focus will help students draw connections between and among instances of global interdependence in ways that may not occur if students are drawn solely into one issue while also teaching the skills of connecting issues, identifying perspective, and comparison/contrast. As to values, the engagement with otherness is likely to create an empathic sense of wondering what it must be like to relocate, often in a vulnerable situation and not by choice, as well as helping students see and value the complexity of global situations like these (Gaudelli, 2016). While it may be useful to plan with knowledge, skills and values in mind heuristically, learning from the perspective of a student is a more whole-cloth experience not readily parceled into these pedagogical terms. The idea of learning globally through experience, or situation, is an issue that I have taken up elsewhere with a colleague in philosophy but the gist of it is, a meaningful, educative experience is one that does not present itself in readymade categories, but as a total experience from which insights can be drawn out and carried forward into future situation (Gaudelli & Laverty, 2015). BOSIO:  How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, disposition) be identified? GAUDELLI:  Assessing global awareness and a disposition to act is tricky in that setting a baseline is difficult to do. I have tried validated instruments, such as Corbitt’s Global Awareness Profile (Nathan Corbitt, 1998), now dated, but even when it was a contemporary instrument, it had real limitations. The reason is related to the connectivity piece or the ability to see connectedness and consequence. Returning to the point about today’s migration at the US southern

150  William Gaudelli border and Honduras, one can certainly test knowledge of both of these items discreetly with some certainty, though the ability to connect and develop an argument about how poor foreign policy can have long-term, disastrous consequences takes a level of sophistication. This is precisely what we need to aim for – the ability to theorize what’s going on in the world, why it’s happening, and what can be done about it – but knowledge nuggets will not get us there. Increasingly, I am drawn toward performance assessments, or the activity of doing and explaining an action in light of what is known and believed, as more sophisticated means of determining what students know, believe and can do. These have to be designed in real situations but the qualities of such assessments can be offered. First, they need to draw from multiple and diverse sources of information to construct a “case” or “issue” that is their focus. I developed something along these lines for educators in our global competence certificate program some years ago with colleagues wherein participants researched the collapse of the clothing factory at Rana Plaza in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2012. Second, students need to examine the event/issue through the lens of interconnection and interdependence. So, what are the sources of this event? What normal, everyday conditions were in place that created this situation. In the case of the horror of Rana Plaza, the T-shirt economy of rapid, replacement clothing consumption in Western countries creates the massive textile demand that is then subcontracted down to the lowest bidder and outsourced to those working for fractions of pennies on the dollar compared to their final sale price. Third, students need to engage in chaining analysis where causes and effects are outlined, as noted in the example above. Lastly, they move to consider what systemic changes would be necessary to implement such policies, how those can be enacted and what barriers exist to the same. Activities like these mirror more closely the knowledge, skills, and values that one is attempting to uncover in assessment activities that are more discrete and categorical, though the ultimate test of value is the degree to which students, as Mahatma Gandhi once said, become the change in the world that they wish to see.

10.3 Conclusion GCE is a means of operationalizing flourishing within educational contexts. The notion of human flourishing, including the attributes of ethics, experience, character, and achievement as outlined by Pogge (2012) provides a useful and universal way of engaging development with a focus on justice. The outline of flourishing is just that – a broad conception about which policies, institutions, and plans can be organized – while recognizing the way in which perspective, time, and place shape this minimal

Flourishing and Global Citizenship 151 standard. Too, that flourishing is common ground is a baseline rather than a ceiling, so it avoids the heavy-handed type of limitations that have previously undermined utopic projects. Flourishing is certainly not new in the world, predated by its antecedent eudaimonia of ancient Greece, but it has only recently entered into the dialogue about by what measure and toward what ends do we collectively view development and justice. Education has much to gain from human flourishing. The notion that one can be considered educated while being essentially ignorant of much of the world beyond one’s country’s borders is increasingly an unsustainable idea. Education when viewed as a process of perpetual growth and development across a person’s lifespan, however, necessarily reaches beyond those borders. The points of convergence between this type of education and flourishing are obvious, as both are focused on development, agency on the part of the learner/being as well as robust recognition of the particularities of one’s place and time shaping what constitutes flourishing and what education ought to look like for those purposes. GCE is an expansive way to think about education as it encompasses the totality of being in its curriculum, though with pointed reference to pressing global issues and what it means to engage in addressing those issues. GCE is not a cure-all, however, as it entails occlusions and limitations in terms of whose voices are heard and ignored, which texts are read and missed and which foci are present and absent. In this way, the Sustainable Development Goals 2015-30 are symmetrical to GCE as they are imperfect iterations of what it means to work toward a common future. The importance of education, then, is twofold – to be integral to the work of what constitutes world-making in the contemporary global era and to serve as an aspirational process by which the global society develops itself through learning across all points of experience.

References Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Bacon, D. (2015). Report: US policy in Honduras causes migration. International Union Rights, 22, 25. Bennhold, K. (2019, May 22). What is Europe? Freedom, slavery, austerity or nothing at all. New York Times. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. 14633-000 Fischer, K. (2019, March 28). How International Education’s Golden age lost its sheen. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Gaudelli, W., & Laverty (2015). What Is a global experience? Education and Culture, 31, 13. Nathan Corbitt, J. (1998). Global awareness profile. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

152  William Gaudelli Nevins, J. (2018, October 25). How US policy in Honduras set the stage for today’s migration. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from The Conversation website: Newburger, E. (2019, September 3). A signal of climate change: Hurricane Dorian stalls over Bahamas, causing massive destruction. Retrieved from CNBC on December 24, 2020 from Pogge, T. (2012). World poverty and human rights. Political Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century, 253–260. World Bank. (2020, October 7). Global action urgently needed to halt historic threats to poverty reduction. Retrieved on November 28, 2020 from https:// Zetter, R. (2015). Protection in Crisis: Forced Migration and Protection in a Global Era. Retrieved from Migration Policy Institute on December 24, 2020 at

11 Global Citizenship Education as Awareness, Responsibility, and Participation Hans Schattle

11.1 Introduction It is not unusual to encounter scepticism about the idea of global citizenship in the political arena, even as the planet has become more interconnected than ever. The first two decades of the 21st century have brought so many stunning advances in digital media communication and technology, alongside dramatic increases in international travel and a thoroughly integrated world economy. State sovereignty, however, continues to reign supreme in international relations and elections on almost every continent have been determined by nationalist rhetoric narrowly defined – and often crudely framed in ethnic or racial terms. Yet, amid all the background noise of populism and nativism, countless schools, colleges, and universities are striving to inspire the next generation to think and live as global citizens, regardless of the constraints of today’s political arrangements. While current political circumstances in national capitals might seem less than auspicious for any endeavour that aims to address the world’s biggest problems from a global point of view, more and more everyday people around the world are choosing to see themselves as global citizens. Consider that in 2016 – the very same year that voters in Britain opted with a narrow majority to leave the European Union and Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States – a majority of respondents to a yearly survey across 14 countries commissioned by the BBC World Service stated that they see themselves more as global citizens than as citizens of their respective nations (Grimley, 2016). It is remarkable that in the face of all the pressure to the contrary in national political contexts, growing numbers of people continue to see the idea of global citizenship as meaningful. This suggests that educational initiatives with the aim of helping young people see the “big picture” of a global community have been achieving at least a limited measure of success and that the public, for the most part, is ready and willing to see further efforts in education to instil in the next generation the habits and mindsets of global citizens.

154  Hans Schattle Throughout my two decades studying how the specific concept of global citizenship is, in fact, communicated and interpreted around the world – also teaching university courses in political science focused on global citizenship – three main elements have remained central in my mind to the idea – awareness, responsibility, and participation (Schattle, 2008). These three elements serve to remind us that global citizenship ultimately amounts to ways of thinking and living in multiple, overlapping communities; it is a concept centered on activity, it is not a passive legal status in the same way in which national citizenship functions as a mechanism of formal membership separating insiders from outsiders. People who take up the identity of a global citizen do so entirely out of their own free will, not by going through any kind of transfer of citizenship status or by being assigned in some other way as a global citizen (though in very basic terms, every human being can be regarded a global citizen with fundamental human dignity and human rights). Nor do most self-described global citizens see themselves as any less attached to their respective countries, even if on balance people are now giving greater weight than in generations past to the idea of being connected to a formative global community. 11.1.1  Global Citizenship as Awareness For each human being, global citizenship as awareness entails cultivating a meaningful sense of self-awareness as well as some careful reflection on how one fits into the world around them – reaching a clear understanding of one’s interests, capabilities, aspirations, and potential to do good, within the limits of time, resources, and the demands of everyday lives. Echoing the “concentric circles” view of the ancient Stoics, global citizenship as awareness involves thinking about how individual persons might contribute to their local communities, their respective countries, and the wider world as a whole (Heater, 2004; Nussbaum, 1997; Fischer, 2007). It combines a sense of calling to make a difference in the world with a healthy dose of humility, as all of us must always keep in mind how our words and actions, even in the most immediate of settings, can end up being perceived negatively or misconstrued by others. It is easy to say that global citizenship as awareness involves a willingness to see life through the perspectives of others; actually, making this kind of sincere attempt on a regular basis can, in fact, be quite a challenge for most of us. Yet the proverbial act of “walking in someone else’s shoes” is in itself an important personal quality for anyone who seeks to join in “service learning” programs at home or abroad (such as short-term educational immersion programs) or become involved in political campaigns on global issues. Greater international understanding and greater cross-cultural understanding are both important goals that are commonly linked with global citizenship as awareness and

Global Citizenship as Awareness 155 relate with the vision of transcending the boundaries of one’s immediate communities. 11.1.2  Global Citizenship as Senses of Responsibility Greater awareness leads naturally into heightened senses of responsibility – for the sake of lessening, if not fully preventing harm, and also for doing outright good. Reminders of the urgency in addressing global problems are all around us on a daily basis and across a wide range of issues. Global climate disruption is the most pressing problem, as an existential threat to our one and only liveable habitat, and many other key issues that transcend national borders underscore the need for greater global responsibility, such as other kinds of threats to the natural environment (species extinction, air pollution, plastic pollution); the proliferation of nuclear weapons; enduring poverty and deprivation across many countries and regions; continuing violations of human rights, especially when it comes to women and children; and the inability of the current international system to figure out how to accommodate the increasing number of migrants and refugees. Political theory pays much attention to the principle of remedial responsibility – with the idea that individuals and collectivities that inflict harm bear the obligation of correcting that harm through subsequent positive actions (Miller, 2008; Brooks, 2011). Simply put, a country that initiates or abets a military conflict holds a responsibility to take in refugees who were displaced in that conflict; likewise, a country that has damaged the natural environment carries the obligation not only to clean up the damage but also to change its own trajectory to reverse the cumulative damage; this is one central responsibility that most heavily industrialized countries still need to address today with regard to the global climate crisis. However, global citizenship as responsibility is not limited to preventing or remediating harm, nor is it limited to collective actors. In contrast, global citizenship emerges whenever individuals become inspired to make responsible choices in their daily routines and to understand how small-scale actions or changes in one’s daily life can help humanity and the planet one step at a time, while also generating the kind of political will that will lead to more sweeping and systemic changes. 11.1.3  Global Citizenship as Participation Taking action to bring about systemic change leads to global citizenship as participation, and many self-identifying global citizens join campaigns and causes that project their voices across borders, either through small steps, such as signing online petitions or donating to advocacy groups, or much larger steps, such as seeking direct influence over how

156  Hans Schattle national governments, international organizations, and multinational corporations manage their affairs and set policies with massive global ramifications. The most memorable images of an active and vocal global citizenry often emerge from massive street protests coordinated across multiple cities on the same day – such as the rallies in early 2003 protesting the impending United States’ invasion of Iraq as well as the global climate strikes led by Greta Thunberg that peaked in the fall of 2019. Yet, global citizenship as participation need not be far-reaching or monumental; it also emerges through the most modest of individual gestures in one’s immediate neighbourhoods – picking up litter on the beach, confronting bullying in the school playground, reaching out to welcome a new family in town from a country or cultural background. Thinking in more collective terms, resilient venues of local social capital – church groups, music and theatre programs, soccer leagues, swim teams, and yes, political campaign organizations and interest groups – should never be underestimated as vehicles that simultaneously foster global citizenship as well as domestic citizenship. For all the justifiable concern about the drawbacks of online communication in comparison with face-to-face interaction (Turkle, 2015), there is no denying that many social networks in which people are connected mainly through digital media platforms provide human beings with indispensable outlets for solidarity and friendship that stretch well beyond the borders of their respective countries.

11.2  Dialogue with Hans Schattle EMILIANO BOSIO:  How

has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped the understanding of global citizenship? HANS SCHATTLE: Much of my academic career in political science extends from my earlier career in journalism. My first job out of university was at a daily newspaper in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and this is where I really began to focus on globalization and its implications for citizenship. New Bedford rose and fell across different phases of economic globalization. In the 19th century, it prospered as the world’s premier whaling port at a time when whale oil was in high demand (at great cost to the whale population, which became severely endangered as a result of this demand). In the mid-1800s, New Bedford even became the wealthiest city for its size in the world and Herman Melville, in his classic novel Moby Dick, immortalized New Bedford as the “dearest place to live in, in all of New England… Nowhere in all America will you find more patrician-like houses, parks, and gardens more opulent, than in New Bedford”. The city’s historic homes and landmarks now serve mainly as a reminder of past glory days. By the time I started reporting news in New Bedford, the city had fallen on hard times as successive changes

Global Citizenship as Awareness 157 in the global economy brought disruption and adversity. As whale oil was replaced by other energy sources, textiles became as the city’s mainstay, but textile jobs in New Bedford peaked very early in the 20th century, with the big textile manufacturers abandoning New Bedford (and several other New England cities) for cheaper labour and warmer climates in states, such as North Carolina. In 1928, with the overall American economy still roaring one year before the stock market crash that triggered the Great Depression, New Bedford’s textile economy ground to a halt when approximately 30,000 workers went on strike. The city never quite recovered – even though it later attracted a smattering of old-line manufacturers making everything from automobile tires to clothing and footwear, the city went into a heavy manufacturing decline. In the decade before I arrived in New Bedford in 1991 as a newspaper reporter, the city lost 20% of its workforce as many of these remaining factories left town for much cheaper places to operate. It became my task to write a special report on the city’s economic crisis, and very quickly I came to realize that New Bedford, as a declining industrial city with busts and bygone employers by the end of the 20th century outweighing the erstwhile boom years, was positioned squarely on the losing side of the global economy. The kinds of jobs that had first brought wealth and then a mediocre yet bearable status quo for the city’s working classes would not be coming back anytime soon. In the course of reporting and writing about the city’s predicament, I realized the key challenge facing New Bedford and so many other fading industrial centers across North America was not only economic but also political. The old hand-assembly jobs were gone; the challenge would be to generate the political will to launch strategies to find new sources of employment and to find new and creative ways to regenerate the city. Alongside this, I also watched the backdrop of global politics shifting toward neoliberalism in the 1990s – deregulation, privatization, and free trade – with Bill Clinton in the United States and Tony Blair in the United Kingdom. As much as I worried about the circumstances in cities, such as New Bedford, I also realized that an even bigger problem revolved around the poor conditions faced by workers in historically poorer “developing” countries that were inheriting the old-line manufacturing jobs formerly in the declining industrial centers of the “developed” world. I remember juxtaposing in my mind the mass displacement of jobs from New Bedford with the growing number of alarming reports in the 1990s about factory workers in southeast Asia and Latin America being paid 10 cents an hour for their labour, toiling for workdays lasting 12 hours or more in unhealthful conditions, denied even the most minimal bathroom breaks. The interconnectedness

158  Hans Schattle between the depleted opportunities in places, such as New Bedford and the poor working conditions in “emerging market” economies, became painfully clear to me and so did the results of this juxtaposition – relatively low retail prices for many consumer goods, thanks to low production costs, yet also record-breaking profit margins for the companies involved and executive salaries rising more sharply than ever in proportion to the ever-more depressed salaries of workers. I could see the new global capitalism was making a small number of people rich, and maybe benefiting segments of consumers in affluent countries, but coming at great cost to other segments of the population and also compromising the basic human rights and human dignity for many others. Here, too, the root of the problem was and still is political – a radically unleashed global capitalism all too evasive of the kinds of national institutions and regulations that protect human beings and support public goods in more “tamed” approaches to capitalism. So, my enduring interest in reconfiguring democratic citizenship in response to our global, high-tech economy traces back to the way that I observed global capitalism springing forward during my years working in New Bedford. Along these lines, in my second year of graduate school, while working on a master’s degree in political science at Boston College, I wrote a paper for a human rights seminar on the need to combine principles of justice and solidarity in the quest to shift working conditions away from sweatshops. It was a thoroughly idealistic paper – prone to objections that the evils of sweatshops serve as an inevitable first step toward economic development – yet I believed then and still believe now that a more human and sustainable approach to global capitalism would tie human rights standards, workplace health and safety standards, and environmental standards into the global trading rules of the World Trade Organization – thereby moving the global economy a step closer to the kind of oversight that protects workers across the world’s constitutional democracies. With all this in mind, when I was applying for doctoral programs, referencing this problem in my application essays, I noted that I wanted to help clarify standards of global citizenship to catch up with the global market and this is what launched my work into the specific term “global citizenship”. At Oxford, I initially thought about focusing my dissertation more narrowly on European Union citizenship – an institution that in some ways functions as a prototype of global citizenship – but then I realized that the legal aspects of EU citizenship, which are tied to having nationality in one of the member states, didn’t really get at what I wanted to study most – how people actually think and live as citizens in overlapping political communities, from their immediate neighbourhoods to the world at

Global Citizenship as Awareness 159 large. At the same time, I was well aware of the emerging academic debates in political philosophy and sociology on the desirability and feasibility of global citizenship, and I wondered if people outside the contours of these debates – “everyday people”, compared, at least, with scholars – were also thinking in meaningful ways about global citizenship. This led me to search online media archives to get a handle on the extent the concept was out there in the “real” world – and then to realize, with the help of my research supervisor, David Marquand, and my college adviser, Michael Freeden – that this “actually existing” discourse of global citizenship awaited the kind of empirical study that also applies to the study of ideology and political belief systems. From here, my research was on its way. BOSIO: Awareness, responsibility and participation seem to emerge as the three key elements of GCE according to your conceptualization. How do you foster awareness, responsibility and participation in your students in the classes that you teach currently and taught in the past? SCHATTLE: I teach mainly political science courses, so I approach the idea of global citizenship by helping students develop the capacities to soak in key intellectual debates in our field, as well as a sense of understanding ongoing developments in our political world and thinking about their implications for the nature of the political communities we inhabit. With regard to awareness, it’s learning how to learn, for starters – how to absorb the key lines of argument presented in the literature, how to figure out what exactly scholars and practitioners are analyzing and why perspectives from philosophy really do matter in practice. Close readings and detailed knowledge of history are also very important; in my courses on United States foreign policy and European politics, we look in detail at how events throughout the 20th century shaped the order and disorder of the world today. While my generation in the United States did not experience the two world wars and came of age in the aftermath of the war in Vietnam, the students I have taught for most of my career were born following the end of the “Cold War” and the collapse of Soviet Communism – and my most recent batch of entering students entered the world after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many instructors, I compress my historical material as the years go by, but our world is changing so fast that it is important to understand how we got here. Especially, in the present moment, when a motley crew of political “strongmen” led by the Trump administration seem to be overriding the rules-based liberal international order that was crafted by the United States and its allies following the Second World War, it is very important for students to understand how and why that order came about – and how the world was a far more dangerous place in the

160  Hans Schattle absence of that order. It is essential, for instance, for students learning about European politics to understand that the European Union, in its initial evolutionary phase as a “coal and steel community”, was intended to build a “solidarity of production” that would render war between France and Germany unthinkable; this is why, Brexit was so heart-breaking, at least from my vantage point. Likewise, the ways in which not only the liberal international order but the entire American experiment in constitutional democracy across a large territorial scale is fraying today amid the most sharply divisive polarization since the Civil War and a rogue president who disrespects the most basic norms of constitutional democracy; students cannot fully understand why a figure such as Trump is indeed rogue and damaging without understanding the legal, political, and ethical norms to which all American presidents should be held accountable. When it comes to fostering senses of responsibility, I think it is critical to help our students connect their own lives with the global issues we study. I love Pietra Rivoli’s book, The Travels of a T-Shirt in the World Economy (2005), since looking at globalization through typical consumer goods is one basic way young people can begin to think about what responsible global citizenship entails. While T-shirts are a salient example, there are many other entry points into thinking about how everyone is morally implicated in the global economy. For instance, where did your laptop computer or mobile phone come from – the individual components as well as the final product you own? What are the current air pollution levels in the city where your laptop computer or mobile phone was made? How much were the workers there paid? What kinds of natural resources were depleted (i.e. “rare earths”) to make this product, and is the cost of this depletion reflected in the price you paid? And if the answers to these questions leave you worried, then what can and should be done to address the problem – i.e. push the relevant corporations and governments, as I suggested earlier, to raise their standards? It is also helpful for students to think about what kinds of standards they want to hold their national governments accountable to when looking across a range of issues, especially environmental issues, given the formidable problems we face in the present day. In my hometown, for example, the problem of rampant plastic pollution came to the forefront when the town passed a local ordinance, at the urging of local citizens, banning the distribution of plastic grocery bags. Lately, I have also seen a growing concern among citizens as to whether the items placed into recycling bins end up getting recycled – and how this, too, connects with larger global problems of garbage disposal and incineration. At the same time, as we press for sweeping forms of global responsibility, it is also important that we take action to strengthen our local communities along these lines.

Global Citizenship as Awareness 161 As for participation, one simple way to inculcate the habits of active citizens in our classrooms is to run interactive discussions as often as possible. I set up my courses in ways that make the active involvement of students inevitable – namely by requiring each student to bring to class each week a written journal entry in response to reading assignments. It is important for our students to discover their capacities to speak their minds and articulate their thoughts in different kinds of public settings. In my courses on global citizenship and United States foreign policy, I have worked for several years with a colleague in the United States using videoconferencing technology to bring together my students in Seoul and his students in Los Angeles for a series of shared conversations about the same sets of readings, and this exercise, always brings class participation to an entirely new level – communicating and exchanging ideas not only with one’s fellow students in the room but also with the group of students sitting across the Pacific Ocean. It is these kinds of experiences that can help students see the world from broader perspectives and encourage them to go beyond the classroom into the wider world (Schattle & Plate, 2019). This, after all, is one of the main points of education – to give our students the tools and the mentality to make a difference in whatever lines of work and community involvement they pursue. Once we give them the capacities to participate in the classroom, they can carry this aptitude with them into the world beyond academia. Of course, it is also wonderful when educational programs on global citizenship also work actively to partner students with community organizations. BOSIO: How would you incorporate the dimensions of awareness, responsibility, and participation in GCE university programmes? SCHATTLE:  One way to bring awareness, responsibility, and participation to life – and each in tandem with the other – is by offering courses that look at the world as truly interconnected, as a single interdependent unit, and across a wide range of issues – economic development, food and agriculture, environmental degradation and global warming, poverty, public health, immigration, security risks, such as nuclear proliferation and suicide terrorism, and so forth. Such courses can emerge from just about any academic discipline, and my own course on global citizenship devotes time on a weekly basis to the kinds of issues mentioned above and seeks to address these issues from a global point of view. While I think it is fine to offer a dedicated course to the idea of global citizenship – I have taught one myself for nearly 20 years – more coordinated and encompassing strategies to promote GCE across the campus of an entire college or university should operate across a wide range of courses and departments. Courses that emphasize connections across disciplines are great vehicles to bring forward elements of awareness, responsibility, and

162  Hans Schattle participation in tandem. After all, the endeavour of GCE is interdisciplinary – and the study of citizenship and global citizenship cut across a range of academic disciplines – among them, educational studies, English literature, global studies, cultural anthropology, social psychology, political philosophy, international relations, sociology, and business ethics. The idea of global citizenship can easily find its way as an organizing principle into any course that straddles these kinds of subject areas. My own course in global citizenship, while situated in a political science department, includes a mixture of readings in political theory, international relations, the sociology of migration and global studies. What is more, any course that places weight on community interaction and engagement will have great promise at incorporating the elements of awareness, responsibility, and participation. Studying global citizenship lends itself to interactive learning experiences – it is an excellent overarching theme to engage guest speakers across many different fields of interest, and course content focused on citizenship of any kind can lead naturally to local volunteer opportunities. Working at the local neighbourhood library or food pantry or the local refugee assistance center or community recreation center can bring real-life insights into the minds of our students about what is involved in becoming an actively participating citizen within any kind of community. In addition, growing concern about the treatment of migrants and refugees at present opens the door to political activism for those inclined. In my home state of Rhode Island, for example, the onset of the Trump presidency had the effect of bringing a great deal of critical scrutiny on a detention center run by the United States government, as hundreds of people took to protesting the facility’s practice of holding detainees picked up by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency awaiting trial and possible deportation. How local communities respond to immigration can serve as an excellent focal point for students to better grasp the conflict between national citizenship as a bounded legalistic institution and moral visions of global citizenship that are not tied to any specific territory. Regardless of how one views the primacy of national borders or regardless of whether one chooses to define global citizenship in literal terms that directly confront closed borders or in figurative terms that can elide the question of borders, studying immigration helps further one’s sense of awareness on a key global issue and also can prompt critical reflection on what kinds of responsibilities political communities owe to immigrants as well as the extent that participation – in the above instance, calling in public for the closure of the detention center – can make a meaningful difference. The same holds true for other kinds of issues as well.

Global Citizenship as Awareness 163 BOSIO: 

As you suggest, “it is remarkable that in the face of all the pressure to the contrary in national political contexts, growing numbers of people continue to see the idea of global citizenship as meaningful”. How can this be interpreted in your opinion and how does it connect to GCE? SCHATTLE:  Global citizenship is not going away, nor is globalization – even today’s right-wing populism, with its rallying cries against immigration and trade, is most accurately cast as a backlash against the onward march of globalization in recent decades – it cannot be viewed in isolation from debates about globalization (Steger & James, 2019). We can only understand the populist movement of today if we see it as a pushback against the dominant economic model of neoliberalism – deregulation, privatization, unrestricted trade, basically a radically untamed form of capitalism – that for the past 30 years that has imperilled the middle classes worldwide while disproportionately enriching the wealthiest slices of the population. As I noted more than 20 years ago in my graduate school admission essay, we still need standards of global citizenship to catch up with the global market. In today’s global economy, standards regarding essential components of the public good – among them – the rights of workers, workplace health and safety, air quality, food safety – are determined by national bureaucracies, yet globalization, at least in some areas of the manufacturing economy, disrupts these standards by sparking a “race to the bottom” as corporations relocate operations in countries where the costs of doing business are low – in no small measure because the standards are low. Fighting to improve standards setting in developing countries is one of the most important ways the idea of global citizenship can be brought to political life in the present day. While populism is one alternative to neoliberalism, cosmopolitanism and social democracy are other alternatives, and global citizenship and social democracy can be pursued in conjunction with one another to render a fairer marketplace. In many respects, the dual emphasis in the 2020 United States presidential election placed in the Democratic primaries by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on strengthening social equality helped point the way for a 21st- century vision of social democracy that could also be harnessed to a global citizen-minded outlook, especially with regard to the urgency of the climate crisis. On the other hand, global citizenship can be a value-neutral term, even vacuous at times. Just because a particular college or university adopts the term “global citizen” into its motto or strategic plan, it doesn’t mean that the school will then incorporate in a meaningful way the elements of awareness, responsibility, and participation into its educational programs. Nor does it mean the school will strive to

164  Hans Schattle encourage its students improving the state of the planet or improving conditions for all humanity. Indeed, my earlier research found that many educational programs revolving around the idea of global citizenship – particularly at high schools – are geared mainly toward competence and competitiveness in the world economy. What’s more, many well-intended overseas initiatives – such as short-term service trips to developing countries sponsored by universities based in wealthier countries – end up yielding far more benefits for the participating students, in terms of building resumes and creating the impression that these students have acquired significant crosscultural exposure, rather than benefiting the residents of relatively impoverished communities who extended their hospitality as hosts for the service trips. It is important to see the idea of global citizenship as meaningful, but this, in turn, requires careful thinking about what kinds of educational initiatives will most readily seek out and live up to the stated vision. BOSIO: Hans, you have a significant experience in teaching global citizenship-related subjects and researching on the topic of global citizenship at the university level in South Korea and beyond. Why is GCE necessary in the modern university, particularly in South Korea? SCHATTLE:  It is necessary as this is the kind of world we live in – like it or not – and in South Korea, it is maximally necessary as the country is thoroughly exposed to international forces, with its reliance on exports for its economic lifeblood as well as its dependence on oil and natural gas imports for its ever-increasing energy demands. If there is one country in which the people really need to clearly understand how global issues will impact them at home, it is South Korea. More widely, in the field of international relations, conflict is back – and we have shifted from the “democratic peace” of the 1990s and early 2000s to a phase of strongman politics, with the likes of Trump, Putin, Xi, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Orban. At times, it can seem like a throwback to an earlier century, and we need GCE as a corrective to this dynamic, to emphasize, even more than in recent years past, that “another world is possible”. A world in which we focus on global collaboration over conflict – and shared responsibility to address problems that simply cannot be solved by any individual country acting on its own. BOSIO:  What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators toward GCE in higher education, particularly in South Korean universities? SCHATTLE: Looking at the growth of transdisciplinary global studies programs worldwide, one positive trend is the strong student demand for courses that get outside the boundaries of our conventional academic disciplines. Since GCE fits very nicely as a key organizing

Global Citizenship as Awareness 165 principle of global studies programs, this engenders support among university faculty members and administrators. In contrast, I suppose one negative development that stands out, from my perspective, is that global citizenship can be easily used in the educational arena for marketing purposes without being deployed into anything substantive. Not every school or university that has enlisted the term “global citizenship” has really thought out what the idea means, let alone tailored or modified its programs and course offerings to live up to a robust account of what global citizenship entails. This can leave the concept vulnerable to critique; sceptics in education can argue that global citizenship is too woolly to be worth using as an ethical or strategic cornerstone. However, I would argue that thinking about how to foster global citizenship by means of awareness, responsibility, and participation – alongside cross-cultural empathy – is a good way to bring the concept into the curriculum. Another negative dynamic – not necessarily specific to global citizenship as a concept but associated with global education – is that overseas immersion programs can cause problems of their own. For starters, there is the problem of the heavy carbon footprint left behind by the sharply increased study abroad travel in the most recent generation, compared with their elder Boomers or Gen Xers. More fundamentally, there is the problem that goes with placing students inside local communities that do not necessarily benefit from their presence. Students on overseas exchange or immersion programs can end up benefiting from the outreach of local community people far more than the people in the communities being visited are helped by the visiting students. In the worst cases, the presence of visiting students can even impose costs on local communities. This is not to argue that overseas immersion programs should be curtailed, all the more so when considering the meaning of global citizenship. In any case, the impact that global outreach programs have on local communities that are involved needs some real attention. In South Korea, there is great interest in the idea of global citizenship; the term has evolved considerably from the early 1990s when it was often used by national political and business leaders as a way of exhorting the public to work harder to compete in the global marketplace. While in many countries, including the United States, the idea of global citizenship is often prone to attacks by sceptic’s arguing (often disingenuously) that somehow global citizenship must override national patriotism, in South Korea, the idea of global citizenship is very much attached to visions of rising national stature (Schattle 2015). More recently, the term has gained ground in South Korea’s civil society and educational arenas, especially as the

166  Hans Schattle population of the country has become far more diverse in the past decade, with non-Koreans now accounting for more than 2 millions of South Korea’s 50 million population, compared with approximately 500,000 in the year 2000. Now the idea of global citizenship in South Korea speaks to its ongoing efforts to become a more inclusive and accommodating multiethnic polity and, in more collective terms, the country’s rising influence as a middle power in the global political arena, most notably its success in hosting a G-20 summit in November 2010 and the Winter Olympics in 2018. BOSIO:  Is GCE in the modern university, particularly in South Korean universities, more about knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, or some combination of all four in your opinion? SCHATTLE:  All of the above, I’d say – for universities everywhere. I cannot give you a complete breakdown here of how all four of these components intersect, but for knowledge, I would emphasize learning languages, history, and geography, as well as civic education in local, national, and global contexts. I would also emphasize integrating mainstream academic subjects, including the ‘hard’ sciences, with interdisciplinary themes related to global problems – such as environmental education, human rights education, awareness of poverty, and its causes and effects, knowledge of the global economy and economic interdependence, knowledge of international organizations, and knowledge of the geopolitical and cultural forces that drive world politics. For skills, as a high school principal in New Zealand once expressed it to me, I would emphasize technology, literacy, and numeracy – all essential for students to gain competence as citizens at any level of political community. As for dispositions, I would encourage teachers to seek out ways they can instil curiosity, empathy, and open-mindedness in their students – as well as the willingness to listen to others and think carefully about what one is perceiving from others. And for values, I would emphasize cultivating a sense of responsibility and even ownership in the management of the world’s problems. Learning languages, by the way, nicely cuts across all four of these components; when students pick up another language, they gain not only linguistic capabilities but a greater understanding of cultural norms that are baked straight into the languages. BOSIO:  How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, dispositions) be identified? SCHATTLE:  With knowledge, one way is for teachers to devise comparable pretests and post-tests – even if they are not necessarily comprehensive. In my European politics course, on the first day, I ask the students a few basic questions about European history and politics that they generally do not know – and by the time the end of the semester rolls around, and they are adeptly representing

Global Citizenship as Awareness 167 specific countries as part of a simulated negotiation of the European Council, I am amazed at how much they have learned and now know. I think open-ended essay exams and papers, even reflection papers rather than research papers, can also be useful in identifying habits of mind in our students that tie into the elements of awareness, responsibility, and participation. Another strategy, more applicable across the four personal qualities you are focusing on here, is to conduct exit interviews with a select group or random sampling of students shortly before they are graduated – and then keep track of these students over time, with an eye toward answering the following questions: How does their thinking about citizenship and community progress? How do they put what they learned on campus into action? How did their education either directly or indirectly influence their outlooks as well as their pathways, professional, or otherwise, going forward? And I think we should also cherish the anecdotal insights that we happen to receive from students who stay in touch with us years after they have been graduated – sometimes all it takes is testimony from one student to help us see how we help shape the lives of the human persons we teach. BOSIO:  What are three themes a higher education curriculum for GCE should include in your opinion? SCHATTLE: I would suggest five themes – the environment, poverty, public health, human rights and conflict prevention, and resolution. With the environment, the imperative to save our planet ties into responsibilities to future generations, as well as responsibilities that those (countries, corporations, and individuals) who have caused tremendous environmental damage have to those who have not caused the damage in nearly as large proportion but will bear the brunt of the damage. It is also important to focus on how many ongoing responsibilities to protect the environment remain largely unmet. With poverty, it is important for students to understand the causes of poverty as well as the complexities that go with endeavours of lifting people out of poverty – what kinds of initiatives work and which ones do not, as well as the relative success we have seen since the initiation of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, and, more recently, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. As for public health, the ongoing COVID-19 crisis has reminded us all how interconnected our fates and vulnerabilities really are across the planet – and how much it matters that citizens across states and localities put in place the right kind of political leadership to manage these kinds of crises. Human rights education, meanwhile, should take on board social and economic rights as well as civil and political rights. It is also important for students to learn how campaigns for human rights continue to be widely embraced in nonwestern contexts across the “global south” – meaning that it is harder now

168  Hans Schattle than before to dismiss human rights as particular constructs of the “West” rather than as universal principles. The basics of conflict prevention and resolution should be studied across nation-states as well as within them; this includes the simmering domestic conflicts and cultural divides in today’s democracies. Across all four of these themes, the elements of awareness, responsibility, and participation apply – students should gain an understanding sense of the contours of each topic, what kinds of responsibilities are brought to bear, and what steps they might take, even if only modest steps, to help address the problems related to these themes.

11.3 Conclusion When the idea of global citizenship is sincerely deployed in educational programs, awareness, responsibility, and participation mutually reinforce each other as primary elements of global citizenship, and the trajectory across these elements need not be followed in any one particular direction. Greater awareness of oneself and one’s potential contributions leads to heightened senses of responsibility and keener interest in participation in politics and society. Likewise, active participation in any given cause or campaign has the effect of sharpening senses of awareness of the issues at hand and corresponding responsibilities to all stakeholders. If programs that aim to instil in young people a sense of global citizenship hope to yield a more humane and just world as a result, the elements of awareness, responsibility, and participation offer one simple yet encompassing way for this goal to be harnessed and brought down to earth in ways that resonate with young people. I approach the idea of global citizenship believing that you can be a global citizen wherever you happen to be – even in your hometown – and that today’s young people aspire to prosper while also improving our world, doing well by doing good; that people on balance respect fundamental human dignity and human rights, that citizenship is ultimately an action word rather than a fixed status – a verb, not a noun – and that people are capable of thinking about citizenship in multiple, plural contexts – that one can think and live simultaneously as a global citizen, national citizen, and local citizen. My approach to GCE seeks to create people who combine brilliance and goodness, intelligence and humility; people who can think for themselves while making good decisions – and formulate their own pathways to these decisions through sound moral reasoning because they have been well-taught in academics and well-formed in character. My hope is for students to build their respective capacities to understand global problems from multiple points of view, and to understand different walks of life – along lines of ethnicity, culture, and religion – from the perspectives of the people they encounter, and

Global Citizenship as Awareness 169 to allow what they’ve seen in their learning to transform their own perspective-shaping. Generating the political will to foster change in our governing institutions and economic arrangements is also a central element of global citizenship, and educators at all levels face the never-ending endeavour of creating citizens who will not accept the current circumstances uncritically as they are but will speak up, plain and simple, in today’s contentious debates. In the present moment, this underscores the need for citizens with the vision, assertiveness, and persistence to call for higher standards in today’s global economy, with the recognition that decisions and actions taken close to the hubs of global power and influence carry massive impact on people all around the world. In all these respects, GCE should be transformative.

References Brooks, T. (2011). Rethinking remedial responsibilities. Ethics & Global Politics, 4(3), 195–202. Fischer, M. (2007). A pragmatist cosmopolitan moment: Reconfiguring Nussbaum’s cosmopolitan concentric circles. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 21(3), 151–165. Grimley, N. (2016, April 28). Identity 2016: ‘Global citizenship’ rising, poll suggests. BBC World Service. Retrieved from world-36139904 Heater, D. (2004). World citizenship: Cosmopolitan thinking and its opponents (revised edition). London: Continuum. Miller, D. (2008). National responsibility and global justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rivoli, P. (2005). The travels of a T-shirt in the global economy: An economist examines the markets, power, and politics of world trade. New York: Wiley. Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Schattle, H. (2015). Global citizenship as a national project: The evolution of ‘segye shimin’ in South Korean public discourse. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 53–68. Schattle, H., & Plate, T. (2019). Fostering a global public sphere in real time: Transpacific skype seminars as a teaching strategy with implications for citizenship and identity. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 15(1), 64–74. Steger, M. B., & James, P. (2019). Globalization matters: Engaging the global in unsettled times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin Press.

12 Global Citizenship Education and Humanism A Process of Becoming and Knowing Maria Guajardo

12.1 Introduction One aspect of global citizenship education (GCE) is the development of human beings. This development may be viewed from various platforms, i.e. sociological, psychological, evolutionary, and cultural (Seidlde-Moura & Fernandes Mendes, 2012); and from diverse philosophical perspectives (Falkenberg, 2015). In this chapter, the platform of humanism will be employed to broaden the understanding of GCE and how it contributes to the process of becoming more humanistic and knowing others. How do we teach individuals to become aware of their own humanity and become learners that embrace the humanity of the world? For it is in the link to one’s humanity that one learns to become more fully human. Fostering global citizens requires a humanistic education; an education that reveals an individual’s capacity for peace (Noddings, 2005). The lens of humanism was previously applied to the study of GCE in a university context (Guajardo & Reiser, 2016) and the argument was made for identifying the normative environment and ecology of the educational setting. This chapter will shift, from the environment to the individual, focusing on GCE as the process of becoming more selfaware, and thus more human; developing a global mindset, and the role of dialogue in the process of becoming and knowing. To this end, the perspectives of Freire and Ikeda (Freire, 1985; Ikeda, 1996) serve to illuminate how education and the pedagogy of dialogue provide a context for GCE and human development.

12.2 Becoming via Global Citizenship Education and Humanism First, GCE can be explored as a process of becoming more human through individual transformation (Ikeda, 1996), self-development (Freire, 1992), and its alignment with humanization (Freire, 1985; Torres, 2008). These perspectives share the lens of bettering ourselves intentionally, through compassion, connection, and curiosity. Thus, linking to one’s humanity can be viewed as a process of connecting to one’s heart. As one becomes

Global Citizenship Education 171 more self-aware, one is able to name one’s priorities in life – values, beliefs, norms, and cultural influences. This self-awareness is connected to one’s exploration of purpose and the role one has in taking action to contribute to the greater good. Individual transformation and self-development occur as one’s awareness increases and is connected to contributing to the world, making a difference, and having an impact. Thus, the process of being educated for global citizenship is a process of understanding and transforming one’s social agency based on a process of becoming more human (Torres, 2008). Educational systems vary in their design and purpose. The role of education as a humanizing task is in contrast to the role of education as a banking system; a system that is dehumanizing (Freire, 1985). As Freire eloquently stated, “To be human is to engage in relationships with others and with the world” (1973, p. 3). Education can provide the forum for becoming more human by supporting curiosity of oneself, others, and the world. It is the teacher’s role to maintain curiosity in students and for the educator themselves to be curious, respecting differences in ethnicity, gender, religion, language, and culture (Araujo Freire, 2015; McDowell, 2018). Curiosity is central to the development of individuals, and as Freire shared, there is no happiness without curiosity (1992). Education can be seen as the foundation that serves to “guide all students to a life of happiness” (Nanda & Ikeda, 2015, p. 123). In response to the question posed by Yokota and Douglass (2019), the American feminist, educator, and philosopher Nel Noddings was clear that in an educational setting, a teacher’s role is not to tell students the answer to this question, rather the teacher’s role is to support students to explore, seeking out their own answers. If happiness is the aim of education as touted by educators from the West or East, such as Noddings and Makiguchi (Noddings, 2005; Gebert and Joffee, 2007), how can one best approach the “development of character, spirit, intellect, and personality” via education, in the pursuit of becoming more human, and thus forging one’s happiness (Noddings, 2003, p. 3)? The response to this question is linked to knowing others, as described in the next section.

12.3 Knowing via Global Citizenship Education and Humanism The aspect of knowing is explored as a process of knowing others and connecting to the concept of community (Darder, 2002; Harding & Ikeda, 2013). Learning communities, specifically, communities that engage teachers and learners, are effective when shared values and beliefs, as well as differences, are discovered (Darder, 2002). Learning is relational and happens in community with others. In the context of GCE, knowing others is the expansion of one’s perspective of self to a broader understanding of others, via global issues,

172  Maria Guajardo global perspectives, and diverse people. Education becomes a learning experience, with others, where one’s intention is conceptualized and acted upon (Freire, 1985). GCE, then, is the active pursuit of knowledge that gives rise to action as interpreted by Freire’s work in social change movements (Freire & Macedo, 1995). The action is guided by critical awareness. Rugut and Osman (2013) focused on the philosophical concepts of Paulo Freire on education and relayed Freire’s belief that “conscientization is the key process by which students develop a critical awareness of the world based on the concrete experience of their everyday lives” (p. 27). The development of critical awareness thereby transforms the learning experience. Torres (2013) presents transformative social justice learning as a process of understanding oneself and the world. This sets the stage for exploring GCE as the pursuit of transforming oneself and contributing to the world, or as transformative social justice learning, in the context of humanism. In this pursuit of becoming and knowing, what process can best facilitate this act of learning and transformation? The pedagogy of dialogue will be presented as a viable strategy in the pursuit of GCE.

12.4  Dialogue and Global Citizenship Education Dialogue is a way of knowing and a process of learning (Freire & Macedo, 1995). It is a way to make sense of the world and the “means by which we achieve significance as human beings…and a key element in learning” (Rugut and Osman, 2013, p. 27). Thus, the process of knowing is relational and engaging in dialogue is a pathway for learning. Dialogue is not solely a process of conversation and sharing of experiences. Freire states that it needs to be connected to social praxis, which involves reflection and political action. In a similar vein, Ikeda (2001) expounds on the Buddhist approach to dialogue, sharing that, “Genuine dialogue results in the transformation of opposing viewpoints, changing them from wedges that drive people apart into bridges that link them together” (p. 57). Dialogue results in change; change that leads to action. Further, dialogue is not just technique. Freire states it is not an act of verbal ping pong, an exchange of conversation, back and forth. Similarly, Ikeda views dialogue as an experience that is transformative for both parties, with the goal of bringing out the best in oneself and others (Urbain, 2018). Through dialogue, students are seen as engaged explorers in their learning process, a process that leads to inner transformation (Goulah, 2018). Central to dialogue is the act of listening. “To listen – to listen carefully to what the other person is saying – is the basic starting point for building a relationship with another person. It is essential.” (Harding & Ikeda, 2013, p. 178). Thus, dialogue is a tool central to GCE. In the classroom, the process of dialogue can be used to engage students to become curious about the

Global Citizenship Education 173 world, about issues, and to connect with themselves and others; to begin to form the bridge that Ikeda describes above. Student classrooms are learning communities that are every day more demographically complex (McDowell, 2018). Thus, as an educator, my job is to create a space for a transformative experience of engagement in this complex learning community. My role is to create a learning experience for students who will interact with issues that impact the local and global world and interface with others that are from diverse perspectives, ethnicities, and social classes. Education involves a global practice where students learn to read their world, connecting technical knowledge and world knowledge (Freire & Macedo, 1995). One cannot “seriously engage in a search for new knowledge without using his or her point of view and historical location as a point of departure” (p. 385). Therefore, an educator’s duty is to challenge students to critically engage with their world, by connecting to their own history, so they can act upon the present. As Harding (Harding & Ikeda, 2013) has shared, echoing Hannah Arendt, “it is when we are in dialogue that we are most human” (p. 177). Through a dialogue process, students connect to their own humanity, explore the world, and engage with others in meaningful ways.

12.5  Dialogue with Maria Guajardo EMILIANO BOSIO: 

What is your understanding of GCE? Particularly, how has your academic and life’s “journey” shaped this understanding? MARIA GUAJARDO:  My own life journey has shaped my understanding of GCE. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, I was born and raised in the United States. Both of my parents were illiterate, yet developed a global mindset. Learning to navigate in a foreign country, they were my first role models of global citizens. As an immigrant child, struggling to find my place in a country that reluctantly accepted me, I learned to both read and read the world, as Paulo Freire so succinctly stated (Torres, 2008). Attending school, I learned about those around me. Growing up, often feeling as an outsider, I struggled to find my voice in academic settings, where I was often a minority. The process of dialogue rarely occurred in my education experience. It was later in life, in my leadership development experiences, that the practice of dialogue came alive, and became a pathway of discovery and self-transformation. For over 25 years, my professional experiences included public speaking, delivering keynote addresses at conferences, and facilitating training for educators throughout the United States and abroad. My area of expertise included cultural competency training and addressing educational leadership. In order to keep participants engaged, I discovered that deeper learning occurred when I focused on connecting head and heart; when participants were engaged in bringing their

174  Maria Guajardo life histories into the learning experience and engaged in authentic dialogue. To break down defenses, I worked to bring out curiosity and engaged participants in critical thinking of problems and barriers. My approach was not to provide the answers, rather to create an experience for individuals so that answers could be revealed. Then, in 2013, I was invited to join Soka University as Dean for the Faculty of International Liberal Arts, in Tokyo, Japan. Serving as the first female dean, and the first non-Japanese dean, presented the challenge of bringing a culturally diverse perspective to a Japanese university. As Dean, I shared with students and their parents that my vision was to raise the next generation of global leaders. This vision reflected my perspective of GCE. As an educator in the 21st century, in Japan, engaged with Japanese and international students, I saw the potential before me. My intention was to foster global citizens. Students were questioning and searching for a path that would allow them to contribute to the world, to be engaged, and create value. To connect with our students’ search for meaning, creating a learning environment that supported them in becoming their best self, in knowing others, and developing a global perspective of the world was my goal. The founder of Soka University, Daisaku Ikeda, describes three elements of a global citizen (Ikeda, 2001): • • •

The wisdom to perceive the interconnectedness of all life and living. The courage not to fear or deny difference, but to respect and strive to understand people of different cultures and to grow from encounters with them. The compassion to maintain an imaginative empathy that reaches beyond one’s immediate surroundings and extends to those suffering in distant places. (pp. 444)

The qualities of wisdom, courage, and compassion became central to fostering global citizens in my classroom. My approach imbues these three qualities in the development of a global mindset. To operationalize the praxis aspect of education, my goal was to cultivate in students an understanding of leadership as action. Taking action for oneself and others can be propelled by the practice of leadership. Sharing the perspective that leaders can be nurtured and trained to contribute to the greater good, exploring the practice of leadership can be very empowering for students. BOSIO:  What are three key elements of GCE in the modern higher education institution? GUAJARDO: Three key elements of GCE at the university level are: 1. Becoming more human; 2. Knowing self and others; and 3. Praxis – taking action. These elements are based on my approach to teaching;

Global Citizenship Education 175 that is, creating a learning environment that fosters individual transformation. A university learning environment embedded with the cultivation of these elements fosters GCE. This is achieved by connecting to one’s humanity; connecting to others in community; and embracing a spirit of desiring to contribute to social change. In community, we exist due to a relational experience of being with others. Creating a culture that values relationships is a necessary first step and catalyst for transformation. Through the process of becoming an individual aware of self, embracing one’s diversity and the uniqueness of others, allows one to begin to perceive the interconnectedness of individuals, as well as how one might contribute to social change. This position is summarized by Ikeda (Harding & Ikeda, 2013) who defined global citizens as individuals “in a search for truths about human existence, life, and the universe. They are eternal advocates for justice, battling to triumph over injustice. They are eternal activists whose goal is to rid the world of human misery and enable all people to enjoy their right to happiness” (p. 227). The concept of activism implies that action will be taken based on the perspective of contributing to society. GCE can thus contribute to the greater good, with students engaged in individual and societal transformation. These three key elements mirror my own process of learning about myself as an ethnic minority in the United States and Japan, striving to learn about those around me, and then serving as a bridge builder, committed to creating access and inclusion to higher education while embodying the values of wisdom, courage, and compassion. BOSIO:  You suggest that the “purpose of pursuing GCE is to transform oneself and contribute to the world”. Can you discuss how this may be translated into pedagogical practices in higher education, for example, in the classes that you teach currently and taught in the past? GUAJARDO:  When I was invited to join Soka University in Japan, I was new to the task of teaching undergraduates and graduate students. As an experienced facilitator, I brought a facilitative learning approach to the classroom and proceeded to conduct each class as a training session. Every 90-minute class period became an opportunity to create an experience; to draw out my students’ curiosity and support them in connecting head to heart. Connecting head to heart entails connecting knowledge and personal experience. We come into the learning context as individuals with an accumulation of experiences that have shaped who we are, what we believe, and what matters to us. We are not empty vessels. Therefore, making this connection of knowledge to who we are is a process of making meaning of what one is learning. Implementing strategies for building trust, building community, and developing agency through the engagement of students on issues related to culture, power, and identity, was my goal for teaching

176  Maria Guajardo and learning. Working with the experiences presented by students and my own, the aforementioned issues were connected to being and knowing, analyzed through the lens of becoming more human. GCE was presented as an experience, an array of options for perceiving the world, coupled with an intention for contributing to the greater good. It was not tied to one nation or state, but rather, it encompassed the interconnectedness of the individual to the whole. One cannot exist without the other, and, in fact, only exists because of the other. The complexity of being human, becoming, and knowing, is a narrative of hope and transformation (Ikeda, 1996) and my goal as an educator is to create a learning environment imbued with this spirit. Exercises and activities are introduced in the university classroom setting designed to stimulate critical thinking about self and the environment. To illustrate, in one exercise to expand on one’s understanding of self and others, students walk into the classroom and are asked to stand next to the person they believe is most different from them. Students hesitate to select someone, fearful of pointing out differences in a society where different is often seen negatively. Once students are in pairs, they engage in a structured dialogue to share who they are and learn about the other person. Students often remark that they had longed to speak to someone “different” and this exercise provided them with their first meaningful dialogue with someone perceived as different from them. This exercise often prompts the discovery that they share many things in common with the “different” person. Thus begins the process of learning about self and others, building trust, and vulnerability, the initial building blocks of a learning community. I work to engage students in small group work, and large classroom activities, to get to know themselves relative to concepts, such as democracy and leadership. For example, students are placed on a team of ten and given instructions to complete a task. In one case, the task was to hold a five-feet long rod, as a team, with each member using only one finger and having the rod lay flat across all fingers. Working together, the team’s goal was to lower the rod to the ground. Each team struggled to balance the lightweight rod and after 15 minutes, the teams were not successful in completing the task. The discussion that followed connected the team process to the reallife experience of working with a group to accomplish a shared goal. What role does each individual assume? Who stepped into a leadership role? How did one deal with frustration? Upon reflection, participants questioned their abilities in achieving team goals, challenging themselves to move past frustration and despair. The transformative experience occurs in the debriefing session where participants are challenged to connect the activity to their own experiences outside of the classroom. Students are asked, “How does this exercise mirror

Global Citizenship Education 177 the real world?” New realizations emerge as students discuss the challenges in approaching real-world problems. BOSIO: Your conceptualization of GCE seems to focus on the two notions of becoming and the knowing leading to action. How do these dimensions relate to students’ global learning? GUAJARDO: Global learning is the practice of becoming aware of the diversity and richness of multiple countries, cultures, and people on this planet, while recognizing one’s own contribution to that diversity. Through this awareness, students are challenged to understand their place in the world, relative to others. In my university classes, there are typically 50% international students and 50% domestic Japanese students. Currently, in one class of 22 students, there are 11 countries represented and a total of 14 languages are spoken. Interestingly, students report that there are few opportunities to connect across countries. International students often keep to themselves, and domestic Japanese students do the same. Exposure to others is necessary but not sufficient for engagement to occur between students. Meaningful engagement in the classroom allows students to begin to learn about themselves and others, in a community and as individuals. Students learn of the Ubuntu concept, a Zulu phrase that is often translated as – I am because you are (Ifejika, 2006). This phrase, representative of African humanist philosophy, reflects that we exist because of the other, sharing a common humanity. My challenge in the classroom is to get students to understand who they are, and then to share this understanding with the other, while also learning about the other. For example, I will ask students to search for an object that represents their culture, an object that is currently in their possession. Students dig through their pockets, pocketbooks, and backpacks, struggling to select a cultural item. Oftentimes, the first comment is, “I don’t have anything.” Encouraged to keep searching, every student will inevitably find a cultural item. In small groups, they then share how that object reflects their culture, the significance of this cultural object, and how they view the world through a cultural frame of reference. These diverse cultural frames are then linked to the topics or concepts of the course. For many students, this is the first time they are examining how their cultural upbringing shapes their worldview. The classroom becomes a safe community in which to share these new learnings, linking the personal to the global. BOSIO:  You seem to suggest that GCE is transformative in its essence. In this perspective, what is the role of the teacher? What is the role of the learner? GUAJARDO: Broadly speaking, the role of teachers is to challenge students to search for new knowledge, new understanding, and new awareness; then to challenge them to critically engage with the

178  Maria Guajardo world based on this new knowledge. My role as an educator is to hold the space for reflection, dialogue, ambivalence, and to raise questions with no easy answers; all in the pursuit of nurturing the development of global citizens, individuals striving to become better human beings, connecting to the world, and contributing to the greater good. The role of learners is to trust in the learning process, while at the same time engaging and contributing, based on their past experiences and unique perspectives. Exercises, dialogue, and discussion are aimed at connecting head and heart. Following a model of leadership education, knowledge, praxis, and reflection are the three elements introduced in my approach to GCE. Students are exposed to knowledge and encouraged to share their own. Praxis in leadership education is the opportunity to put theory into action. Reflection allows for the integration of knowledge and praxis, leading to the creation of new knowledge and new meaning. Students are always encouraged to weigh in on the familiar knowledge and experiences from their own cultural backgrounds. This cultural perspective is viewed as a strength and asset and contributes to the learning experience. For example, if the class topic is the intersection of religion and politics, students are encouraged to share in small groups their experience from their home country. Beliefs and assumptions are opened to discussion and students are often encouraged to imagine new perspectives and new possibilities. BOSIO:  You also emphasize dialogue as a crucial element in fostering the global citizen. How would you incorporate dialogue into the GCE curriculum? GUAJARDO:  Incorporating the practice of dialogue into the curriculum reflects the teaching pedagogy one embraces, as opposed to curricular content. My teaching philosophy is based on the perspective of connecting head and heart, and thus, learning experiences that facilitate this connection are important to what happens in the classroom. Freire’s Dialogical Theory of Action is based on communication and cooperation, necessary for understanding and changing the world (Rugut and Osman, 2013). Dialogue is central to cultivating student agency (Bajaj & Vlad, 2018); and as such, is a creative act that is communal and relational. Humanizing dialogues “empower the individual and the group to shift from passive acceptance to restorative action” (p. 74), thus contributing to the learning experience. In every class, students engage in structured dialogues, practice listening, reflection, and how to share. Through this process, students learn how to dialogue, and practice being authentic. This authenticity leads to strengthened relationships. Key to effective dialogue is the act of listening with intentionality (Siegel & Gaudelli, 2018; Yokota, 2007). In my work

Global Citizenship Education 179 with students, I teach a method of structured dialogue, where students assume the role of a listener and are given specific instructions to listen to understand, not to respond. Students are instructed to give 100% of their undivided attention to their partner. The seating arrangement involves two chairs facing each other, with right corners touching. This places students in close proximity to one another, with no table or desk as an obstruction. Humanizing dialogues are transformational and “they involve learning to question, gaining awareness, accepting diversity, strengthening democracy, and transforming individuals from object into subject” (Bajaj and Vlad, p. 74). As Ikeda shared in his 2019 Peace Proposal, “The process of dialogue and the cultivation of mutual understanding never fail to generate fresh energy and a more ideal path toward a better future for the world” (p. 28). Therefore, when GCE includes structured dialogue as a pedagogical tool, the learning experience expands for students and the instructor. BOSIO:  Maria, you have significant experience teaching at the university level in the context of Japan and beyond. Why is GCE necessary in the modern university, particularly in Japan? GUAJARDO:  GCE will prove foundational for the mission of higher education, both in Japan and in other countries. Living at a time when the distinction between nationalism and globalization is negligible, how we learn to be in relationship with others is at the crux of higher education. Furthermore, equity and inclusion of all is needed now more than ever. Fostering the strength of both men and women, cultivating the wisdom of young and old, harnessing innovation and creativity, and leading with compassion and dignity will provide hope for new possibilities. Japan is a country striving for greatness. Similar to other nations, this greatness can only emerge when the oppression of gender, national origin, and age is diminished. While Japan is not unique in fueling disparities at the intersection of race, gender, and age; it does lend itself to unique challenges given its history of exclusion, domination, and authoritarianism. Furthermore, international students are actively being sought to attend universities in Japan. Many students are from multiethnic backgrounds and are grappling with understanding their own self-identity. The intersection of multiple nationalities exemplifies the complexity of their experiences. Two experiences capture this complexity that weighs on student learning on a daily basis. One female student shared that she just realized that she will always be a minority. She is from Indonesia, of Chinese heritage. The Chinese in Indonesia are an ethnic minority group. She struggles with the idea of understanding her role in the world, given her new perspective of her minority status. Another student has three nationalities. His father is Chinese, mother is Japanese, and he was born in

180  Maria Guajardo Australia; and he is fluent in English and Japanese. He asked the question – where do I belong to? Teaching in Japan has allowed me to deeply appreciate the importance of understanding one’s identity, relative to history, culture, and power. Higher education is the sector with the possibility of bridging across differences, while also prioritizing the need to deepen one’s understanding of self. BOSIO:  What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators toward GCE in higher education, particularly in Japanese universities? GUAJARDO: The concept of globalization in higher education has been actively promoted in Japanese universities by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) for the past two decades. Grant-funded initiatives, such as Go Global and Top Global University Project, are two initiatives designed to increase the internationalization of universities, with one strategy being the recruitment of international students and another the preparation of students for an international workforce. Criticism of these programs includes that the internationalization concept is limited to learning English, and not necessarily to learning competencies and creating a more inclusive culture/environment, or a global mindset for Japan’s workforce. The goal of becoming more global is interpreted as producing more English speakers and providing more students with an opportunity for study abroad, neither of which will necessarily change the culture in Japanese work environments to be more inclusive. As universities strive to become more global, English Medium Instruction (EMI) courses have become more popular. The delivery of content courses in English had proven to be a source of tension amongst faculty members who are now being asked to teach content courses in English. While a Japanese faculty member may speak English, the request to teach a content course in English is not something they are prepared or equipped to do. Teaching students, for whom English is a second language, requires additional training and resources. Faculty members have been ill-equipped to meet the demand, thus leading to a negative attitude about top-down mandates to become more global. Given this context, the comprehensive nature of GCE is nuanced in a manner that is difficult to align with MEXT goals or pronouncements. BOSIO:  How can GCE be made suitable for or attractive to students studying in Japanese universities? What knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and experiences are graduates expected to acquire in order to become “global citizens”? Is GCE in the modern university, particularly in Japanese universities, more about knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, or some combination of all four in your opinion?

Global Citizenship Education 181 GUAJARDO:  International

companies, along with futurists, are promoting the need for competencies that Japanese higher education is ill-prepared to deliver. At the Global Forum, 2019 conference held in Tokyo in August (Global Forum, 2019), perspectives from CEOs and top economists were offered on Japan’s preparedness for globalization. Every speaker agreed that Japan and its education system were lacking in preparing a new workforce. Corporate leaders cited the need for critical thinking skills, along with the skill to offer dissenting opinions, embrace diversity, expand global perspectives, ability to articulate a vision, and a strategic mindset. Risk-taking must be reconsidered. In a typical Japanese company, it is difficult to take risks; being risk-averse is embedded in the culture of the Japanese organization. Studies report that the incoming workforce, whether recognized as millennials or Generation Z, are seeking to have impact in the world, they want to have a purpose. GCE, by definition, imbues value and purpose. The value of becoming a global citizen is in becoming a “contributive” human being. The knowledge, skills, values, and experiences gained in a traditional educational experience become meaningful when they are grounded in the act of contributing to a greater good. Developing a specific skill set is insufficient. GCE is an act of transformation at the individual and societal level. BOSIO:  How can students’ achievements of these attributes (knowledge, skills, values, and disposition) be identified? GUAJARDO: When GCE is understood as an act of transformation, assessment serves to capture both the process of change and the outcome of change. Assessment, therefore, is both iterative and formative. In my courses, students write and speak on the change they are experiencing. Exposure to new experiences, such as structured dialogue, is examined during reflection exercises, both oral and written. Students are taught how to reflect and are encouraged to engage in reflection on a weekly basis. After 15 weeks, the length of a semester at my university, students reflect on the semester experience, changes in themselves, their perspective, and are asked to identify takeaways, learning that has been embraced. In some courses, I ask students to write a letter to themselves on the first day of class; a letter that includes expectations, hopes, fears, and dreams. The letter is placed in a sealed envelope and self-addressed. I collect the letters and store them away. At the end of the semester, I return to students their letters and ask them to read them silently in class and then share reflections on what was read. What was the same or different? What had transpired in 15 weeks? What had they learned about themselves, from how they started the semester until now, the end of the semester? Inevitably, there is shock and amazement, and often tears. Students often share that they are not the same person from

182  Maria Guajardo 15 weeks ago and go on to reflect on their own learning and transformation. I close with the question – What will you do differently as a result of this class experience? BOSIO:  You are substantially advocating for a humanistic and transformative approach to GCE. In this view, what are three themes a higher education curriculum for GCE should include in your opinion? GUAJARDO: GCE involves a way of becoming and knowing. Based on the premise that I am because we are, and we are because I am, the interconnectedness that exists between individuals locally and globally needs to be a driver in education. Therefore, GCE can provide the pathway toward a more humanistic approach to education; an approach that promotes individual and societal transformation. As educators, our role is to create a learning environment that allows students to learn how to heighten their level of comfort for dealing with the complexity of the world. Our job is not to simplify the world to a level that allows us to feel comfort. Freire and Ikeda share a humanistic approach to education, both promoting the need to create value in the world. Standing on their shoulders, my goal is to create value in the classroom, with every student and in every interaction.

12.6 Conclusion Raising the next generation of global leaders for a world that does not yet exist is the task of educators; and it is a responsibility that I take very seriously. Fostering and developing global citizens through a humanistic approach is one pathway to this goal, thus contributing to a more just and peaceful world. Through a process of becoming more human and knowing oneself and others, one can take contributive action. Humanistic thought leaders, such as Freire, Harding, Ikeda, and Noddings were introduced as individuals who have widened the path of humanism, presenting perspective, values, and priorities that guide the process of becoming and knowing. As learners prepare for a new world, GCE provides a direction for the educational experience in learning communities. This transformational work is facilitated through a dialogic process, a process of connecting and relating to others. Dialogue is a relational experience that can be transformative; pushing one to be courageous and compassionate with others; developing trust and revealing one’s vulnerabilities. In a world that is promoting connections via technology instead of person-to-person, as educators and learners, we must be mindful of not losing sight of continually connecting head and heart. Guided by the values of courage, wisdom, and compassion, the purpose of becoming a global citizen is in becoming a contributive human being, a goal worthy of our work as educators.

Global Citizenship Education 183

References Araujo Freire, A. M. (2015). Forward: The understanding of Paulo Freire’s education: Ethics, hope, and human rights. In M. A. Peters, & T. Besley (Eds.), Paulo Freire: The global legacy (pp. xiii–xxiii). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Bajaj, M., & Vlad, I. (2018). Dialogue and agency. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.), Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict resolution (pp. 71–83). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Falkenberg, T. (2015). Introduction: Philosophical perspectives on education for well-being. Paideusis, 22(2), 1–7. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. New York, NY: Bergen & Garvey. Freire, P. (1992). The Purpose of Education. Extract from The 40th Anniversary of the UNESCO Institute for Education, UIE Reports No. 6, 1992. Retrieved from Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 377–402. Gebert, A. & Monte, J. (2007). Value Creation as the Aim of Education: Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and Soka Education. In D. Hansen (Ed.), Ethical Visions of Education: Philosophies in Practice (pp. 65–82). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 65–82. Global Forum. (2019). Human resource development for the future of Japan Preparing Our Workforce of Tomorrow in Japan. Retrieved from https://www. Goulah, J. (2018). The presence and role of dialogue in Soka education. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.), Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict Resolution (pp. 55–70). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. Guajardo, M., & Reiser, M. (2016). Humanism as the foundation for global citizenship education. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 20(3), 241–252. Harding, V., & Ikeda, D. (2013). America will Be! Conversations on Hope, freedom, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Dialogue Path Press. Ifejika, N. (2006). What does ubuntu really mean? The Guardian, September 29. Retrieved from 11.g2 Ikeda, D. (1996). A new humanism: The university addresses of Daisaku Ikeda. New York, NY: Weatherhill. Ikeda, D. (2001). For the sake of peace. Santa Monica, CA: Middleway Press. Ikeda, D. (2019). 2019 Peace Proposal: Toward a New Era of Peace and Disarmament: A People-Centered Approach. Retrieved from https://www.sgi. org/about-us/president-ikedas-proposals/peace-proposal-2019/index.html McDowell, C. L. (2018). Dialogue and demographic complexity. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.), Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict resolution (pp. 215–236). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.

184  Maria Guajardo Nanda, V., & Ikeda, D. (2015). Our world to make: Hinduism, Buddhism, and the rise of global civil society. Cambridge, MA: Dialogue Path Press. Noddings, N. (2005). Global citizenship: Promises and problems. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global awareness (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Rugut, E.J., & Osman, A. A. (2013). Reflection on Paulo Freire and Classroom Relevance. American International Journal of Social Science, 2(2), 23–28. Retrieved from Seidl-de-Moura, M. L., & Fernandes Mendes, D. (2012). Human development: The role of biology and culture. Open access peer-reviewed chapter. doi: 10.5772/36474. Siegel, B., & Gaudelli, W. (2018). Listening and dialogue in educators’ reflective practice. In S. P. N. (Ed.), Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict resolution (pp. 39–54). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. Torres, C. A. (2008). Paulo Freire and social justice education. In C. A. Torres, & P. Noguera (Eds.), Social justice education for teachers: Paulo Freire and the possible dream (pp. 2–11). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Torres, C. A. (2013). The secret adventures of order: Globalization, education and transformative social justice learning. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos, Brasília, 94(238), 661–676. Retrieved from 10.1590/S2176- 66812013000300002 Urbain, O. (2018). Bringing Out the Best in oneself and others: The role of dialogue in Daisaku Ikeda’s peacebuilding practice. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.), Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict Resolution (pp. 105–120). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. Yokota, M. (2007). The Healing Power of Dialogue, Retrieved from ikedacenter. org/thinkers-themes/dialogue/yokota-on-dialogue. Yokota, M. & Douglass, C. (2019). How to Develop True Care: Three Interviews with Nel Noddings. Encounters in Theory and History of Education. 20(Fall), 102–123. Retrieved from issue/view/861

13 Global Citizenship Education as a Metacritical Pedagogy Concluding Reflections Emiliano Bosio

13.1 Introduction Global citizenship education (GCE) as described by the scholars in this book could offer educators and students new knowledge, values, and different future visions that do not adhere to straightforward narratives of economic development (but still are critically engaged with its narrative) (Bosio, 2020). I call this a metacritical GCE pedagogy. A metacritical position can be seen as a form of metacriticism of GCE: “A criticism of criticism, the goal of which is to scrutinize systematically the terminology, logic, and structure that undergird critical and theoretical discourse in general or any particular mode of such discourse” (Henderson & Brown, 1997, p. 77). The metacritical GCE I propose in the final chapter of this book is oriented within a paradigm of value-pluralism. The notion of valuepluralism (also known as ethical-pluralism) is that there are multiple forms of knowledge and values that are both equally important for student development yet conflicting in their shared space (Bosio, 2019). The robust form of value-pluralism I envision in the metacritical framework for GCE moves from compatibility as a possibility to the various types of critical networks and diverse GCE ethical systems that are engaged with each other. Therefore, I propose the metacritical GCE (see Figure 13.1) as ingrained into the following principles: 1 Conscientization and social justice rooted in critical pedagogy 2 Postcoloniality, conviviality, and planetary citizenship 3 Global skills, critical semiotics, and critical engagement with neoliberalism 4 Flourishing, awareness, responsibility, participation, and humanism As I illustrate in Figure 13.1, a metacritical GCE demands a political “conscientization”, constantly reconstructing and engaging in a way that educators have not always encouraged. As Henry Giroux and I discussed

186  Emiliano Bosio

Figure 13.1  Principles of Metacritical Global Citizenship Education.

in our chapter, this means supporting students to understand that collective responsibility matters, democracy matters, social justice matters, and the social contact and the welfare state matter. In this view, metacritical GCE has a social justice orientation as it offers students a jumping-off point to reject the paradigms of higher education that are justified by economics and instrumentalism, demanding that education should be efficient and its outcomes justified by hard evidence. With GCE constructed from a point of view of critical pedagogy, no student would be ignorant of or accepting of social injustice. Students would be given support to identify and transform the division paradigms of North/South, Indigenous/ nonindigenous, white/black/brown that represent paternalism, ethnocentrism, depoliticization, ahistoricism and hegemony (Bosio & Torres, 2019; Torres & Bosio, 2020a; Torres & Bosio, 2020b). A metacritical GCE would also support students to develop a non-killing attitude; that is, a profound commitment to nonviolence through a philosophy of

Global Citizenship Education 187 non-killing originating from the transformative power of each and all faiths and philosophies (Bosio, 2017a; 2017b). A metacritical GCE also involves educators offering students the opportunity to engage in principles of otherwise/postcoloniality, conviviality, and planetary citizenship. Sharon Stein and Vanessa Andreotti describe the notion of “GCE/Otherwise”, or a means to cultivate particular values in learners (e.g. postcolonial views) that will then determine their actions. In this case, a metacritical GCE also incorporates an opportunity to invite learners to deepen their intellectual engagements, sensitize themselves to the complexities and contradictions involved in making change, and develop a more expansive sense of entanglement with the world. Similarly, the notion of conviviality in relation to metacritical GCE highlights that supporting students to understand that building good relationships with other people, communities, species is pivotal as described by Lynette Shultz in her chapter. It lifts the cloud of individualism that has settled on people through the hegemony of neoliberal ideology, making it difficult to see that we have a shared planet and a shared future. In addition, a metacritical GCE includes Silvia, Eduardo, and Josefina Moraes’s notion of planetary citizenship where students are encouraged to understand that a culture of coexistence is a primary necessity in today’s world. This approach arises as a dialectic response to global citizenship, stemming from the realization that the different human identities and ways of being are expressions of the inherent richness and diversity of the human soul. Metacritical GCE also involves pedagogical encounters which are deliberative, iterative, and equal as Yusef Waghid suggested in his chapter. However, the approaches suggested above are more effective if they can be combined with the development of students’ global skills for social justice, critical semiotics, and critical engagement with neoliberalism. Within the discussions on the possibilities to conceptualize a metacritical GCE, the notion of global skills and its relationship to global citizenship, there is a need to encourage learning that not only recognizes the different ways skills can be interpreted but also to bring in themes of global social justice and global responsibility as suggested by Douglas Bourn in his chapter. Developing students’ global skills in a metacritical GCE need to be much more than skills for employment in the global marketplace, but skills for life and skills to make sense of the impact of globalization on our daily lives. Within this broader interpretation of global skills, a connection to global citizenship debates emerges particularly if the theme of global social justice is included. This should also include, as suggested by Massimiliano Tarozzi, advancing a non-neutral notion of GCE oriented toward global social justice which considers GCE not only new educational content, as a mere extension of the citizenship’s concept from the national to the global level, but a new perspective that allows policy-makers and practitioners

188  Emiliano Bosio to reconceptualize old issues within a new educational perspective by combining inter-multicultural education with a perspective of education to environmental sustainability and providing new meanings to the problems of citizenship in global, plural and heterogeneous societies. In addition to this, a metacritical GCE incorporates the notion of semiotics, firmly rooted in Philosophy, Logic and Science as described by Maureen Ellis in her chapter. Semiotics in metacritical GCE adds values through the science of signs, insight into how signs emerge and develop into symbols, in short how meaning is made. Framing Ellis’ views on semiotics in the context of metacritical GCE vision, attention to meaning means a renewed interest in the individual developing consciousness, the sources of a learner’s beliefs and opinions, the power of conversation, the internal processing of what is presented to learners, the incremental absorption process, or as Miri Yemini concludes in her chapter, an open and continuous process, where all the participating actors are actively involved which will develop graduates who will critically engage with neoliberalism and internationalization, while fighting for more equate and just society locally and globally. Furthermore, the process of conscientization and social justice development via metacritical GCE develops students’ “flourishing”, awareness, responsibility, participation, and humanistic ideals. In his chapter William Gaudelli explains that part of flourishing is for learners to fully use one’s mind and capacities. The value of flourishing as an aim is that it unites students’ personal desire for attainment and achievement while helping to build the social capacity of all people as we encourage the growth of each other. This is fundamental to being human and developing one’s ability to think, to know, to reason and to feel points always outward and beyond. A metacritical GCE also incorporates Hans Schattle’s notions of awareness, responsibility, and participation. As he suggests one way to develop students’ awareness, responsibility, and participation is by offering courses that look at the world as truly interconnected, as a single interdependent unit, and across a wide range of issues – economic development, food and agriculture, environmental degradation and global warming, poverty, public health, immigration, security risks such as nuclear proliferation and suicide terrorism. Another important perspective that a metacritical GCE implements is Maria Guajardo’s perspective; this is rooted in humanistic and transformational elements which include students’ becoming more human, knowing self and others; and praxis – taking action. These elements would create a learning environment that fosters individual transformation. Lastly, it is clear that developing pedagogical frameworks like the metacritical I proposed in this chapter will have limitations and be open to criticism. These frameworks tend to stress basic understanding and to conflate many issues of considerable complexity, place more stress on ideals without undertaking in-depth practice and curriculum analysis.

Global Citizenship Education 189 Also, they might lack consideration for or recognition of alternative regional or national cultures. Any framework for the classification description of theory and practice, including that for GCE I proposed in this chapter, will always be susceptible to being criticized. Nevertheless, in order to contrast market-driven only approaches to GCE it is imperative that we constantly redefine what GCE means in fostering the kind of citizens needed to engage actively in the creation of world peace today and to attain the transformations imperative for achieving more just societies. I am of the opinion that this vision needs to be transferred holistically as an ideal aim of university core curricula, not separately labelled as an “international programme”. A metacritical GCE has therefore at its heart notions of knowledge and values as infinitely interdependent and endlessly engaging, for, as Heisenberg suggests (as cited in Bosio, 2020, p. 203): “The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite.”

References Bosio, E. (2017a). Educating for global citizenship and fostering a nonkilling attitude. In J. Evans Pim, & S. H. Rico (Eds.), Nonkilling education (pp. 59–70). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Bosio, E. (2017b). How do we create transformative global citizens? University World News, December 1. Accessed July 4 2020: post.php?story=20171129082744388 Bosio, E. (2019). The need for a values-based university curriculum. University World News, September 28. Accessed July 4 2020: https://www.universityworldnews. com/post.php?story=2019092415204357 Bosio, E. (2020). Towards an ethical global citizenship education curriculum framework in the modern university. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Bloomsbury handbook for global education and learning (pp. 187–206). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education, 17(6), 745–760. 1478210319825517 Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020a). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good and critical consciousness. Prospects. Comparative Journal of Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment. Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020b). Critical reflections on the notion of global citizenship education. A dialogue with Carlos Alberto Torres in relation to higher education in the United States. Encyclopaideia, 24(56), 107–117. doi: https://


ActionAid 40 awareness 34, 77, 106, 124, 144, 148, 149, 151, 154, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 177, 184, 185, 189 Brazil 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59 Brazilian 45, 49, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 61, 75, 76 Britain 110, 153 citizenship 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 59, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 103, 104, 106, 107, 102, 104, 108, 110, 120, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 132, 134, 140, 142, 143, 147, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 171, 184, 185, 187, 189 civil society 69, 75, 77, 78, 79, 83, 109, 167, 184 colonialism 27, 35, 38, 40, 41 competencies 50, 75, 76, 79, 84, 85, 100, 124, 125, 131, 181 conviviality 37, 38, 42, 43, 185, 187 cosmopolitan 67, 69, 71, 79, 80, 85, 164, 172 COVID-19 89, 140, 142, 169 critical 25, 26, 28, 29, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 64, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 88, 94, 98, 102, 104, 102, 103, 104, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120, 123, 128,132, 143, 162, 163, 172, 174, 176, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189

Critical Global Educator 109 Critical Global Semiotics 104, 108 Critical Realism 108 curriculum 28, 33, 35, 38, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 63, 77, 85, 87, 86, 88, 102, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 128, 131, 142, 143, 149, 151, 167, 169, 178, 182, 190 decolonial 35, 37, 42 democracy 27, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, 162, 164, 176, 183, 186 Desmond Tutu 64 dialectic 104 dialogue 57, 58, 76, 81, 83, 92, 113, 118, 151, 173, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 181, 183, 184, 189 Donald Trump 75 Earth CARE’s Global Justice Framework 15 ecological 28, 29, 34, 50, 55, 91, 120, 140 ethical 37, 40, 44, 75, 94, 112, 139, 162, 167, 185, 189 ethics 40, 43, 51, 112, 113, 139, 150, 163 Europe 41, 75, 76, 77, 92, 96, 98, 104, 105, 106, 111, 142, 145, 151 European 38, 40, 41, 47, 77, 88, 92, 93, 96, 100, 106, 110, 121, 129, 134, 142, 145, 153, 159, 160, 162, 168, 169 European Union 77, 153, 159, 162 Faculty of International Liberal Arts 174

Index 191 Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures 17 global citizen 27, 33, 37, 41, 52, 70, 79, 80, 86, 88, 115, 130, 143, 153, 154, 156, 164, 166, 167, 170, 174, 178, 181, 182 global citizenship 30, 37, 40, 62, 75, 76, 79, 81, 86, 87, 86, 89, 94, 102, 132, 140, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 170, 187 global citizenship education 37, 62, 76, 88, 89, 98, 104, 106, 107, 102, 132, 134, 160, 173, 189 global issues 40, 43, 76, 77, 83, 84, 87, 92, 98, 108, 115, 141, 151, 154, 162, 166, 171 global learning 42, 76, 77, 79, 88, 146, 147, 148, 177 Global Social Justice Framework 90, 98, 104 global south 169 globalization 38, 41, 43, 52, 54, 75, 80, 81, 84, 86, 92, 93, 94, 98, 105, 125, 137, 138, 151, 157, 162, 164 Habermas 107 Hannah Arendt 173 Henry Giroux 76, 186 heteroglossic 104 higher education 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 56, 59, 69, 75, 76, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88, 98, 100, 102, 109, 111, 115, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 142, 148, 166, 169, 175, 181, 182, 186, 189 holistic 104 house modernity built 13 human development 107, 117, 146, 173 human flourishing 137, 138, 139, 140, 144, 146, 147, 150 human rights 33, 62, 64, 67, 70, 77, 91, 93, 96, 108, 140, 141, 146, 152, 154, 156, 159, 168, 169, 170, 183 humanity 27, 51, 54, 62, 66, 67, 94, 96, 113, 116, 146, 156, 166, 172, 173, 175, 177 Ikeda 88, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 182, 183, 184 Indigenous 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 41, 42, 54, 56

Intercultural Graduation Courses 56 internationalization 87, 100, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 132, 189 Israel 123, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133 Kant 106 Latin America 75, 92, 158 Latin American Institute for Education and Communication (ILPEC) 45 Learner autonomy 112 Makiguchi 88, 171 Masters Programme on Development Education and Global Learning 84 metacritical 185, 186, 187, 189 Nelson Mandela 64 neoliberal 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 80, 85, 86, 98, 104, 124, 125, 131, 187 neoliberalism 41, 123, 124, 128, 131, 134, 158, 164, 185, 189 New York Times 145, 151 Noddings 173, 171, 182, 184 OECD 79 oppressed 64 Oxford 159 participation 63, 69, 85, 119, 138, 140, 154, 156, 157, 160, 161, 163, 164, 167, 169, 170, 185, 189 Paulo Freire 40, 45, 49, 76, 172, 173, 183, 184 pedagogy 30, 37, 38, 49, 71, 76, 81, 86, 88, 90, 104, 105, 107, 113, 131, 173, 178, 183, 185, 186 philosophy 43, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 104, 109, 149, 160, 163, 177, 178, 186 planetary 45 populism 96, 153, 164 postcolonial 35, 47, 80, 90, 94, 98, 102, 128, 187 programme 88, 110, 131, 189 responsibility 34, 35, 42, 66, 67, 69, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 130, 154, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 182, 185, 186, 187, 189

192  Index Semiotics 110 skills 30, 32, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 86, 88, 89, 100, 102, 104, 115, 124, 125, 126, 131, 143, 148, 149, 150, 168, 181, 185, 187 social cartography 15 social change 23, 75, 77, 104, 172, 175 social justice 76 society 35, 38, 40, 47, 51, 52, 54, 60, 59, 66, 67, 69, 77, 81, 83, 86, 93, 115, 120, 124, 125, 126, 130, 132, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 151, 170, 175, 176, 189 Soka University 174, 175 South Africa 43, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70 South Korea 104, 166, 167, 168 Sustainable Development Goals 140 systemic 104 Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) 103 Systemic Functional Semiotics (SFS) 108 Thomas Pogge 137, 146

transformation 41, 43, 47, 63, 64, 81, 109, 110, 131, 132, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189 Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) 108 Truth and Reconciliation Commission 64 UCL-Institute of Education 84 UNESCO 44, 76, 79, 89, 90, 96, 106, 102, 104, 122, 183 United States 77, 153, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 167, 173, 175, 189 university 32, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 71, 85, 87, 100, 106, 103, 104, 118, 121, 128, 130, 131, 143, 147, 148, 149, 154, 161, 164, 166, 167, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 181, 183, 189 University of Alberta 40 values 30, 32, 41, 47, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, 71, 76, 80, 81, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 96, 102, 107, 112, 114, 115, 131, 148, 149, 150, 168, 171, 175, 181, 182, 185, 187, 189