Global Citizenship: a Typology for Distinguishing Its Multiple Conceptions

British Journal of Educational Studies

ISSN: 0007-1005 (Print) 1467-8527 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20

Global Citizenship: A Typology for Distinguishing its Multiple Conceptions

Laura Oxley & Paul Morris

To cite this article: Laura Oxley & Paul Morris (2013) Global Citizenship: A Typology for Distinguishing its Multiple Conceptions, British Journal of Educational Studies, 61:3, 301-325, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2013.798393

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393

Published online: 26 Jun 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1210

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbje20

Download by: [Durham University Library] Date: 11 November 2015, At: 15:00 British Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 61, No. 3, September 2013, pp. 301–325

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: A TYPOLOGY FOR DISTINGUISHING ITS MULTIPLE CONCEPTIONS

by LAURA OXLEY1 and PAUL MORRIS, Institute of Education, University of London

ABSTRACT: The promotion of ‘Global Citizenship’ (GC) has emerged as a goal of schooling in many countries, symbolising a shift away from national towards more global conceptions of citizenship. It currently incorporates a proliferation of approaches and terminologies, mirroring both the diverse conceptions of its nature and the socio-politico contexts within which it is appropriated. This paper seeks to clarify this ambiguity by constructing a typology to identify and distinguish the diverse conceptions of GC. The typology is based on two general forms of GC: cosmopolitan based and advocacy based. The former incorporates four distinct conceptions of GC – namely, the political, moral, economic and cultural; the latter incorporates four other conceptions – namely, the social, critical, environmental and spiritual. Subsequently, we brieﬂy illustrate how the typology can be used to evaluate the critical features of a curriculum plan designed to promote GC in England. The typology provides a novel and powerful means to analyse the key features of the very diverse range of educational policies and programmes that promote GC. Keywords: global citizenship, global citizenship education, global dimension, cosmopolitanism, curriculum analysis

1. INTRODUCTION In a recent seminar series, different speakers used Global Citizenship (GC) as a basis for: justifying a ban in western society on face-covering veils for women; promoting and working with differences across cultural and religious divides; deconstructing western hegemony; and giving citizens new skills enabling them to resolve conflicts and contest injustices. A similar ambiguity emerged at a working group when GC was proposed as one of the primary goals for development education funded by the United Kingdom, but was later removed after an agreed Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 definition of the term could not be provided. This diversity mirrors that in broader writings, policies and practices of GC education. GC has, along with ‘lifelong learning’, taken on the status of a ‘global’ or ‘travelling’ educational policy. It is now promoted as a goal of schooling generally, and specifically of school subjects such as Civics and Social Studies in many countries; and in many others, variants of GC – such as the ‘Global Dimension’ and ‘Global Awareness’ – are promoted. However, it is subject to a

ISSN 0007-1005 (print)/ISSN 1467-8527 (online) © 2013 Society for Educational Studies http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393 http://www.tandfonline.com 302 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP wide range of interpretations in the diverse contexts in which it is appropriated and promoted. An associated construct, Global Citizenship education (GCE), is also entwined with a number of overlapping ideas including development education, democratic education, education for cosmopolitan citizenship, peace education and human rights education. Consequently, as identified by Marshall (2005, 2007), both GC and GCE are used ambiguously and understood differently both within and across contexts. The resulting confusion is not merely a problem of semantics: as Byers (2005) notes, the term global is used to invoke ideas ranging from ‘[people who are] well-rounded [and] adaptable’ to G. W. Bush’s ‘civilizing mission’ in the ‘Global War on Terrorism’. This paper begins by identifying and distinguishing the main ways in which GC has been categorised to date, within three major categories: ‘dichotomous’ (polarised categorisations of GC); ‘GC attributes’ and GC ‘-isms’ (ideological underpinnings of GC). We then propose a typology for identifying and distinguishing the diverse and major conceptions of GC. Finally, the paper suggests how the typology might be used to analyse a curriculum promoting a form of GCE. The typology is constructed using McCracken’s (1988) five stages, through which observations and relationships in academic texts are explored and com- bined into themes and categories through an iterative process. Relevant literature in English was identified through an extensive library search to discover materials focused on GC as their main theme. We started with large edited works relating to GC (and GCE) and subsequently investigated journal articles and books referenced in these texts, until a comprehensive picture had formed. The tex- tual analysis initially involved drawing out and coding ideas and statements from each text; these were then aligned with each other to draw out relationships and interconnections. These were then subjected to critical scrutiny and patterns and themes were identified. Eight conceptions were identified that emphasise distinct understandings of the nature and purposes of GC. At an early stage it became clear that within each of these conceptions there were a number of variations: for example, the political conception incorporated those who saw GC as a means to promote a world state and those who advocated anarchy. Accordingly, we have also identified some of the noticeable variations within each of the eight conceptions. Following an outline of existing typologies, we summarise these eight conceptions and describe the Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 approaches to GC associated with each, the key theorists and the contemporary proponents. We subsequently illustrate, by analysing an intended GCE curriculum using the typology, how it can be employed as a device to explore and evaluate the practical implications of the range of ideas and perspectives within the field of GC.

2. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP:THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE ‘Citizenship’ itself is viewed from many angles: for example, as a set of rights (Marshall, 1950), as a set of attributes (Cogan, 1998 & 2000), as a ‘status, feeling GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 303 or practice’ (Osler and Starkey, 2005) or as ‘a category, a tie, a role or an identity’ (Tilly, 1996). However, GC is distinctive because of the polarity of opinion it engenders: for some it implies universality and a deep commitment to a broader moral purpose, while for others it cannot feasibly be a valid concept due to the perceived absence of a ruling authority (e.g. a world government) on which to base such an idea of citizenship. Thus Parekh (2003, p. 12) rejects the idea of the global citizen with ‘no political home’ and advocates instead the idea of the ‘globally oriented citizen’. Nevertheless, it is clear from the growing literature, policies and practices employing GC (as identified by Schattle, 2008b) that it is a distinctive category within and beyond the field of citizenship, meriting comprehensive analysis. In developing a typology, the varied interpretations need to be both aligned with each other and with associated concepts such as cosmopolitanism, human rights, development and democracy. We identified three approaches currently used to describe and distinguish models of GC. We term these the dichotomous, the attributes and the -isms. The first consists of models that are characterised by the use of binary or polarised distinctions between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ conceptions of GC, whether the polarities are explicit (for example, Shultz’s [2011] ‘weak’ versus ‘strong’) or implicit (for example, Tully’s [2008] ‘modern’ versus ‘diverse’). The presentation and critique of the negative often serves to provide powerful rationalisations for the positive. Models that illustrate this approach are shown in Table 1. Generally, the category in Column A is portrayed as the hegemonic, dominant form; and that in Column B as the counter-hegemonic, ideal form. Notable exceptions to this are the models constructed by Lapayese (2003) and by Cameron and Haanstra (2008), who argue for a balance between the two forms in each of their models. This approach is useful because it provides a critical perspective and identifies sets of

TABLE 1: Examples of dichotomous approaches to models of global citizenship

Column A (often hegemonic, Column B (often dominant form of global counter-hegemonic, ideal Source citizenship) form of global citizenship)

Falk (1993, 1997) Globalisation from above Globalisation from below Lapayese (2003), using Common grounds approach Grounded global citizenship

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Olssen (2002)and Ichilov (2002) Andreotti (2006b) Soft global citizenship Critical global citizenship Arneil (2007) Civilising global citizenship Rooted global citizenship Cameron and Haanstra Northern agency Southern agency (2008) Tully (2008) Modern global citizenship Diverse global citizenship Shukla (2009) Vertical global citizenship Horizontal global citizenship Shultz (2011) Weak intercultural focus and Strong intercultural focus and weak structural analysis strong structural analysis 304 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP ideals for GC; but for our purposes a more nuanced analysis is necessary, rather than a polarised ‘good/bad’ scaffold. The ‘global citizen attributes’ approach includes models that focus on the desired attributes of global citizens, and some of these (for example, Falk, 1993; Roman, 2004) also incorporate the binary distinctions described in Table 1.This approach is often rooted in the work of curriculum developers seeking to identify the aims and pupil learning outcomes in the construction of school curricula: for example, to develop responsibility and empathy (Schattle, 2008b) or knowledge of other cultures (Veugelers, 2011). Gerzon’s (2010) five worldviews (egocentric, ideocentric, sociocentric, multicentric and geocentric) provide a sliding scale of identity attributes that to some extent mirror Hanvey’s (1976) five global perspectives (perspective consciousness, ‘state of the planet’ awareness, cross-cultural awareness, knowledge of global dynamics and awareness of human choices). These models also provide a strong normative vision of GC, but are not strongly linked to the ideas such as rights, action and social dynamics that are the foundations of theories of citizenship and GC, particularly within the political sciences and philosophy. They therefore fall under the category critiqued by Biesta and Lawy (2006, p. 72) in which an ‘assumption [is made that] citizenship can be understood as the outcome of an educational trajectory’. They argue that citizenship should not be perceived as a form of identity but as a ‘practice’; and they would categorise GC traits listed above as overly individualistic and disconnected from citizens’ real lives. Further, by assigning ‘sets’ of inclusive or exclusory characteristics and behaviours to each category of global citizen, stereotypes are created, such as ‘modernisers and globalisers’ (Tully, 2008, p. 33) and ‘the neoliberal global citizen’ (Shultz, 2007, p. 250), which downplay the potential for individuals to hold multiple, shifting and flexible identities as explored by Sen (2006) and Isin and Wood (1999). The third approach, ‘GC-isms’, distinguishes GC on the basis of their ideological underpinnings. This approach forms the essence of this article, since it allows the core concerns and intentions behind conceptions of GC to be explored in detail. Models within this approach can also be distinguished between those which are normative and those which are empirically derived. An example of the latter is Schattle’s (2008a) distinction between ‘moral cosmopolitanism, liberal multiculturalism, neoliberalism and environmentalism’, based on an extensive range Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 of interviews and document/web analysis; similarly, Richardson’s (2008) set of ‘Global Imaginaries’ (‘Imperial’, ‘Bipolar’, ‘Multipolar’, ‘Ecological’ and ‘Monopolar’) is based on a historical analysis of the Canadian curriculum. Neither of these typologies, however, allows space for spiritual and religious conceptions of GC; but this is justified, as categories are derived from observed manifestations of GC within particular contexts, rather than from an analysis of prevailing literature, much of which is normative. Overall, whilst these three approaches effectively distinguish critical features of conceptions of GC, the first two are driven by a normative perspective and GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 305 tend to employ dichotomous and sometimes stereotyped distinctions. Our goal is to develop a typology that includes both normative and empirically grounded conceptions of GC in terms of their ideological underpinnings. It is crucial to emphasise that the typology does not intend to provide hard-and-fast dividers between types of GC: as with the associated concept of globalisation, it embodies a complex, shifting and overlapping range of meanings – and as we proceed, we identify many of those overlaps. It is thus intended as a device to explore the critical features of a construct that is understood in diverse ways and is changing over time.

3. CONFLICTING AND CONVERGING FORMS OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP We identified eight principal conceptions of GC and these were grouped into two broad forms/types, namely: the ‘cosmopolitan’, which represents an essen- tially mainstream set of models; and an alternative, ‘advocacy’ based, set of models. Within each of these eight conceptions we also identified perspectives that, while focusing on the same conception, take a stance of a more ‘radical’ nature (meaning that, within the same general theme, they offer a critique of prevailing or mainstream perspectives). The cosmopolitan type contains four distinct conceptions that derive from the main approaches to distinguishing and analysing the dimensions/features of social organisations; namely, the political, moral, economic and cultural. Across the literature, significant use is increasingly made of the term ‘cosmopolitanism’: primarily as a synonym for GC and sometimes as an associated but differentiated concept. For a number of authors the term cosmopolitanism has been preferred to GC because it avoids the focus on citizenship and links the concept to the classical philosophies of Plato, Diogenes and the Stoics from which GC is seen to be derived. We elaborate on this below. The ‘advocacy’ types were so described because they portray themselves in contrast to at least one of the four cosmopolitan conceptions and they tend to involve a strong degree of advocacy from a particular perspective. These conceptions are: social, critical, environmental and spiritual. Table 2 summarises the key theorists for each conception, their contemporary proponents and their key concepts.

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship The typology in Table 2 identiﬁes four forms of GC that are labelled ‘cosmopolitan’. The term ‘cosmopolitanism’ – which derives from Ancient Greek ideas of universality, where the ‘cosmos’ (universe/world) is one’s ‘city’ (living place/community) – has seen a resurgence in popularity, especially following its usage by Nussbaum (1996), Appiah (2006) and, in the education ﬁeld, Popkewitz (2008) and Osler and Starkey (2008). Often couched within a framework of human rights, cosmopolitanism is regarded by some as a neo-imperial form of GC since its universalist perspective (the notion that all human beings share the same 306 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

TABLE 2: Categories of global citizenship identiﬁed from prevailing literature

Key theorists Conception (contemporary proponents) Focus, key concepts

Cosmopolitan types Political global Kant; Rawls (Held; A focus on the relationships of the citizenship McGrew; Linklater; individual to the state and other Carter; Archibugi; polities, particularly in the form Wendt) of cosmopolitan democracy Moral global Stoics; Kant; Sen; A focus on the ethical positioning of citizenship Nussbaum (Osler and individuals and groups to each Starkey; Veugelers; other, most often featuring ideas Cabrera) of human rights Economic global Hayek; Friedman; Smith; A focus on the interplay between citizenship Quesnay; Bowen (Carroll power, forms of capital, labour, and Shabana; Waddock resources and the human and Smith; Logsdon and condition, often presented as Wood) international development Cultural global J. S. Mill; Nietzsche A focus on the symbols that unite citizenship (übermensch)(He; and divide members of societies, Brimm; De Ruyter and with particular emphasis on Spiecker) globalisation of arts, media, languages, sciences and technologies Advocacy types Social global Habermas (communicative A focus on the interconnections citizenship rationality) (Falk; Cogan between individuals and groups and Derricott) and their advocacy of the ‘people’s’ voice, often referred to as global civil society Critical global Escobar; Said; Gramsci; A focus on the challenges arising citizenship Marx; critical pedagogy from inequalities and oppression, (for example, Freire) using critique of social norms to (Andreotti; Tully; Shultz) advocate action to improve the lives of dispossessed/subaltern populations, particularly through a post-colonial agenda Environmental global Enviro-scientiﬁc research A focus on advocating changes in citizenship (Dobson; Richardson; the actions of humans in relation

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Jelin) to the natural environment, generally called the sustainable development agenda Spiritual global Danesh; religious texts A focus on the non-scientiﬁc and citizenship (Noddings; immeasurable aspects of human Golmohamad; Lindner) relations, advocating commitment to axioms relating to caring, loving, spiritual and emotional connections GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 307 fundamental values) is rooted within a set of institutions and practices that are said to be West-centric (Arneil, 2007;Tully,2008). However, as Humes acknowledges, there are signiﬁcant pragmatic advantages to the cosmopolitan position:

One thinks, for example, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The spread of awareness of the principles enshrined in such documents, it is argued, puts pressure on oppressive regimes and gives hope to those who suffer from various forms of political persecution. (Humes, 2008, p. 43)

Peters et al. (2008) identify three types of cosmopolitan GC: political, moral and economic. While these are useful, they omit what Waks (2008, p. 204) describes as ‘aesthetic-cultural cosmopolitanism’, which, he suggests, represents ‘a kind of multi-national sophistication’. These four types (political, moral, economic and cultural) are analysed below.

Political Global Citizenship This is the most identiﬁable form since it relates directly to the idea of citizenship as a political status rather than in the more enigmatic forms described below. The three main styles of thinking that pervade this conception are cosmopolitan democracy (a more mainstream interpretation); world state; and anarchy (more radical alternatives). The ﬁrst form of political GC promotes a form of global governance that stresses democratisation and strengthening of current international institutions such as the United Nations into a ‘well-ordered world society’ (Pogge, 1989, p. 216). This is often referred to as a form of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’, as advocated by Held (1995, 2004), McGrew (1997), Dower (2000, 2003), Linklater (1998) and Archibugi (2008), among others. However, Tully (2008, p. 23), from a post-colonial perspective, considers this an extension of ‘Western imperialism’; and Roman (2004, p. 245) similarly describes its proponents as ‘democratic civilizers’ engaged in a form of ‘neo-colonial humanism’. Conversely, proponents of cosmopolitan democracy such as Held (2004) argue that, with the democratisation of the institutions of global governance, problems of western power and dominance will recede and new forms of cooperation and global social justice

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 will emerge. The second, more radical conception of political GC envisages a ‘world state’ as sovereign, including what Wendt (1999, p. 202) terms a ‘monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence’ in addition to non-violent visions of world government such as those promoted by the World Service Authority (2013). This is viewed by some as a worthwhile but unlikely ideal (for example, Carter, 2001; Dewey, 1918/1982; Heater, 2002; Shaw, 2000; Singer, 2004), and by a minority as a real possibility (for example, Carneiro, 2004; Chase-Dunn and Inoue, 2012; Wendt, 2003; Yunker, 2011). However, the dream of instituting a formal status for all human beings of ‘world citizenship’ is criticised by many as unfeasible and 308 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP unrealistic (for example, Graber, 2004; Johnson, 2004; Tinnevelt, 2012), or indeed as undesirable (for example, Patomäki, 2012; Slaughter, 2004). The final variant of political GC is what Gabay (2008) terms ‘anarcho- cosmopolitanism’. This rests on the claim that a truly ‘cosmopolitan’ ethic cannot be adequately embedded within either a world or nation-state system, and an anar- chistic or libertarian socialist society is necessary to ‘develop a cosmopolitan ethic that seeks to overcome selfish self-interest’ (Gabay, 2008, p. 198). This mirrors the emergence of ‘global civil society’, in so far as the spread of not-for-profit and voluntary agencies that transcend nation-state boundaries could be regarded as a form of anarcho-cosmopolitanism (as described by Herzog [2004] in relation to the work of Hannah Arendt), at least where their aims align with cosmopolitan values and ideas.

Moral Global Citizenship The moral basis of cosmopolitanism is pervasive in academic and policy discourses. The roots of moral cosmopolitanism are commonly located with the Stoics of Ancient Greece, and also in the ideas of Kant, whose work Peters et al. (2008, p. 3) argue ‘defended and popularised the idea that human beings belong to a single moral community’. The idea of a global ethic is necessarily universal, in that its moral values would need to be universally accepted to be truly effective. However, the extent to which a global ethic supersedes more local or particular moral obligations (e.g. to one’s family, culture or fellow national citizens), is controversial. Waks (2008) identiﬁes two forms of moral cosmopolitan: the ‘strong cosmopolitans’ such as Nussbaum (1996), Dower (1998), MacIntyre (1981) and Singer (2004), who argue that special obligations are morally arbi- trary and that patriotism, for example, is morally unacceptable; and the ‘new (or rooted) cosmopolitans’ such as Appiah (2006), Beck (2006) and Kymlicka and Walker (2012), who advocate a form of global moral ethics drawn from ‘a synthe- sis of liberal universalism and communitarianism’ (Waks, 2008, p. 209) in which, as Kymlicka and Walker (2012, p. 6) suggest, ‘the very same national identities that bind people deeply to their own particular national community and territory can also mobilize moral commitment to distant others’. Similarly, Papastephanou (2008, p. 179) claims: ‘particularity is not the opposite of universality, as is usually theorised, but rather a subset of it’ – that is, patriotism, as a moral ‘particularity’, Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 can easily co-exist with a global ethic. Moral cosmopolitanism is most visibly and famously expressed in declarations of universal human rights such as in UN conventions. Many proponents argue for a universal, or ‘strong cosmopolitan’, understanding of human rights (for example, Abdi and Shultz, 2008) and, since these can be reinterpreted and embedded within local contexts, they are not incompatible with the more communitarian ideas of the ‘new cosmopolitans.’ Cabrera (2010), for example, argues that GC, supported by a human rights framework, ‘can be understood as the fully realized form of individual cosmopolitanism. It provides a guide for individual action within a GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 309 globally oriented but still individualistic moral frame’ (2010, p. 5). For others, human rights do not adequately embody a universal global ethic, as they cannot provide the foundations on which a system of global justice can be built: for example, Navari (2000) critiques the fragile and uncertain ‘legal personality’ of the United Nations.

Economic Global Citizenship The economic conception of GC is a category within which there are particular tensions, as we highlight below. Pogge (2002) argues that cosmopolitanism in general encompasses three elements: individualism, universality and generality. While the presence of the latter two in the economic sphere seem uncontrover- sial, their combination with individualism ties economic GC to divisive theories of neoliberalism and capitalism, and what Faulks (2000, p. 11) describes as ‘thin citizenship’. Richardson (2008, p. 128) depicts this as a ‘global imaginary’, which ‘is founded on individualism and neo-liberal economic ideas that suggest that despite superficial differences individuals have the same fundamental wants and needs, and by serving their own self-interest, ultimately the interests of the planet are also served’. Tied to notions of competition, the free market and human capital, neo-liberalism is disparaged for its disregard for moral and political cosmopolitan principles, in favour of economic growth, consumption and elitism (for example, Bauman, 1998; Falk, 1993; Isin and Wood, 1999; Roman, 2004; Schattle, 2008a; Szelényi and Rhoads, 2007). Some argue that it is problematic to claim that economic GC, or its subset ‘corporate’ GC, is morally blind. For example, Schattle (2008b) identifies moves towards ‘corporate social responsibility’ such as the UN Global Compact in 2000 as increasingly pervasive. Logsdon and Wood (2005) introduce ‘Global Business Citizenship’, which, they maintain, allows businesses to implement ‘responsible, ethical business practices to guide and ultimately define the course of beneficial and fair globalization for all the world’s peoples’ (2005, p. 56). However Tully (2008) regards the philanthropic activities of multinational corpo- rations with scepticism, seeing them as a ‘smokescreen’ to distract attention from the real profit-maximising motives. Garriga and Melé (2004) classify the profit-making motive as an ‘instru-

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 mental’ rationale for corporate social responsibility; as opposed to the ‘ethical’ rationale that includes frameworks based on human rights, ideas of sustainable development and the ‘common good’ (2004, p. 64). Waddock and Smith (2000, p. 48) state that, in the corporate context, ‘Citizenship, fundamentally, is about the relationships that a company develops with its stakeholders’, but go on to explain the importance of values such as ‘mutual respect, human dignity, and ecological sustainability’ for businesses as global citizens (2000, p. 56). The extent to which economic GC in its corporate manifestations can co-exist with conceptions of social justice and global ethics is contested. 310 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP The tensions and ambiguities in the field of international development are reflected in the more mainstream expression of economic GC. For example, the World Bank and the United Nations relate international development to indicators such as halving those whose income less than $1 a day; making the benefits of new technologies available to all; and reducing infant mortality rates (examples from the Millennium Development Goals). However, Escobar (1995), Ziai (2007) and other post-development scholars argue: ‘the traditional concept of “development” is Eurocentric and has authoritarian and technocratic implications’ (Ziai, 2007, p. 9). Ziai claims that: ‘If one defined violent crime, racism, suicide, isolation, alienation, environmental destruction and the like as major indicators of a “bad” or “underdeveloped” society, the industrialized countries would hardly be at the top of the “development” scale’ (2007, p. 8). Thus the manifestation of economic GC as international development adds additional controversies to those explored above relating to capitalism, neoliberalism and corporate philanthropic activities.

Cultural Global Citizenship Cultural GC is described by Waks as:

To be cosmopolitan in this sense is to be open to those from other places, take an interest in their cultural practices, learn about these practices through reading, travel, and personal contact, and even to shape a personal identity as a cosmopolitan through such experiences. (2008, p. 204)

Brimm (2010) echoes this understanding, while Baogang He (2004, p. 84) provides a less individualised perspective of cultural GC, linking it to ideas of ‘cultural equality’. Some ideas of cultural GC also refer to the pervasive globalisation of media and languages: for example, the spread of MTV and the Internet giving people across the world common cultural expressions, as well as the increasing dominance of the English language as described by Crystal (2003) and Phan (2008). De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008) propose a more speciﬁc (and radical) conception of cultural GC that contains four elements and employs McLaughlin’s (1992) distinction between minimal and maximal citizens:

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 [First,] being a citizen in the minimal sense means that a person is able to speak and read the dominant language, has the disposition to abide by the law and has moral, political and social knowledge ...Being a citizen in the maximal sense [differs] from minimal citizenship in the level of the aspects mentioned, [and] also in a quali- tative respect: a citizen in the maximal sense is someone who is culturally competent too. (De Ruyter and Spiecker, 2008, p. 353)

Cultural competence is the second element of this conception, referring to ‘a culturally and intellectually well-developed person’ who ‘actively plays a mod- est part in the cultural flourishing of the society’ (De Ruyter and Spiecker, 2008, pp. 354 and 355). This is open to the critique that it embodies class-based and GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 311 elitist implications, as reflected in the claim: ‘Some citizens do not have any desire to become world citizens and do not need to, because their scope is relatively limited’ (2008, p. 360). However, it remains a cosmopolitan perspective because the authors suggest that ‘all citizens have a right to develop into a world citizen’ (2008, p. 360). The third element relates to moral conceptions of cosmopolitanism: De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008, p. 358) posit that world citizens must also evaluate cultural practices ‘from an ethical perspective’. They critique economic globalisation in their claim that ‘world citizens would not be able to live in countries – unless as an activist – in which human lives are being threatened’ (2008, p. 359). They assume people always have a choice where they live and do not elaborate the definition of ‘threatened’, and, as Falk et al. (1991, p. 346) note, ‘There are many skeletons in virtually every global actor’s closet’, and it would be difficult to justify living anywhere. Finally, to be a world citizen within this conception one must live in what De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008, p. 359) call a ‘genre-rich society’, which is akin to a ‘multicultural society’. It is not enough, they claim, to be located within such a society: one must actively access a variety of cultures. They assert, invoking J. S. Mill (1867), that ‘citizens in liberal democracies’ are taught to ‘respect the rights of others and evaluate the political, social and moral qualities of societies’ (De Ruyter and Spiecker, 2008, p. 360), which are identified as the necessary ingredients of their conception of world citizenship. However, these four elements of cultural GC tend toward a Nietzschean perspective, aiming to develop forms of cultural ‘übermensch’ (‘superman’ or ‘beyond-man’) (Nietzsche, 1883/1961). Despite the links to moral cosmopolitan ideas, cultural GC sometimes resembles the more contentious aspects of economic GC: for example, Roman employs Bauman’s (1998) ‘tourist’/‘vagabond’ terminology to critique ‘intel- lectual tourists’ and ‘voyeurs’ who enjoy the fruits of unlimited travel and reify stereotypes and notions of cultural ‘otherness’, whilst so many are ‘trapped in states of class, racialized and gendered immobility’ (Roman, 2004, pp. 240 and 242).

Advocacy Forms of Global Citizenship The four other distinct conceptions that emerged from the literature were social, critical, environmental and spiritual. These include more relativist or holistic Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 (anti-individualistic) ideologies, which provide an advocacy-based approach to GC in contrast to the aforementioned universalist cosmopolitan perspectives.

Social Global Citizenship Falk (1993, p. 47) describes a form of GC that encompasses ‘transnational activism’, explaining the growth of global civil society as part of this movement: we label this ‘social GC’. This connects with both capitalist, institutional, cosmopolitan universalism and localised, grass-roots post-colonial relativism: 312 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP along similar lines to Habermas’s (1984) ‘communicative rationality’. While overlapping with Tully’s (2008) ‘diverse’ and other forms of critical GC, it is not necessarily drawn from post-colonial or post-development foundations. It is similar to ‘anarcho-cosmopolitanism’, in that its manifestation is generally through civil society organisations. However, with social GC there is not necessarily a universalist focus within the ideologies or aims of the organisations: for example, ‘Freemasonry’ traditionally excludes women; and the ‘Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League’ works towards ‘the general uplift of the people of African ancestry of the world’. These members of global civil society take a perspective within a particular social context (for example, Isin and Wood’s [1999] ‘urban citizenship’), or sociological discourse such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and class; and thus reflect elements of social GC. The ideological basis of this conception is complex and derives from areas such as feminism, multiculturalism and theories of ‘reflexive positionality’ (for example, Rose, 1997). Banks (2008) promotes ‘multicultural citizenship’ (drawing on ideas from Kymlicka, 1995) that acknowledges the importance of liberal cosmopolitan thinking (e.g. through human rights) but argues that citizens must develop ‘a delicate balance of cultural, national, and global identifications’ (Banks, 2008, p. 322). Here there are clear overlaps between social GC and cultural GC. Comparable ideas in existing typologies are Schattle’s (2008a, p. 74) ‘liberal multiculturalism’, Szelényi and Rhoads’s (2007, p. 31) ‘globally informed nationalism/regionalism’ and Falk’s (1993, p. 46) ‘regional political consciousness’. Similarities can be also observed between social GC and the descriptions above of ‘the new cosmopolitanism’ (for example, as manifested in Cogan and Derricott’s [1998 & 2000] concept ’multidimensional citizenship’). Despite significant overlaps between these two conceptions of GC, we found it helpful to divide them since the social forms tend to be more relativist; and can also include individuals and organisations who, rather than working towards ‘moral cosmopolitan’ goals such as human rights, aim towards more secretive, partisan or even violent objectives.

Critical Global Citizenship Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Critical GC is often posed in direct opposition to cosmopolitan forms of GC. Tully (2008), for example, uses intensely negative imagery to describe cosmopolitan, or ‘modern’ types of GC, aligning them to western exploitation and imperialism as part of a ‘civilising mission’ (2008, p. 25). He presents a powerful case for a type of GC that he labels ‘diverse GC’ based upon an idealised world that ‘is recip- rocally sustained by the civic freedom of its citizens’ (2008, p. 29). The roots of this conception lie within theories of post-development (for example, theories by Escobar, 1995; Rahnema and Bawtree, 1997) and post-colonialism (for example, Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988), and thus what Tully names ‘diverse’ GC is GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 313 more aptly named ‘critical GC’. Roman (2004, p. 249) posits a similar conception of post-colonial GC, which he calls ‘relational genealogy’. This has its roots in the post-structuralist critiques of Derrida and Foucault; the historicism/historical materialism of Hegel, Marx and Gramsci; and the ‘Frankfurt School’ of critical theory, which also inspired Freire’s (1970, p. 40) inﬂuential notion of educational ‘praxis’ (through which people would become ‘involved in the organized strug- gle for their liberation’), identiﬁed by Tully as central to the expression of his ‘diverse’ GC. Critical conceptions of GC tend to promote a form of ‘counter-hegemony’, emphasising the deconstruction of oppressive global structures, and are also con- nected to what Dei (2008, p. 479) describes as ‘a politics of social transformation’. While generally taking a relativist stance, potentially aligned with postmodern perspectives, a number of authors express explicit support for human rights (generally a universalist, cosmopolitan standpoint): for example, Abdi and Shultz (2008) explore post-colonial ideas within a framework of human rights. This illus- trates the potential for associations between certain conceptions of critical GC and forms of moral and political GC, which present a clear contrast to post-colonial scholars taking a more localised and morally relativist stance (for example, Andreotti, 2006a; Arneil, 2007; Roman, 2004;Tully,2008). While critical GC can be viewed as a more radical subset of social GC, there are key distinctions between them. Social GC contains ideas that align with critical, post-structuralist and post-colonial works – for example, Spivak’s and Harasym’s (1990) concept of ‘strategic essentialism’, and Isin and Wood’s (1999) ‘diasporic and aboriginal citizenship’ – but, unlike proponents of critical GC, they are likely to take a more pragmatic approach, exploring shifting identities and working within institutional (and perhaps national) boundaries, often towards goals such as poverty reduction and social justice.

Environmental Global Citizenship The global nature of environmental issues ensures that concern for the environment is a theme aligning with GC, particularly in educational contexts (for example, Isin and Wood, 1999; Richardson, 2008; Schattle, 2008a); but a distinct conception of ‘environmental GC’ is uncommon. This is partly because

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 environmentalism derives to a certain extent from the non-human elements of biol- ogy, ecology and geography, which reflect the science–arts–humanities academic split in their separation from the humanistic social concepts of politics, economics and culture. It is also possibly due to the conceptual complexity of applying a citizenship approach to human relationships with a non-sentient object (from a non-spiritual perspective): as raised by Jelin (2000, p. 60), ‘does nature have rights?’ If this is considered to be the case (e.g. animal rights; according to Regan and Singer, 1976), the rights-responsibilities framework is reversed: from a focus on human rights to a focus on human responsibilities. The ‘Gaia hypothesis’ (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974), which portrays the earth as a homeostatic living 314 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP organism, has added to the ecocentric idea of the earth or nature as a being needing protection on an intrinsic level. These perspectives are regarded by Ferry (1995), from an anthropocentric position, as dangerous to democracy: if nature is regarded as a legal subject, with no ‘larger entity’ to distribute justice, turning to rational logic could result in claims that killing off a large proportion of the human population was necessary to restore the earth’s natural balance. Žižek (2010) also challenges the notion that the earth is fragile and that ‘Mother Nature’ needs protection from humans. Similarly, Ward (2009) argues in his ‘Medea Hypothesis’ that the earth is ultimately self- destructive without the ‘assistance’ of humans. While such viewpoints are fairly extreme, the anthropocentric position is more visible in mainstream environmental movements (such as the United Nations Environment Programme) than the ecocentric position. As Jelin (2000) argues, justifications for environmentalism tend to focus first on the rights of living human beings across the world to enjoy clean air, fresh water and uncontaminated food; and second on the rights of future gen- erations to enjoy the same – reflecting the ‘sustainability’ element in ‘sustainable development’. In some locations such as the Brazilian Rainforests, the rights of indigenous peoples to their natural habitat and culture are often included within environmental conservation efforts (for example, UNESCO and United Nations Environment Programme, 2002), revealing links to critical and cultural GC as out- lined above. Dobson (2006, p. 176) uses the term ‘ecological politics’ to describe issues arising from our ‘metabolistic relationship with our non-human natural environment’, describing his credo as ‘thick cosmopolitanism’ (2006, p. 165). While this links directly to moral cosmopolitanism, it also reflects Andreotti’s (2006b) postcolonial conception of GC. Environmental GC tends to be manifested within the realms of government, global civil society, or within the corporate world. The activities of these agents may fall within the scope of moral cosmopolitan approaches, in which concepts such as sustainable development, global justice and human rights take prece- dence: for example, in United Nations Millennium Development Goal Seven, ‘Ensure Environmental Sustainability’. Environmental GC can also overlap with anarcho-cosmopolitanism or social GC: Greenpeace in particular has an anarchic reputation and tends to disregard nation-state and private boundaries in favour of direct action (as discussed in Associated Press, 2009; Hooper, 2009; McCurry, 2010; Press Association, 2010); while organisations such as WWF have been Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 accused by PR Watch (2007) of ‘selling out’ by working with corporate actors such as Coca-Cola: a more ‘social GC’ stance on the basis of the above description. However, despite convergences between environmentalism and other forms of GC, the emphasis on environmentalism as a strong feature of GC justifies its sepa- rate categorisation. This conception tends to prioritise what Richardson (2008, p. 128) describes as an ‘ecological awareness of the fundamental interrelatedness of all aspects of the Earth’, from an anthropocentric or an ecocentric position. Sustainable development is the mainstream viewpoint within this conception, emphasising ‘a sense of connectedness, empathy, and an appreciation for diversity GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 315 and difference’; that is, what Richardson (2008, p. 122) terms ‘The Ecological Imaginary’.

Spiritual Global Citizenship The idea of spiritual GC, like the environmental conception, goes further than the moral, cultural, social and political forms in that it generally promotes a form of holism and connections between faith (or emotion) and our relationship to the world. Conroy and Davis (2008, p. 200), for example, argue that ‘deeper’ notions of the self and society combine with ‘the energies of metaphysical commitment’ to formulate an understanding of the world or universe beyond the rational, empiricist Enlightenment model: a form of ‘transcendence’. This idea reflects religious teachings and faith-based meditations but also certain forms of humanism (excluding antireligious secular humanism), especially humanistic writings that emphasise affective elements which transcend rational philosophy and cannot be measured empirically. Examples include Lindner’s (2012) depiction of a holistic GC; spiritual interpretations of ‘ubuntu’ (Battle, 1997); the ‘love for humanity’, associated by Dei (2008, p. 486) with ‘African and indigenous humanism’; ‘spiritual happiness’ and ‘spiritual awakening’ (Noddings, 2003, pp. 173 and 200); and the type of GC described by Danesh (1997, p. 81) and Golmohamad (2004, p. 140) as a combination of deep maturity, empathy and unselfish altruism, leading towards an ‘integrative attitude’. This conception relates to intangible phenomena such as ‘love’ and ‘caring’ that are also found in many conceptions of moral GC; similarly, some conceptions of spiritual GC share aspects with cultural GC (such as the need for students to understand religious and cultural symbolism). Significant intersections are also found with social GC: a large number of global civil society organisations have roots in one or more of the major world religions; and conversely many of the world religions not only work with intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations but also promote forms of political GC themselves (for example the promotion of the ideal of World Government by the Bahá’í Faith) – although Warburg (1999) argues that these are ultimately conservative rather than liberal- democratic since they oppose a secular model in favour of a theocratic system of governance.

Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Faith-based holistic manifestations of GC also abound. Many religions promote maxims such as the ‘Golden Rule’ (‘treat others as you would like them to treat you’); emphasise humility, empathy and charity towards all humanity; and focus on the pursuit of global social justice. However, religion can also be seen as problematic; for example, where fundamentalism, sectarianism and extreme orthodoxies/close-mindedness arise. Nevertheless, as Golmohamad (2008, p. 532) observes, GC, as conceived within spiritual contexts, has the potential to cultivate the ‘good’ in humanity, including: ‘openness to new encounters ...mutual appreciation and respect for differences ...[and] unity in diversity’, ﬁnally working towards ‘the betterment of the whole society’. 316 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

4. EVA L UAT I N G GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION CURRICULA The above categories are not ﬁxed or absolute: many conceptions of GC traverse categories and combine a variety of different elements from each. Nevertheless, the eight conceptions provide a powerful tool for analysing curriculum. Below we brieﬂy identify how the conceptions might be used as part of an evaluation of a curriculum designed to promote GC. Stake’s (1967) classic model of evaluation, which distinguishes between the intended and observed outcomes of three dimensions of a curriculum (antecedents, transactions and outcomes), provides, when used in conjunction with our conceptions of GC, a basis for evaluating the global dimensions of a curriculum. Table 3 provides an example of our analysis for one conception (critical); and Table 4 juxtaposes the evalua- tive model with all eight conceptions. For heuristic purposes we only focus on the intended curriculum, although a full evaluation would necessitate an analysis of both the intended and observed, or enacted, curriculum. If our, albeit limited, goal was to establish the forms of GC promoted in a curriculum plan and the extent to which there was coherence between the three elements of the planned curriculum, then this would be shown by analysing the relevant elements of the curriculum using the dimensions shown in Tables 3 and 4. The antecedents refer to conditions

TABLE 3: Analysis of ‘Developing a Global Dimension in the School Curriculum’ (DfES, 2000) using our typology: critical conception.

INTENDED ANTECEDENTS (focused here on INTENDED INTENDED visions of the existing TRANSACTIONS OUTCOMES contexts and societies (focused here on the (focusedhereonthe in which the activities and short-term and long-term curriculum encounters promoted impacts envisaged by the locates itself) by the curriculum) curriculum)

Critical Ideas about current Offering a more Appreciate how false images of the balanced view assumptions are developing world (e.g. both positive and sometimes made about being focused on negative images of cultures (e.g. based on just negative stereotypes; African countries, a few artefacts); bias and stereotyping perhaps using school understand the effects of Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 in the media; how links) and challenging stereotyping, prejudice perceptions and preconceptions about and discrimination, images of different ‘African societies’; recognise them and cultures can influence encouraging develop skills to the extent to which discussion about assertively challenge and scientific and other stereotypes and combat them; develop a ideas are accepted, prejudices critical evaluation of used and valued; (e.g. attempting to problem-oriented and importance of choose one object to stereotyped images of less highlighting similarity represent our own economically developed as well as difference cultural identity) countries GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 317 or context in which the curriculum will be provided and includes the environment in schools; the time allocated; the textbooks available and the ideas underpinning the content of these; and the attitudes and priorities of key personnel. Transactions refer to what is planned to happen in schools and classrooms. Outcomes refer to the knowledge, skills and attitudes pupils are expected to learn. By mapping each of these against the eight conceptions, one can identify the conceptions of GC promoted across the three dimensions. This might reveal that the present environment in a school is oriented to promoting a social conception of GC that contrasts strongly with the recommended pedagogy, which stresses a moral conception, and the intended outcomes, which focus on an economic conception. We explore how the typology might be used by analysing the document ‘Developing a Global Dimension in the School Curriculum’, which explains how the global dimension can be translated into practice by ‘Head teachers, senior managers, governors and Chief Executives/Chief Education Officers of local education authorities’ (Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2000,p.1)in England. Andreotti (2006a) previously analysed the same document from a post- colonial perspective and argued, first, that the ideas of culture displayed within the document embody a liberal multiculturalist perspective that essentialises, depoliti- cises, belittles, commodifies and masks deeper bodies of cultural knowledge and understanding in favour of a western cultural perspective. Second, she argued that the economic concepts of development and poverty described by the document derive from a modernist, again western, approach that promotes a patronising account of poverty; and a misleading vision of globalisation as universal rather than, following Bauman (1998), asymmetric. The document was revised signif- icantly in 2005 and the revision took into account some of these post-colonial critiques. We analysed the intended antecedents, transactions and outcomes, with regard to each of the eight conceptions, contained within the original 2000 document (rather than the revised 2005 version, in order to facilitate comparison with Andreotti’s analysis). For the purposes of this illustration, we focused on depic- tions of the existing contexts and societies within which the curriculum locates itself rather than investigating the full set of antecedents within a particular context. Similarly, in terms of transactions we focused on the activities and encounters promoted within the curriculum document itself. For example, the document contains the text: Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015

After visiting their local museum to see objects from other cultures, pupils at a Birmingham school were asked to choose one object that represented their cultural identity. [ ...] They started to appreciate how false assumptions are sometimes made about cultures ...(DfES, 2000, p. 7)

Our analysis explored and situated such statements within the frames of each of the eight conceptions and identified the extent to which they aligned or contrasted with other statements across the intended curriculum. 318 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP Intended outcomes perspective; not prevalent perspective, focus on human rights, obligations and empathy; fairly prevalent technology for international development; fairly prevalent highly prevalent very highly prevalent changing perspectives regarding subaltern populations; fairly prevalent the human condition in relationenvironment; to not the prevalent belief systems; not prevalent Mainstream ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ Some indication of ‘new cosmopolitan’ Focus on the benefits of global trade and Strong focus on multicultural awareness; very Strong focus on co-operation and inclusion; Focus on challenging stereotypes and Focus on anthropocentric concerns regarding Focus on exploring identities in relation to Intended transactions perspective; not prevalent perspective, focus on human rights and responsibilities; fairly prevalent but some discussion of fairfairly trade; prevalent awareness-raising; very highly prevalent schools and pupils in different countries and cultures; very highly prevalent mainstream perceptions of subaltern populations; not prevalent sustainably; fairly prevalent of major religions; fairly prevalent Mainstream ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ Some indication of ‘new cosmopolitan’ International development perspectives Strong focus on multicultural Focus on relationship-building between Focus on challenging stereotypes and Focus on managing the environment Focus on exploring the belief systems Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Intended antecedents perspective; not prevalent responsibilities, strong cosmopolitan ideals; fairly prevalent perspectives; not prevalent languages, sciences and technologies; positive features of multiculturalism; highly prevalent and enhancing communications between peoples; fairly prevalent stereotyping; fairly prevalent policies and principles; anthropocentric perspective; not prevalent units; not prevalent Table 4: Summary of analysis of ‘Developing a Global Dimension in the School Curriculum’ (DfES, 2000) using ourPolitical typology Moral Mainstream ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ Economic Focus on human rights and Focus on international development Cultural Focus on globalisation of arts, media, Social Focus on ideas ofCritical global community Focus on ideasEnvironmental about bias and Focus on ‘sustainable development’ Key: dark solid shading, very highly prevalent; dark hatched shading, highly prevalent; light hatched shading, fairly prevalent; no shading, not pr evalent. Spiritual Focus on belief systems as cohesive GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 319 Limitations of space preclude a full presentation of the data analysis for each of the eight conceptions. However, Table 3 provides an illustration of how one of the conceptions – namely, the critical – manifested in the document. Table 4 compares the relative prevalence of each of the conceptions in the document. The most prevalent conceptions promoted are those of cultural and social GC, while the political, critical, environmental and spiritual are far less dominant within the curricular intentions presented. The analysis also reveals several inconsistencies within the intended curriculum: the outcomes within both cultural and critical GC focus on celebrating diverse cultures, challenging stereotypes and critiquing negative images of so-called ‘less economically developed countries’; whereas the antecedents and transactions within economic GC indicate a tendency toward such stereotypes. They focus on poverty and disasters in less economically developed countries while masking inequalities within more economically developed countries and the role of the latter in the conditions of the former, apart from with regard to global trade which is given a positive spin. The curriculum’s approach to critical GC also reveals an internal inconsistency: while the antecedents and outcomes are fairly prevalent within the curriculum document, proposals for its intended delivery are fairly scanty in comparison with those from other conceptions, which suggests a fundamental weakness in curriculum design. Disjunctures between these elements can cause problems in practice such as those identified by McCowan (2009) in his work on ‘curricular transposition’. This por- trayal partially supports Andreotti’s (2006a) argument, but the typology provides a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis, allowing the curriculum to be eval- uated for its strengths (in this case, elements of cultural and social GC) as well as its weaknesses.

5. CONCLUSIONS We began with the observation that GC is a concept that is both understood in multiple (and often contradictory) ways and is also appropriated to advocate a similarly disparate range of causes. Through an extensive review of the literature we have proposed a typology that categorises the diverse conceptions of GC and have initially identified two general forms of GC, each of which contain four distinct conceptions. By using the typology in conjunction with a model of evaluation we also demonstrated, albeit briefly, how the typology can be used to evaluate a Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 curriculum through an analysis of a document that advised schools in England how to develop a global dimension. The resulting typology provides a powerful device for analysing and differen- tiating policies and proposals that are premised on the need for promoting GC and similar concepts. As Byers (2005) indicates, the term GC is compelling ‘because those who invoke it do so to provoke and justify action’. The exercise of active citizenship necessitates that we understand how such ambiguous expressions fit within a broader context and the underlying philosophies through which they are developed and promoted. 320 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank colleagues who provided valuable feedback on drafts of this article. They are particularly grateful to Euan Auld, Doug Bourn, Kate Brown, John Cogan, Joan DeJaeghere, Karen Edge, Sue Grey, David Grossman, Yu-Ping Hsu, Tristan McCowan, Diana Sousa and James Trewby for their detailed and thoughtful comments. Thanks also to an anonymous reviewer who provided helpful suggestions for ﬁnal revisions to the article. This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/G018812/1).1

7. NOTE 1 Laura Oxley was previously Laura Johnson.

8. REFERENCES

Abdi, A. A. and Shultz, L. (2008) Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship (Albany, NY, State University of New York Press). Andreotti, V. (2006a) A Postcolonial Reading of Contemporary Discourses Related to the Global Dimension in Education in England (University of Nottingham. Unpublished PhD). Andreotti, V. (2006b) Soft versus critical global citizenship education, Development Education, Policy and Practice, 3 (1). Available at: http://www.osdemethodology.org. uk/texts/softcriticalvan.pdf (accessed 3 January 2013). Appiah, K. A. (2006) Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (New York, W. W. Norton). Archibugi, D. (2008) The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Arneil, B. (2007) Global citizenship and empire, Citizenship Studies, 11 (3), 301–328. Associated Press. (2009, August 10) Greenpeace dumps rocks in sea to stop trawl- ing, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/10/ greenpeace-ﬁshing-protest (accessed 3 January 2013). Banks, J. A. (2008) Citizenship education and diversity: implications for teacher education. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 317–331. Battle, M. (1997) Reconciliation: The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu (Cleveland, OH, Pilgrim Press). Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences (Cambridge, Polity Press). Beck, U. (2006) The Cosmopolitan Vision. (C. Cronin, Trans.) (Cambridge, Polity Press). Biesta, G. and Lawy, R. (2006) From teaching citizenship to learning democracy: overcom- ing individualism in research, policy and practice, Cambridge Journal of Education,36 (1), 63–79. Brimm, L. (2010) Global Cosmopolitans: The Creative Edge of Difference (London, Palgrave Macmillan). Byers, M. (2005, October 5) Are you a global citizen?, The Tyee. Available at: http://thetyee. ca/Views/2005/10/05/globalcitizen/ (accessed 1 February 2013). Cabrera, L. (2010) The Practice of Global Citizenship (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 321

Cameron, J. and Haanstra, A. (2008) Development made sexy: how it happened and what it means, Third World Quarterly, 29 (8), 1475–1489. Carneiro, R. L. (2004) The political unification of the world: whether, when, and how – some speculations, Cross-Cultural Research, 38 (2), 162–177. Carter, A. (2001) The Political Theory of Global Citizenship (London, Routledge). Chase-Dunn, C. and Inoue, H. (2012) Accelerating democratic global state formation, Cooperation and Conflict, 47 (2), 157–175. Cogan, J. J. (1998 & 2000) Citizenship education for the 21st century: setting the context. In J. J. Cogan and R. Derricott (Eds), Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education (London, Kogan Page), 1–21. Cogan, J. J. and Derricott, R. (1998 & 2000) Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education (London, Kogan Page). Conroy, J. C. and Davis, R. A. (2008) Citizenship, education and the claims of religious literacy. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 187–202. Crystal, D. (2003) English as a Global Language (2nd edn) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Danesh, H. B. (1997) The Psychology of Spirituality: From Divided Self to Integrated Self (Victoria, BC, Paradigm). Dei, G. (2008) Anti-racism education for global citizenship. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 477–490. Department for Education and Skills (2000) Developing a Global Dimension in the School Curriculum (Curriculum and Standards Guidance) (London, Department for Education and Skills). De Ruyter, D. J. and Spiecker, B. (2008) The world citizen travels with a different view. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 351–363. Dewey, J. (1918/1982) What are we fighting for? In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899–1924, Volume 11 (1918–1919) (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press). Dobson, A. (2006) Thick cosmopolitanism, Political Studies, 54 (1), 165–184. Dower, N. (1998) World Ethics: The New Agenda (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). Dower, N. (2000) The idea of global citizenship: a sympathetic assessment, Global Society, 14 (4), 553–567. Dower, N. (2003) An Introduction to Global Citizenship (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Falk, R. A. (1993) The making of global citizenship. In J. Brecher, J. B. Childs and J. Cutler (Eds), Global Visions: Beyond the New World Order (Boston, South End Press), 39–50. Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Falk, R. A. (1997) Resisting ‘globalisation-from-above’ through ‘globalisation-from- below’, New Political Economy, 2 (1), 17–24. Falk, R. A., Kim, S. S. and Mendlovitz, S. H. (1991) The United Nations and a Just World Order (Boulder, CO Westview Press). Faulks, K. (2000) Citizenship (London, Routledge). Ferry, L. (1995) The New Ecological Order (C. Volk, Trans.) (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, Continuum Publishing Company). Gabay, C. (2008) Anarcho-cosmopolitanism: the universalisation of the equal exchange, Global Society, 22 (2), 197–216. 322 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory, Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. Gerzon, M. (2010). American Citizen, Global Citizen (Boulder, CO, SpiritScope Publishing). Golmohamad, M. (2004) World citizenship, identity and the notion of an integrated self, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 23, 131–148. Golmohamad, M. (2008) Global citizenship: from theory to practice, unlocking hearts and minds. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 519–533. Graber, R. B. (2004) Is a world state just a matter of time? A population-pressure alternative, Cross-Cultural Research, 38 (2), 147–161. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol.1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society (London, Heinemann Education). Hanvey, R. G. (1976). An attainable global perspective. [Online]. American Forum for Global Education. Available at: http://www.globaled.org/an_att_glob_persp_04_11_ 29.pdf (accessed 3 January 2013). He, B. (2004) World citizenship and transnational activism. In N. Piper and A. Uhlin (Eds), Transnational Activism in Asia: Problems of Power and Democracy (London, Routledge), 78–93. Heater, D. (2002) World Citizenship: Cosmopolitan Thinking and its Opponents (London, Continuum). Held, D. (1995) Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge, Polity). Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus (Cambridge, Polity). Herzog, A. (2004) Political itineraries and anarchic cosmopolitanism in the thought of Hannah Arendt, Inquiry, 47 (1), 20–41. Hooper, J. (2009, July 8) Greenpeace activists hijack Italian power stations, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/08/ greenpeace-g8-protest-coal-italy (accessed 3 January 2013). Humes, W. (2008) The discourse of global citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 41–52. Ichilov, O. (2002) Differentiated civics curriculum and patterns of citizenship education: vocational and academic programs in Israel. In D. Scott and H. Lawson (Eds), Citizenship Education and the Curriculum (Westport, CT, Ablex), 88–107. Isin, E. F. and Wood, P. K. (1999) Citizenship and Identity (London, Sage). Jelin, E. (2000) Towards a global environmental citizenship?, Citizenship Studies,4(1), 47–63. Johnson, A. L. (2004) Why not to expect a ‘world state’, Cross-Cultural Research,38(2), 119–132. Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Kymlicka, W. and Walker, K. (Eds) (2012) Rooted Cosmopolitanism: Canada and the World (Vancouver, BC, UBC Press). Lapayese, Y. V.(2003) Review: toward a critical global citizenship education, Comparative Education Review, 47 (4), 493–501. Lindner, E. (2012) Fostering global citizenship. In P. T. Coleman and M. Deutsch (Eds), Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace (New York, Springer), 283–298. Linklater, A. (1998) The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Oxford, Polity). Logsdon, J. M. and Wood, D. J. (2005) Global business citizenship and voluntary codes of ethical conduct, Journal of Business Ethics, 59 (1), 55–67. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 323

Lovelock, J. E. and Margulis, L. (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the gaia hypothesis, Tellus, 26 (1), 2–10. MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London, Duckworth). Marshall, H. (2005) Developing the global gaze in citizenship education: exploring the perspectives of global education NGO workers In England, International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1 (2), 76–92. Marshall, H. (2007) Global education in perspective: fostering a global dimension in an English secondary school, Cambridge Journal of Education, 37 (3), 355–374. Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). McCowan, T. (2009) Rethinking Citizenship Education: A Curriculum for Participatory Democracy (London, Continuum). McCracken, G. (1988) The Long Interview (Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications). McCurry, J. (2010, February 14) Anti-whaling activists face trial in Japan, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/14/sato-suzuki- trial-japan-whaling (accessed 3 January 2013). McGrew, A. G. (1997) The Transformation of Democracy?: Globalization and Territorial Democracy (Cambridge, Polity, in association with the Open University). McLaughlin, T. H. (1992) Citizenship, diversity and education: a philosophical perspective, Journal of Moral Education, 21 (3), 235–250. Mill, J. S. (1867) Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrew’s, Feb. 1st, 1867 (London, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer). Navari, C. (2000) Internationalism and the State in the Twentieth Century (New York, Routledge). Nietzsche, F. W. (1883/1961) Thus Spoke Zarathustra. (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.) (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books). Noddings, N. (2003) Happiness and Education (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Nussbaum, M. C. (1996) Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In M. C. Nussbaum and J. Cohen (Eds), For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism (Boston, Beacon Press), 2–17. Olssen, M. (2002) Citizenship education and difference. In D. Scott and H. Lawson (Eds), Citizenship Education and the Curriculum (Westport, CT, Ablex), 7–25. Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2005) Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education (Maidenhead, Open University Press). Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2008) Education for cosmopolitan citizenship. In V. Georgi (Ed.), The Making of Citizens in Europe: New Perspectives on Citizenship Education (Berlin, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung [BPB] [German Federal Agency for Civic Education]). pp. 204–212. Papastephanou, M. (2008) Cosmopolitanism: with or without patriotism? In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 169–185. Parekh, B. (2003) Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship, Review of International Studies, Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 29, 3–17. Patomäki, H. (2012) The problems of legitimation and potential conﬂicts in a world political community, Cooperation and Conﬂict, 47 (2), 239–259. Peters, M. A., Blee, H. and Britton, A. (2008) Introduction: many faces of global civil society: possible futures for global citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 1–13. Phan, L. H. (2008) Teaching English as an International Language: Identity, Resistance and Negotiation (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters). Pogge, T. W. M. (1989) Realizing Rawls (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press). Pogge, T. W. M. (2002) World Poverty and Human Rights (Cambridge, Polity Press). 324 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Popkewitz, T. S. (2008) Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform: Science, Education, and Making Society by Making the Child (New York, Routledge). PR Watch (2007, June 5) WWF Greenwashes Coca-Cola, Center for Media and Democracy: PR Watch. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/node/6123 (accessed 3 January 2013). Press Association (2010, May 20) Greenpeace activists scale BP’s London headquarters in oil protest, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/ may/20/greenpeace-activists-scale-bp-building-roof (accessed 3rd January 2013). Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (Eds) (1997), The Post-development Reader (London, Zed Books). Regan, T. and Singer, P. (1976) Animal Rights and Human Obligations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall). Richardson, G. (2008) Conflicting imaginaries: global citizenship education in Canada as a site of contestation. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 115–131. Roman, L. G. (2004) States of insecurity: Cold War memory, ‘global citizenship’ and its discontents, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,25(2), 231–259. Rose, G. (1997) Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics, Progress in Human Geography, 21 (3), 305–320. Said, E. W. (1978) Orientalism (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul). Schattle, H. (2008a) Education for global citizenship: illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation, Journal of Political Ideologies, 13 (1), 73–94. Schattle, H. (2008b) The Practices of Global Citizenship (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield). Sen, A. (2006). Identity and Violence: the Illusion of Destiny (NewYork,W.W.Norton& Co). Shaw, M. (2000) Theory of the Global State: Globality as Unfinished Revolution (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Shukla, N. (2009). Power, discourse, and learning global citizenship: a case study of international NGOs and a grassroots movement in the Narmada Valley, India, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4 (1), 133–147. Shultz, L. (2007) Educating for global citizenship: conflicting agendas and understandings, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53 (3), 248–258. Shultz, L. (2011) Engaging the multiple discourses of global citizenship education within a Canadian university: deliberation, contestation, and social justice possibilities. In L. Shultz,A.A.AbdiandG.H.Richardson(Eds),Global Citizenship Education in Post- secondary Institutions: Theories, Practices, Policies (New York, Peter Lang), 13–24. Singer, P. (2004) One World: The Ethics of Globalization. (2nd edn) (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). Slaughter, A.-M. (2004) ANewWorldOrder(Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Spivak, G. C. (1988) Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (Eds), Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Urbana, University of Illinois Press), 271–313. Spivak, G. C. and Harasym, S. (1990) The Postcolonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues (New York, Routledge). Stake, R. E. (1967) The countenance of educational evaluation, Teachers College Record, 68, 523–540. Szelényi, K. and Rhoads, R. A. (2007) Citizenship in a global context: the perspectives of international graduate students in the United States, Comparative Education Review, 51 (1), 25–47. Tilly, C. (1996) Citizenship, identity and social history. In C. Tilly (Ed.), Citizenship, Identity and Social History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 1–17. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 325

Tinnevelt, R. (2012) Federal world government: the road to peace and justice?, Cooperation and Conﬂict, 47 (2), 220–238. Tully, J. (2008) Two meanings of global citizenship: modern and diverse. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 15–40. UNESCO and United Nations Environment Programme (2002) Cultural diversity and biodiversity for sustainable development. Paper presented at the jointly con- vened UNESCO and UNEP High-level Roundtable, World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, 3 September 2002. Veugelers, W. (2011) The moral and the political in global citizenship: appreciating differences in education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9 (3–4), 473–485. Waddock, S. and Smith, N. (2000) Relationships: the real challenge of corporate global citizenship, Business and Society Review, 105 (1), 47–62. Waks, L. J. (2008) Cosmopolitanism and citizenship education. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 203–219. Warburg, M. (1999) Baha’i: a religious approach to globalization, Social Compass,46(1), 47–56. Ward, P. (2009) The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-destructive? (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Wendt, A. (2003) Why a world state is inevitable, European Journal of International Relations, 9 (4), 491–542. World Service Authority (2013) World Government of World Citizens. Available at: http:// www.worldservice.org/ (accessed 1 February 2013). Yunker, J. A. (2011) Recent consideration of world government in the IR literature: a critical appraisal, World Futures: The Journal of Global Education, 67 (6), 409–436. Ziai, A. (Ed.) (2007), Exploring Post-development: Theory and Practice, Problems and Perspectives (London, Routledge). Žižek, S. (2010) Living in the End Times (London, Verso).

Correspondence Laura Oxley Faculty of Policy and Society, c/o Room 825a Institute of Education, University of London 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL Email: [email protected] Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015