Towards a Framework for Global Citizenship Education - Institute of ...

Abstract
Towards a Framework for Global Citizenship Education
Laura Johnson
PhD Student, Institute of Education, University of London
The promotion of „Global Citizenship‟ (GC) has emerged as a common feature of school
curricular reform around the world, reflecting a shift away from conceptions of citizenship
based wholly on the national. Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is therefore a
broadening field, manifested in both academic and policy contexts. As an international
phenomenon, it is subject to a wide range of interpretations, mirroring the diverse
ideological and politico-philosophical frameworks from which the policies and programmes
promoting the concept derive. For teachers of GCE, policy makers and academics, there
is sufficient ambiguity in this field to cause confusion and misunderstanding. This paper
describes an ongoing research project aiming to develop an analytical framework through
which GCE policies, programmes and philosophies can be distinguished, explored and
deconstructed in context. Through a critical review of the literature, the study establishes
a set of systematic categories and classifications for this complex field from which an
analytical framework can be constructed. This typology provides the groundwork for the
development of a powerful and effective analytical tool through which the field of GCE may
be better understood and applied in both theory and practice.
Introduction
„Global citizenship‟ is a term used increasingly in educational contexts around the world,
permeating curriculum policy in a fashion similar to constructs such as „lifelong learning‟.
As an international phenomenon, it is subject to a wide range of interpretations, mirroring
Laura Johnson 1

the diverse ideological and politico-philosophical frameworks from which the policies and
programmes promoting the concept derive. The term „global citizenship education‟ is also
entwined with a large number of overlapping educational arenas including development
education, education for cosmopolitan citizenship, peace education and human rights
education. Consequently, the term is often used with a sense of ambiguity for its meaning,
which can potentially cause disjunctures between intention and practice for teachers of
GCE, policy makers and academics. This paper aims to deconstruct the concept of „global
citizenship‟ according to its academic interpretations. Through a critical review of the
literature, I establish a set of systematic categories and classifications for this complex
field from which an analytical framework for global citizenship education can be
constructed.
The initial typology developed within this paper is constructed through an inductive
analysis of academic literature, focusing principally on texts relating to global citizenship
but also to some literature specifically within the educational field. The analysis loosely
follows McCracken‟s (1988) „five stages of analysis‟, converting the stages into an iterative
process through which observations and relationships in academic texts are explored and
combined into themes and categories which will ultimately form the analytical framework.
The following sections summarise and illustrate the categories identified within this
typology for global citizenship.
Conflicting and converging forms of cosmopolitan global citizenship
The term „cosmopolitanism‟ has seen a recent resurgence in popularity, due to its
appropriation by scholars such as Nussbaum (1996), Appiah (2006) and, in the education
field, Osler and Starkey (2008). Often couched within a framework of human rights,
Laura Johnson 2

cosmopolitanism is regarded by a number of critical post-development and post-colonial
scholars as a neo-imperial form of global citizenship since its universalist perspective (the
notion that all human beings share the same 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 (2008, p. 43) acknowledges, there are significant pragmatic
advantages to the cosmopolitan position:
“Some writers deplore the trend towards what they describe as a globally
connected political and bureaucratic elite which determines priorities for the rest
of the world. Others take a more positive view of political globalisation and see
it (potentially at least) as bringing some of the benefits of advanced
democracies to nations which are ruled by undemocratic systems of
government. 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)
The word „cosmopolitanism‟ itself derives from Ancient Greek ideas of universality, where
the „cosmos‟ (universe / world) is one‟s „city‟ (living place / community). Peters, Blee and
Britton (2008) identify three „types‟ of cosmopolitan global citizenship: moral, political and
economic. While these three categories are useful, they omit a notable conception of
cosmopolitan global citizenship described by Waks (2008, p. 204) as ‘aesthetic-cultural
cosmopolitanism’, which, he suggests, represents “a kind of multi-national sophistication”.
Within a range of the literature under scrutiny, these four categories of cosmopolitanism
demonstrate elements of convergence and all overlap to some extent, but there are also
Laura Johnson 3

significant areas of conflict between each. The following sections summarise these areas
of convergence and conflict.
Political cosmopolitan global citizenship
Three main styles of thinking pervade political cosmopolitan global citizenship. The first is
what one might term a „radical‟ conception of political-institutional global citizenship, in
which the idea of a „world state‟ is conceived which does away with current nation-state
boundaries and transfers sovereignty to a democratic world polity with legislative,
executive and judicial powers, including a “monopoly on the legitimate use of organized
violence” (Wendt, 1999, p. 202). This idea is advocated by some scholars as a utopian
but currently impossible ideal (for example, Carter, 2001; Dewey, 1918/1982; Heater,
2002; Shaw, 2000; Singer, 2004), and by a small minority even as a real possibility (for
example, Wendt, 2003). The dream of a world government abolishing nation-state
sovereignty and instituting a formal status for all human beings of „world citizenship‟ is
criticised by many intellectuals as being unfeasible, undesirable and unnecessary (Lu,
2008).
The second form of political cosmopolitan global citizenship rejects the idea of a world
state and is thus characterised as a weaker, less radical form of global governance
involving democratisation and strengthening of current international institutions such as the
United Nations, World Trade Organisation and World Bank 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 critical perspective, considers this form of global citizenship to be an
Laura Johnson 4

extension of „Western imperialism‟; and Roman (2004, p. 245) similarly describes
proponents of such a conception as “democratic civilizers” engaged in a form of “neo-
colonial humanism.” Conversely, proponents of cosmopolitan democracy argue that, with
the democratisation of the institutions of global governance, problems of Western power
and dominance will recede and new forms of co-operation and global social justice will
emerge (Held, 2004).
The final form of political cosmopolitan global citizenship can be termed ‘anarcho-
cosmopolitanism’ (Gabay, 2008). This rests on the argument that a truly „cosmopolitan‟
ethic cannot be adequately embedded within either a world state or within a nation-state
system, and therefore that an anarchistic or libertarian socialist society is the best political
system in which to “develop a cosmopolitan ethic that seeks to overcome selfish self-
interest” (Gabay, 2008, p. 198). This mirrors the growth in what is known as ‘global civil
society’, to the extent that the spread across the world of not-for-profit and voluntary
networks and organisations with little regard for nation-state boundaries could be regarded
as a form of anarcho-cosmopolitanism, at least where their aims align with cosmopolitan
values and ideas (see also Herzog, 2004).
Moral cosmopolitan global citizenship
Theories of moral cosmopolitanism can be regarded as the foundation for dominant
conceptions of global citizenship, as they are so pervasive within both 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, who “defended and popularised the idea
that human beings belong to a single moral community” (Peters, et al., 2008, p. 3). The
idea of a global or world ethic is necessarily universal, in that the moral values expressed
Laura Johnson 5

would need to be accepted by all in order to be truly effective. However, the extent to
which a global ethic owed to all of humanity supersedes more local moral, or „special‟
obligations (for example, to one‟s family or fellow national citizens), or whether this should
be an issue at all, is controversial. Waks 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 arbitrary and that patriotism,
for example, is an unacceptable moral position; and the “new cosmopolitans” such as
Appiah (2006) and Beck (2006) who advocate a form of global moral ethics drawn from “a
synthesis of liberal universalism and communitarianism” (Waks, 2008, p. 209) in which
special obligations are “ineluctable elements of moral life” (Waks, 2008, p. 210) according
to the contexts within which personal narratives are formed and „otherness‟ is recognised.
Papastephanou (2008, p. 179) also subscribes to this pragmatic conception, in which she
claims that “particularity is not the opposite of universality, as is usually theorised, but
rather a subset of it”: for example, patriotism, as a moral „particularity‟, can easily co-exist
with ideas of a global ethic.
Moral cosmopolitanism is most visibly and famously expressed in the form of universal
human rights such as those expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Many proponents of human rights argue for a universal, or “strong
cosmopolitan”, understanding of human rights (for example, Abdi & Shultz, 2008),
although they are also to an extent compatible with the more communitarian ideas of the
„new cosmopolitans‟, since they can be reinterpreted and embedded within local, national
and regional contexts. In contrast, some scholars maintain that human rights do not go far
enough towards a universal global ethic, in that they cannot provide a sufficiently sturdy
foundation on which a system of global justice can be built: for example, because of the
fragile and uncertain „legal personality‟ of the United Nations (Navari, 2000) and the lack of
Laura Johnson 6

emphasis on the limitations of natural resources that require interdependence and
sustainable living (and particularly reductions in Western consumption) in order for global
social justice to be possible.
Economic cosmopolitan global citizenship
Pogge (2002) argues that the cosmopolitanism position in general encompasses three
elements: individualism, universality and generality. While the presence of the latter two
elements in the economic sphere seem uncontroversial, their combination with
individualism ties economic cosmopolitan global citizenship to divisive theories of
neoliberalism and capitalism, and what Faulks (2000, p. 11) describes as “thin citizenship”.
Richardson (2008, p. 128) depicts this “global imaginary” as one 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 demonised in a great
number of moral cosmopolitan, political cosmopolitan and educational texts for its
disregard for moral and political cosmopolitan principles, in favour of economic growth,
consumption and elitism (for example, Bauman, 1998; Falk, 1993; Isin & Wood, 1999;
Roman, 2004; Schattle, 2008a; Szelényi & Rhoads, 2007).
It is inaccurate to state that economic cosmopolitan global citizenship, or „neoliberal‟ /
„corporate‟ global citizenship as it is often labelled, is entirely blind to moral values and
detached from other, more „humane‟, elements of cosmopolitanism. As Schattle (2008b)
identifies, moves towards „corporate social responsibility‟ such as the United Nations
Laura Johnson 7

Global Compact in 2000, are increasingly pervasive. Nevertheless, the donations and
philanthropic activities of rich multinational corporations are generally regarded with
scepticism: for example, they are often considered a „smokescreen‟ to distract the public
from individualistic and/or corrupt profit-making schemes destroying communities and the
environment (Tully, 2008). Manifestations of corporate social responsibility may also be
perceived (positively or negatively) as efforts by businesspeople to atone for their wealth
and comfortable lifestyles. The extent to which a neoliberal, consumerist, capitalist society
can co-exist with genuine efforts to make the world a better place is therefore ambiguous.
Aesthetic-cultural cosmopolitan global citizenship
The final form of cosmopolitan global citizenship identified in this analysis of academic
literature is its aesthetic-cultural form, which is described by Waks (2008) as follows:
“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.”
(Waks, 2008, p. 204)
Conceptions of aesthetic-cultural cosmopolitan global citizenship can also refer to the
pervasive cultural globalisation of media and languages: for example the global spread of
MTV and the internet giving people across the world common cultural expressions, as well
as the increasing international dominance of the English language (Crystal, 2003; Phan,
2008).
Laura Johnson 8

De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008) propose a more specific conception of aesthetic-cultural
cosmopolitan global citizenship. Four main elements contribute to their conception; first,
the idea that the notions of „citizen‟ and „world citizen‟ correspond directly to notions of
„minimal‟ and „maximal‟ citizenship. Rather than the socio-political definitions of „minimal‟
and „maximal‟ citizenship constructed by scholars such as McLaughlin (1992), themselves
based on Galston‟s (1989) characterisations of the „autarchic‟ and „autonomous‟ citizen,
De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008) construct a socio-cultural definition:
“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 qualitative respect: a citizen in the maximal sense is someone who is
culturally competent too.”
(De Ruyter & Spiecker, 2008, p. 353)
This idea of cultural competence is the second element of this cosmopolitan conception,
referring to “a culturally and intellectually well-developed person” who “actively plays a
modest part in the cultural flourishing of the society” (De Ruyter & Spiecker, 2008, pp. 354,
355). This notion has class-based and potentially elitist implications, as reflected in the
following: “Some citizens do not have any desire to become world citizens and do not need
to, because their scope is relatively limited” (De Ruyter & Spiecker, 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” (De Ruyter & Spiecker, 2008, p. 360).
Laura Johnson 9

The third element relates more clearly 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 use this element to critique economic
globalisation (or perhaps neoliberal / economic cosmopolitanism) 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” (De Ruyter & Spiecker, 2008, p. 359). Unfortunately they do not
elaborate on the definition of „threatened‟, for, as Falk, Kim and Mendlovitz (1991, p. 346)
note, “There are many skeletons in virtually every global actor‟s closet”, and therefore it
would be difficult to justify living anywhere on a broad interpretation of this ethical position.
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 others might term a “multicultural
society”. It is not enough, according to the authors, simply to reside within such a society:
one must actively access a wider variety of cultures. The authors claim 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 & Spiecker, 2008, p. 360), which are
identified as the necessary ingredients to complete their conception of world citizenship.
The foundations for this conception, they argue, arise from the work of J. S. Mill,
particularly in his support for education in cultural aesthetics (Mill, 1867). However, the
four elements of cultural-aesthetic cosmopolitanism as described here reveal tendencies
towards a Nietzschean perspective, aiming to develop forms of cultural „übermensch‟
(„superman‟ or „beyond-man‟) (Nietzsche, 1883/1961).
Despite the links to moral cosmopolitan ideas, aesthetic-cultural cosmopolitan global
citizenship can start to resemble the more negatively perceived aspects of economic
cosmopolitanism: for example, Roman (2004, p. 240) employs Bauman‟s (1998) „tourist‟ /
„vagabond‟ terminology to critique those “intellectual tourists” and “voyeurs” who enjoy the
Laura Johnson 10

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, p.
242): the notion of the „vagabond‟, which resonates with De Ruyter and Spiecker‟s (2008)
description of those with „limited scope‟. De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008) contend that their
conception of global citizenship relies not upon international mobility but on access to a
liberal multicultural society. However, as Roman (2004, p. 241) claims, “Intellectual
tourism is not always confined to actual physical and geographical travel”, and yet it can
still mask a hegemonic system of social disenfranchisement, class rivalry and cultural
elitism that counteracts the efforts of moral and political cosmopolitans as well as post-
colonial actors.
Critical, Positional and Holistic forms of Global Citizenship
Critical (post-colonial) Global Citizenship
Once the political, moral, economic and aesthetic-cultural cosmopolitan forms of global
citizenship have been explored and classified, four alternative perspectives remain, which
cover a range of areas based on more relativist or holistic (anti-individualistic) ideologies.
The first, critical (post-colonial) global citizenship, is often posed in direct opposition to
cosmopolitan forms of global citizenship. Tully (2008), for example, uses intensely
negative and violent imagery to describe cosmopolitan, or „modern‟ types of global
citizenship:
“From the perspective of the non-Western civilisations and of diverse
citizenship, the two cosmopolitan rights appear as the Trojan horse of Western
imperialism (Anghie, 2005)”
Laura Johnson 11

(Tully, 2008, p. 23)
He thus presents a powerful case for the second type of global citizenship („diverse‟),
referring to an idealised world that “is reciprocally sustained by the civic freedom of its
citizens” (Tully, 2008, p. 29). The roots of this conception lie within theories of post-
development (Escobar, 1995; Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997) and post-colonialism (Said,
1978; Spivak, 1988), and thus what Tully names „diverse‟ global citizenship is more aptly
renamed ‘critical (post-colonial) global citizenship’. Roman (2004, p. 249) puts forward a
similar conception of post-colonial global citizenship which he calls “relational genealogy”.
This has its philosophical 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‟ (a synergistic process of reflection and action through which the
people would become “involved in the organized struggle for their liberation”), identified by
Tully as central to the expression of his „diverse‟ global citizenship.
Critical (post-colonialist) conceptions of global citizenship tend to promote a form of
„counter-hegemony‟, emphasising the deconstruction of oppressive global structures, and
are also connected to “a politics of social transformation” (Dei, 2008, p. 479). While they
generally take a relativist stance, potentially aligned with postmodern perspectives, a
number of theorists in this area express explicit support for human rights (generally a
universalist, cosmopolitan standpoint): for example, Abdi and Shultz (2008) in their book
„Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship‟ explore post-colonial ideas within a
clear framework of human rights. This illustrates the potential for associations between
certain conceptions of critical (post-colonial) global citizenship and forms of moral and
political cosmopolitan global citizenship, which present a clear contrast to radical post-
Laura Johnson 12

colonial scholars taking a more localised and moral relativist stance (for example,
Andreotti, 2006a; Arneil, 2007; Roman, 2004; Tully, 2008).
Positional Global Citizenship
I term the next category of global citizenship ‘positional’ global citizenship since, while it
has significant overlaps with Tully‟s (2008) „diverse‟ and other forms of critical (post-
colonial) global citizenship (particularly the less radical forms), it is not necessarily drawn
from post-colonial or post-development foundations: this type of global citizenship arises
from a range of social discourses or „positions‟. This type constructs interconnections
between capitalist, institutional, cosmopolitan universalism and rooted, localised, grass-
roots post-colonial relativism: founded along similar lines to Habermas‟s (1984)
„communicative rationality‟. It is also similar to „anarcho-cosmopolitanism‟, in that its
manifestation is generally through civil society organisations. However, with positional
global citizenship there is not necessarily a universalist timbre 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 two
examples are undeniably members of a global civil society which, since they are
constructed on the basis of a particular position (for example, Isin and Wood‟s (1999)
„urban citizenship‟), or sociological discourse such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disability
and class, can be labelled „positional‟ global citizenship.
The ideological basis of this conception lies within areas such as feminism,
multiculturalism and theories of „reflexive positionality‟ (Rose, 1997). Banks (2008), for
Laura Johnson 13

example, outlines a form of education based on „multicultural citizenship‟ (Kymlicka, 1995)
that acknowledges the importance of liberal cosmopolitan thinking (for example, through
human rights) but argues that citizens must develop “a delicate balance of cultural,
national, and global identifications” (Banks, 2008, p. 322). While it could be argued that
critical (post-colonial) global citizenship is simply a more radical subset of positional global
citizenship, there appear to be certain ideological and practical differences which justify the
division of these concepts into separate categories. Positional global citizenship contains
a range of ideas that align with critical, poststructuralist and postcolonial works (for
example, Spivak‟s (1990) concept of „strategic essentialism‟ and Isin and Wood‟s (1999)
„diasporic and aboriginal citizenship‟), but proponents of the former are likely to take a
more pragmatic approach to global citizenship, exploring shifting identities and working
within institutional (and perhaps national) boundaries, often towards goals such as poverty
reduction and social justice. Similar ideas in existing typologies of global citizenship 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 also be observed between „positional global citizenship‟ and the
descriptions above of „the new cosmopolitanism‟ (for example, as manifested in Cogan
and Derricott‟s (1998 & 2000) idea of ‟multidimensional citizenship‟). Although there are
clearly significant overlaps between these two conceptions of global citizenship, the
„positional‟ forms remain sufficiently relativist to make a „cosmopolitan‟ label inappropriate;
and can also include individuals and organisations who, rather than working towards
„moral cosmopolitan‟ goals such as human rights, aim towards more secretive, partisan,
nihilistic, narcissistic or even violent objectives.
Laura Johnson 14

Environmental Global Citizenship
Concern for the environment, or „sustainable development‟, is often identified as a distinct
theme aligning with global citizenship, particularly in educational contexts (for example,
see Isin & Wood, 1999; Richardson, 2008; Schattle, 2008a); but as a conception of
„environmental global citizenship‟ it is less common. This is partly because
environmentalism derives to a certain extent from the non-human elements of biology,
ecology, geography and even aesthetics (for example, nature photography), which tend to
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 (for example, in the case of animal rights,
by Regan & Singer, 1976), the rights-responsibilities framework is reversed: from a focus
on human rights to a focus on human responsibilities. The „Gaia hypothesis‟ (Lovelock &
Margulis, 1974), which portrays the earth as a homeostatic living organism, has also
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 his 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 the such totalitarian arguments as
killing off a large proportion of the human population in order to restore earth‟s natural
balance (Aiken & Regan, 1984; Ferry, 1995). Žižek also challenges the notion that the
earth is a fragile and good „Mother Nature‟ needing protection from humans (Else, 2010;
Žižek, 2010); and Ward (2009) puts forward a similar critique in his „Medea Hypothesis‟,
Laura Johnson 15

arguing that the earth is ultimately self-destructive without the „assistance‟ of humans.
While such viewpoints are fairly extreme, the anthropocentric position is certainly at
present more visible in mainstream environmental movements (such as the United Nations
Environment Programme: UNEP) than the ecocentric. Justification for environmentalism
tends 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 generations to
enjoy the same: reflecting the „sustainability‟ element in „sustainable development‟ (Jelin,
2000). With regard to some locations such as the Brazilian Rainforests, the group rights of
indigenous peoples to their natural habitat and culture are often included within
environmental conservation efforts (for example, UNESCO & UNEP, 2002), revealing links
to critical (post-colonial) global citizenship and aesthetic-cultural cosmopolitan global
citizenship as outlined 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” (Dobson, 2006, p. 165).
While this links directly to moral cosmopolitan perspectives, it is also drawn upon heavily
by Andreotti (2006a) in her postcolonial conception of global citizenship.
Manifestations of environmental global citizenship tend to lie either within the realms of
government (local, national and international); within 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 precedence: for example, in United Nations Millennium
Development Goal Seven, „Ensure Environmental Sustainability”. Environmental global
citizenship can also overlap significantly with anarcho-cosmopolitanism or positional global
citizenship: Greenpeace in particular has an anarchic reputation and tends to disregard
nation-state and private boundaries in favour of direct action (Associated Press, 2009;
Laura Johnson 16

Hooper, 2009; McCurry, 2010; Press Association, 2010); while organisations such as
WWF have been accused of „selling out‟ by working in partnership with corporate actors
such as Coca-Cola (PR Watch, 2007): a more „positional‟ stance on the basis of the above
description. However, despite the multiplicity of convergences between environmentalism
and other forms of global citizenship, there is a distinctly holistic conception that justifies a
separate categorisation as „environmental global citizenship‟. Such a conception tends to
prioritise above all an “ecological awareness of the fundamental interrelatedness of all
aspects of the Earth”, from either an anthropocentric or an ecocentric position,
emphasising “a sense of connectedness, empathy, and an appreciation for diversity and
difference” (Richardson, 2008, p. 128): i.e. what Richardson terms “The Ecological
Imaginary” (Richardson, 2008, p. 122).
Spiritual Global Citizenship
The final type of global citizenship to form a distinct category for the purposes of this
analytical framework is what might be termed „religious‟, „faith-based‟ or „spiritual‟ global
citizenship. Ideas relating to intangible phenomena such as „love‟ and „caring‟ can be
found also in many conceptions of moral global citizenship; and conceptions of spiritual
global citizenship may share aspects with cultural cosmopolitan global citizenship (such as
the need for students to understand religious and cultural symbolism). Significant
intersections are also found with positional global citizenship: 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 cosmopolitan global
citizenship themselves (for example, the promotion of the ideal of World Government by
the Bahá‟í Faith); although Warburg (1999) argues that these forms are ultimately
Laura Johnson 17

conservative rather than liberal-democratic since they oppose a secular model for the ideal
world-state in favour of a religious / spiritual / theocratic system of governance.
The idea of spiritual global citizenship, like the environmental conception, goes further than
the moral, cultural, positional and political forms in that it generally promotes a sort of
holism in which “deeper” notions of the self and society connect and 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”
(Conroy & Davis, 2008, p. 200). This can be found not only within religious teachings and
faith-based meditations but also within certain forms of humanism; not so much anti-
religious secular humanism but instead those humanistic writings that emphasise affective
elements that transcend rational philosophy and that cannot be measured empirically: for
example, „love for humanity‟, correlated by Dei (2008, p. 486) with „African and indigenous
humanism‟; „spiritual happiness‟ and „spiritual awakening‟ (Noddings, 2003, pp. 173, 200);
spiritual interpretations of „ubuntu‟ (Battle, 1997); and the type of global citizenship
described by Danesh (1997, p. 81) and Golmohamad (2004, p. 140) as a combination
between deep maturity, empathy and unselfish altruism, leading towards an „integrative
attitude‟.
Faith-based holistic manifestations of global citizenship also abound. Many world 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 and faith can also be seen as
problematic, for example in the small minority of cases where fundamentalism,
sectarianism and extreme close-mindedness arise. In such cases, McKinney (2008)
argues that programmes of global citizenship education such as Oxfam‟s (1997)
Laura Johnson 18

curriculum can be adapted and used to try to reduce sectarianism and promote religious
co-operation, although, as Bryan and Vavrus (2005) note, it is unwise to regard any form
of education as a panacea to deeper social problems. Nevertheless, as Golmohamad
(2008, p. 532) observes, global citizenship as it is 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.”
Conclusions
Within this paper, I have identified eight principal categories of global citizenship that can
form the basis of a framework for global citizenship. A summary diagram outlining these
eight types is below at Table 1.
Table 1: Categories of Global Citizenship Identified from Prevailing Literature
Categories Conceptual Types and Manifestations Related to theories by:
Political
Cosmopolitan
Global Citizenship
Moral Cosmopolitan
Global Citizenship
Economic
Cosmopolitan
Global Citizenship
Cultural-aesthetic
Cosmopolitan
Global Citizenship
Critical (postcolonial)
Global
Citizenship
World-state / institutional
cosmopolitanism
Cosmopolitan democracy
Anarcho-cosmopolitanism
„Strong‟ cosmopolitanism
Human Rights-based
„New‟ cosmopolitanism
Competitive / egocentric
Corporate Social Responsibility /
Philanthropic
Identification with globalised forms of
media and languages („MTV / Internet
generation‟)
Identification with / awareness of
cultures and individuals
Evaluation of cultural genres
Post-development / post-colonial
Post-Marxist
Kant; Rawls; Held;
McGrew; Linklater;
Carter; Archibugi
Stoics; Kant;
Nussbaum; Sen; Singer;
Appiah
Smith; Quesnay; Hayek;
Friedman
Nietzsche (übermensch)
Escobar; Said; Gramsci;
Marx; Frankfurt School;
Critical Pedagogy (e.g.
Laura Johnson 19

Categories Conceptual Types and Manifestations Related to theories by:
Freire)
Positional Global Sociological discourse-based (e.g. Habermas
Citizenship
feminism; race theory)
(communicative
Pragmatic and relationship-based:
global civil society
rationality)
Environmental Ecocentric
Dobson; Lovelock;
Global Citizenship Anthropocentric
enviro-scientific
research
Spiritual Global Spiritual / humanist
Noddings; Danesh;
Citizenship
Faith-based
religious texts
The categories outlined above and summarised within Table 1 contain a wide range of
philosophical standpoints, from relativism to universalism; from individualism to holism.
They are fluid classifications rather than set in stone: many conceptions of global
citizenship may traverse categories and combine a variety of different elements from each;
and alternative categorisations may arise on reference to further scholarship and where
new developments are constructed in theory and practice. Many overlaps have been
identified between this and prevailing typologies of global citizenship: for example, by Falk
(1993), Isin and Wood (1999), Roman (2004), Andreotti (2006b), Szelényi and Rhoads
(2007), Arneil (2007), Richardson (2008), Schattle (2008a) and Shukla (2009).
While the typology explicated within this paper enables a more ordered analysis of global
citizenship programmes and policies, what is missing from these eight ideological
categorisations is a sense of how they each connect between ideas and manifestations of
„global citizenship‟; between thought, identity and action; and between past, present and
future. „Citizenship‟ itself can be seen as a set of rights (Marshall, 1950), a set of attributes
(Cogan, 1998 & 2000), as a „status, feeling or practice‟ (Audrey Osler & Starkey, 2005) or
as „a category, a tie, a role or an identity‟ (Tilly, 1996). However, even these helpful
classifications are too narrow to expose the ontological depths of global citizenship: for
example, in identifying the sociological discourses at the root of conceptions of positional
Laura Johnson 20

global citizenship and how these might give rise to specific organisations and actions. The
next stage of this research is thus to construct an analytical framework for global
citizenship that contains spaces for such elements, drawing upon existing frameworks and
literature in the field. This will then be expanded into an analytical framework for global
citizenship education, which will subsequently be used to analyse real-life manifestations
of global citizenship, using two case study programmes for global citizenship education:
specifically the Model United Nations and the Commonwealth Youth Summits. By
exploring, deconstructing and re-categorising different conceptions of global citizenship
education and analysing and comparing their manifestations in practice, this research
provides a step towards a more coherent understanding of the phenomenon of „global
citizenship education‟ for academics, policy-makers and practitioners.
Laura Johnson 21

References
Abdi, A. A., & Shultz, L. (2008). Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Aiken, W., & Regan, T. (1984). Earthbound: new introductory essays in environmental ethics. New York:
Random House.
Andreotti, V. (2006a). A Postcolonial Reading of Contemporary Discourses Related to the Global Dimension
in Education in England. Unpublished PhD, University of Nottingham.
Andreotti, V. (2006b). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Development Education, Policy and
Practice, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.osdemethodology.org.uk/texts/softcriticalvan.pdf
Anghie, A. (2005). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
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). Greenpeace dumps rocks in sea to stop trawling. The Guardian, (10th August
2009). Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/10/greenpeace-fishingprotest
Banks, J. A. (2008). Citizenship Education and Diversity: Implications for Teacher Education. In M. Peters, A.
Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 317-
331). Rotterdam: Sense.
Battle, M. (1997). Reconciliation: the Ubuntu theology of Desmond Tutu. Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (2006). The Cosmopolitan Vision (C. Cronin, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bryan, A., & Vavrus, F. (2005). The promise and peril of education: the teaching of in/tolerance in an era of
globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(2), 183-202.
Carter, A. (2001). The political theory of global citizenship. London: Routledge.
Cogan, J. J. (1998 & 2000). Citizenship Education for the 21st Century: Setting the Context. In J. J. Cogan &
R. Derricott (Eds.), Citizenship for the 21st century: an international perspective on education (pp. 1-
21). London: Kogan Page.
Cogan, J. J., & Derricott, R. (1998 & 2000). Citizenship for the 21st century: an international perspective on
education. London: Kogan Page.
Conroy, J. C., & Davis, R. A. (2008). Citizenship, Education and the Claims of Religious Literacy. In M. Peters,
A. Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 187-
202). Rotterdam: Sense.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danesh, H. B. (1997). The Psychology of Spirituality: From Divided Self to Integrated Self. Victoria, B.C.:
Paradigm.
De Ruyter, D. J., & Spiecker, B. (2008). The World Citizen Travels with a Different View. In M. Peters, A.
Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 351-
363). Rotterdam: Sense.
Dei, G. (2008). Anti-Racism Education for Global Citizenship. In M. Peters, A. Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global
citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 477-490). Rotterdam: Sense.
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.
Else, L. (2010). Slavoj Žižek: Wake up and smell the apocalypse New Scientist, 2775(30 August 2010).
Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727751.100-slavoj-zizek-wake-up-andsmell-the-apocalypse.html?page=1
Laura Johnson 22

Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Falk, R. A. (1993). The Making of Global Citizenship. In J. Brecher, J. B. Childs & J. Cutler (Eds.), Global
visions: beyond the new world order (pp. 39-50). Boston: South End Press.
Falk, R. A., Kim, S. S., & Mendlovitz, S. H. (1991). The United Nations and a just world order. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Faulks, K. (2000). Citizenship. London: Routledge.
Ferry, L. (1995). The new ecological order (C. Volk, Trans.). Chicago, Ill.; London: 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.
Galston, W. (1989). Civic education in the liberal state. In N. L. Rosenblum (Ed.), Liberalism and the Moral
Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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 & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy
(pp. 519-533). Rotterdam: Sense.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol.1, Reason and the rationalization of society.
London: Heinemann Education.
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). Greenpeace activists hijack Italian power stations. The Guardian, (8th July 2009).
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/08/greenpeace-g8-protest-coalitaly
Humes, W. (2008). The Discourse of Global Citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global
citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 41-52). Rotterdam: Sense.
Isin, E. F., & Wood, P. K. (1999). Citizenship and identity. London: Sage.
Jelin, E. (2000). Towards a Global Environmental Citizenship? Citizenship Studies, 4(1), 47-63.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Linklater, A. (1998). The transformation of political community: ethical foundations of the post-Westphalian
era. Oxford: Polity.
Lovelock, J. E., & Margulis, L. (1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the gaia
hypothesis. Tellus, 26(1), 2–10.
Lu, C. (Ed.) (2008) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.).
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: a study in moral theory. London: Duckworth.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class, and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, Calif. ; London: Sage Publications.
McCurry, J. (2010). Anti-whaling activists face trial in Japan. The Guardian, (14th February 2010). Retrieved
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/14/sato-suzuki-trial-japan-whaling
McGrew, A. G. (1997). The transformation of democracy?: globalization and territorial democracy.
Cambridge: Polity, in association with the Open University.
McKinney, S. J. (2008). Immigrants and Religious Conflict: Insider Accounts of Italian, Lithuanian and Polish
Catholics in Scotland. In M. Peters, A. Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education:
philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 333-349). Rotterdam: Sense.
Laura Johnson 23

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 & J. Cohen (Eds.), For love of
country: debating the limits of patriotism (pp. 2-17). Boston: Beacon Press.
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: democracy and inclusion in education. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Osler, A., & 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).
Oxfam (1997). A curriculum for global citizenship. Oxford: Oxfam Development Education Programme.
Papastephanou, M. (2008). Cosmopolitanism: With or Without Patriotism? In M. Peters, A. Britton & H.
Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185).
Rotterdam: Sense.
Peters, M. A., Blee, H., & Britton, A. (2008). Introduction: Many Faces of Global Civil Society: Possible
Futures for Global Citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship
education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 1-13). Rotterdam: Sense.
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; London: Cornell University Press.
Pogge, T. W. M. (2002). World poverty and human rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.
PR Watch (2007). WWF Greenwashes Coca-Cola. Center for Media and Democracy: PR Watch, (5th June
2007). Retrieved from http://www.prwatch.org/node/6123
Press Association (2010). Greenpeace activists scale BP's London headquarters in oil protest. The Guardian,
(20th May 2010). Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/greenpeace-activists-scale-bp-buildingroof
Rahnema, M., & Bawtree, V. (Eds.). (1997). The post-development reader. London: Zed Books.
Regan, T., & Singer, P. (1976). Animal rights and human obligations. Englewood Cliffs; London: Prentice-
Hall.
Richardson, G. (2008). Conflicting Imaginaries: Global Citizenship Education in Canada as a Site of
Contestation. In M. Peters, A. Britton & H. Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: philosophy,
theory and pedagogy (pp. 115-131). Rotterdam: Sense.
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. Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield.
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.
Singer, P. (2004). One world: the ethics of globalization (2nd ed.). New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale
University Press.
Laura Johnson 24

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the
interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Spivak, G. C., & Harasym, S. (1990). The postcolonial critic: interviews, strategies, dialogues. New York;
London: Routledge.
Szelényi, K., & 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 (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tully, J. (2008). Two Meanings of Global Citizenship: Modern and Diverse. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton & H.
Blee (Eds.), Global citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 15-40). Rotterdam:
Sense.
UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, & UNEP, United Nations
Environment Programme (2002). Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity for Sustainable Development.
Paper presented at the jointly convened UNESCO and UNEP high-level Roundtable held on 3
September 2002 during the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg.
Waks, L. J. (2008). Cosmopolitanism and Citizenship Education. In M. Peters, A. Britton & H. Blee (Eds.),
Global citizenship education: philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 203-219). Rotterdam: Sense.
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: 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.
Žižek, S. (2010). Living in the end times. London: Verso.
Laura Johnson 25