Global citizenship education is a sociological experiment. Most schools promise to create global citizens or global leaders, but what kind of global citizen do we want to create? It's a blurred utopian vision. Do we want future citizens who feel a moral responsibility to respond to global crises or do we want to encourage a powerful global elite?
The philosophy of cosmopolitanism underlies theories of global citizenship. Cosmopolitanism is the ability to balance a local and global identity. A cosmopolitan individual engages meaningfully with different cultures and feels at home in the world.
There are two potentially conflicting types of cosmopolitanism. One is an ethical sense of responsibility and social justice to the earth and its inhabitants. The other is the practical economic potential you get from cultural awareness and cross-cultural ability.
In the increasingly competitive worldwide environment, schools are expected to produce globally-competent students ready to take on the future economic world as we see it today. And cosmopolitan capital is evident in curriculums everywhere – Mandarin lessons and international field trips, for example, are designed to give students the edge in global awareness.
The cultural understanding gained from these programmes is valuable. They are, however, expensive and exclusive, which is why cosmopolitan capital can be so dangerous. Not only is it only really available to young citizens who have access to these global opportunities, but because of this it can also reinforce social inequality rather than encouraging social mobility.
In Asia and continental Europe, cosmopolitan striving has only served to enforce existing class structures. A push from the middle class to educate their children in English language medium international schools gives students the skills to vie for places in English-speaking universities, which improves their chances of future economic gain. Parents make a significant financial investment in choosing English as their child's academic language.
Active global citizenship, on the other hand, is a moral interpretation of cosmopolitanism. The definition by Oxfam has been promoted as the foundation for ethical global citizenship education. According to Oxfam, an active global citizen understands "how the world works… is outraged by social injustice" and "is willing to act to make the world a more sustainable place".
It's important to acknowledge the political agenda behind this form of global citizenship. Active citizenship, as the name suggests, is based on action. But our understanding of this is based on our own cultural norms. For example, when you think of political action, do you assume the action takes place in a stable western democracy? What if the global citizen – your student – isn't living in a western democracy? Some forms of global citizenship action are simply not accepted in many countries and we need to ensure, as teachers, that our own preconceptions aren't influencing our subject and being passed onto our our students.
Furthermore, in promoting active citizenship we can be in danger of creating an imagined world where the enlightened help those less globally aware. Active global citizenship is sometimes interpreted as charity or fundraising, but this isn't quite right. Active citizenship involves global political awareness and the impassioned advocacy for equality.
Tracking how global citizenship is taught is tricky – it's often tackled across various subject curriculums and cosmopolitan capital and active global citizenship are often interwoven. Some curriculums attempt to walk a tightrope between the two agendas. For example, the international baccalaureate has a compulsory service component of active citizenship while including the social advantage of an internationally-recognised qualification (cosmopolitan capital).
On the other hand, the English national curriculum key stage 3 and 4 has few statutory aspects of global awareness in the citizenship course beyond human rights, and active citizenship is only included at a local school and community level. and active citizenship is only included at a local school and community level. Australia has prioritised Asia literacy across subjects for regional understanding and cosmopolitan capital. Curriculums in fast-growth Asian countries make no excuse for encouraging cosmopolitan capital for the sake of national growth – everyone has to get along for economic expansion.
Currently, schools choose what is taught and how. Curriculums are subject to individual school contexts and budgets allocated to global awareness. This arbitrary nature of global citizenship education demands attention. All students need equal access to cosmopolitan capital and opportunities for ethical global citizenship. Theories, philosophies and our own perspectives as teachers should be questioned rigorously as they inform the global citizenship that we teach and the future society that we shape.
There are competing ideological aims and agendas in how we introduce the world to our students. If schools are indeed creating global citizens, let's be aware of the educational, political and social power that we wield.
Caroline Ferguson is an English teacher at an international school in Singapore. She is conducting honours research in global citizenship at the University of Tasmania, Australia. You can follow her on Twitter at @CaroGlobalEd and via her blog.