Economic and Social Research Council Seminar Series: Global Citizenship as a Graduate Attribute

Transcription

1 Economic and Social Research Council Seminar Series: Global Citizenship as a Graduate Attribute Developing global citizenship: culture, knowledge and human rights Prof. Joelle Fanghanel University of West London Introduction In this short presentation, I briefly outline the questions raised by the concept of global citizenship in respect of the way we envisage differences. I argue briefly that as university educators, we need to examine the kind of knowledge we consider conducive to promoting a pedagogies that emphasise commonalities between peoples and cultures within significant delineations of differences. I do this by introducing the idea of powerful knowledge (Young, 2008) briefly knowledge of an abstract, propositional, context-independent nature that empowers learners. I argue briefly for this as the bedrock of a pedagogical enterprise that attempts to address differences and conflicts real or cultural. I then examine, as a starting point to a debate on globalism or cosmopolitanism, or whatever term we wish to use, the work of Martha Nussbaum particularly based on her work on human capabilities (Nussbaum, 2000) as it poses fundamental questions about the meaning (and likelihood of success) of our enterprise. A global citizen? I start therefore by asking what it is that we mean by global citizenship. It is a concept that comprises a view of citizenship, and a view of globalization or rather many views. Of both concepts, we know there are multiple definitions. Globalisation is a contested concept with economic, technological, political components, and significant interrogations on the nature and direction of cultural and economic flows across the globe. Globalisation can be understood from at least two polarised points of view 1) in an emancipatory perspective as implying a curiosity and respect for cultural difference and pluralism, and a promotion of local cultures, local knowledges, 2) in a post-colonial perspective, as an attempt at westernizing the world applying western values and concepts to non western contexts. And these of course leave aside any question of an economic nature. So here is the first question we might want to reflect on. What do we mean by global? Second, what meaning do we give to citizen and citizenship. Alice Carter (2001) in a study of the concept of global citizenship has established that it carries at least three meanings first, in a neoliberal view, the citizen is a consumer with individual rights; the emphasis is on must-haves and entitlement; second, there is a concept of citizenship based on the liberal Page 1 of 5

2 C19th (or even Rousseau s concept of citizenship and the social contract) which emphasizes a political role within a nation, and an emphasis on rights as well as duties highlighting notions of social responsibility, universalism-internationalization (e.g. John Rawls); third, and perhaps more contemporary (or closer to what we as a group might be more familiar with) is the citizen as an activist, being engaged in global issues, green issues, social justice, world poverty etc... )briefly as an agenda addressing the failings of neoliberalism what Richard Falk (Falk, 1994) has called globalisation from below (globalisation from above focuses on broad globalizing trends (power structures, global flow), and globalisation from below focuses on agentic and local indigenous manifestations). Increasingly too, and perhaps inevitably, there has been a focus on the moral (Kantian) dimension (Nussbaum, Jaspers) and an emphasis on education that opens the mind to basic rights of humans. This is where Martha Nussbaum (Nussbaum, 2000) comes in, and I will talk about her in a few minutes. I suggest that Hannah Arendt s (Arendt, 1958) notion of a common world (as an object and interest that links humans together in a public space whilst allowing for contradiction and divergence), is useful to avoid the dichotomy between particularism/localism and universalism. Those concepts of global and citizenship therefore need to be unpacked, and I guess that s the purpose of this series of seminars. But for us as educators (rather than social politics expert or philosophers), the pedagogical implications are central. What does a planetary education look like? I would like to introduce at this stage a reflection on the nature of knowledge in the context of global citizenship education, mainly to emphasise that the global question is not simply about understanding and tolerance of different cultures, which very often it is reduced to. Knowledge in a global context Quite apart from the issue of cultural flow raised in the ideas of localism or universalism (broadly, and simplistically, which cultures are more legitimate?), an important issue for planetary education is the issue of what kind of knowledge ought to be privileged in a global perspective. Whilst I am keen to present Nussbaum s inspiring model which anchors the debate within a reflection on human rights, I don t want to lose sight of this notion of knowledge. I see it as the corner stone of our endeavour as educators. The paper on global citizenship education (GCE) which was circulated before the retreat (Andreotti et al., 2010) examined ways of theorizing conflict and difference in the Canadian context. It argues for pluralist approaches to apprehending knowledge. It refers significantly to Spivak s view (1999) that we should aim for pluralisation of knowledge, and the legitimization of local knowledges. I would like to bring in the conversation at this stage Michael Young (Young, 2008) and the distinction he makes between what he has called knowledge of the powerful the idea that claims about knowledge are often driven by particular needs and desires (eg wealth, prestige, power over others) which has led to post-modern views of multiple knowledges, and powerful knowledge which is different from say myth, or opinion, or common sense as knowledge that has been peer-reviewed, justified, and is independent of context (abstract, propositional if you like such as Newton s theory of gravitation, Page 2 of 5

3 Archimedes Principle). I argue that we ought to teach students powerful knowledge (abstract, subject-based, content) that will empower them in their dealings with the world. Jason Hill locates his reflection beyond the post-colonial/westcentrism question, in terms of what he calls a dialectics of participation and distanciation vis-à-vis our communities and others. He states Participation allows us to determine which of the customs, mores and ways of being-in-the-world we choose to retain after rational inquiry into their natures and social value. Distanciation provides the critical space for us to stand back and question, examine, and criticize and also discover the multiplicity of forces that constitute our background world and situatedness. In a recent study of a programme that brought together Palestinian and Israeli students on a 3 year degree programme in the UK, which I carried out with Glynis Cousin (Fanghanel and Cousin, forthcoming), we reached a similar conclusion. We examined the pedagogy used on the programme and how it contributed to better understandings of the other side. We concluded that the approach used had the potential to empower students to develop ways of acting and behaving (or functioning in a capabilities framework as we will see in a minute) differently in the world thereafter. This educational experience emphasizes commonalities within significant delineations of differences. This provided students with the scope for thinking and imagining otherwise, what Arendt might call going visiting. Basic human capabilities I now turn to Martha Nussbaum whose own views on universal values speak to us obliquely so to speak, beyond the cultural and epistemic considerations, from a philosophical perspective with a focus rather on the human condition (focusing on women). Nussbaum - a philosopher (University of Chicago) - argues as a starting point to any consideration of crosscultural reflection on just social practices, for a focus on a set of primary conditions for human development. She has devised what she considers can be a universal framework to assess women s quality of life. She argues that this framework works across cultures (though her focus is mainly on Indian women), and can be seen as a universal proposition. At the centre of her argument, a claim that a number of values (dignity of the person, integrity of the body, basic political rights, basic economic opportunities) are appropriate norms to assess the quality of women s rights in developing countries. She claims that simply contrasting the West as valuing rights and liberties, and the East as not valuing them, is simplistic an argument also developed by Glynis in her paper. Further, she notes that the accusation of Westernizing levelled against some right activists, sometimes colludes with the interest of autocrats in maintaining dictatorships in the name of keeping away from Western intrusion (2000, p 37). She also argues that respect for local cultures can amount to nothing more than preserving inequalities in countries where the myth of the good savage contributes to romanticising non literate or non hegemonic cultures (Nussbaum, 2003). She claims that one should not however over-simplify local tradition, and ignore local resistance (for example indigenous resistance for women s education or political participation (p 38), or Page 3 of 5

4 opposition to women s seclusion in Muslim society (p45). (read p 46 on Chinese speaking of Confucian values).the point she makes is that the emphasis should be on a woman s choice, and that choice is made possible through economic and political opportunities being made available to her. So the backbone of her approach is to combat the disempowerment stemming from economic and political inequalities by reclaiming fundamental rights (capabilities). Those are the first steps towards higher capabilities. She thinks that cultural relativism (often understood as toleration of diversity) is clearly false as a descriptive thesis (p48) it assumes that cultures are homogenous, non changing. Moral relativism (showing respect for the way of others) is not a stronger thesis most cultures have exhibited considerable intolerance of diversity over the ages, as well as at least some respect for diversity (p49). So the last word in any tradition is not necessarily the right one. We need a more general norm of toleration or respect (p49). She offers a list of central functioning capabilities (a focus on quality of life) which she claims can attract overlapping consensus (p76) regardless of people s worldview, outside of any specific ethical or religious view. Pp (photocopy and discuss) These capabilities imply underpinning structures, policies, approaches (functionings) that enable them. So it is not about basic literacy or basic skills, or even simplistic political awareness that might be useful to a country or an economy. It is about human development and human global rights. She sees this as a basic universal moral code to which all humankind can subscribe regardless of any specific metaphysical or religious belief. How can this framework inform our thinking about global citizenship? Practically? Is this a good starting point to think of global citizenship? Think perhaps of : placements, exchanges of students (the nature and manner of the work undertaken) assessment (can we include a reflection on these capabilities entitlements?) teaching (how do we convey these difficult concepts relativity but not relativism; choice for people who are in different circumstances to behave and act differently; the role of context independent knowledge) challenging beliefs about oneself and about others presenting global issues from a privilege-free perspective? Page 4 of 5

5 What lessons can we learn form a reflection on the global to inform diversity within? Conclusion In the same way as Nussbaum argues that minimum standards in quality of life are the bedrock of any subsequent intellectual development, in the same way, I would argue that anchorage of learning in powerful knowledge is the bedrock of empowerment for students in a context where they will have to continue to learn throughout their lives, be exposed to complex dilemmas, make difficult decisions and take responsibility for them, and have to take part in difficult super-complex debates. References: Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Falk, R. (1994) 'The Making of Global Citizenship'. In The condition of citizenship, ed. B. van Steenbergen. London: Sage: Andreotti, V., Jefferess, D., Pashby, K., Rowe, C., Tarc, P. and Taylor, L. (2010) 'Difference and Conflict in Global Citizenship in Higher Education in Canada'. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 2(3):5-24. Carter, A. (2001) The political theory of global citizenship. New York & London: Routledge Fanghanel, J. and Cousin, G. (forthcoming) 'A 'worldly' pedagogy: a case study on learning across conflict at university'. Teaching in Higher Education. Nussbaum, M.C. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, M.C. (2003) 'Women s Education: A Global Challenge'. Signs 29(2): Young, M. F. D. (2008) Bringing Knowledge Back In: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. Abingdon: Routledge. Page 5 of 5