Comparative Analysis of Literature
Throughout the multi-millennial history of the idea of global citizenship the concepts has been subject to multiple interpretations and definitions that are usually based on the needs and wants of those in power, and of generational ebbs and flows that take place throughout history. As we look through the literature that was used to construct this webpage we can begin to see some patterns in the author’s philosophy that I imagine are, at least in some measure, shaped by the policies of the countries that they come from, and on some level probably reflect the view of global citizenship in those countries.
To be clear, due to its role as the dominant political philosophy of the early 21st century all of the authors, in some way, engaged the global citizenship discourse from a neo-liberal perspective [establishment of one dominant global market, privatization, marketization, open transnational trade, a liberal economy driven by capitalism/technology, and a focus on broad globalizing trends, e.g. power structures and global flows] (Schultz, 2007; Jones, 2009; Fanghanel, 2010). This philosophy measures success through economic principals of efficiency, profitability, and productivity, which promote competitive behavior between individuals in the economic, political, and social domains. Human action and social institutions, including education, are judged on an economic rationale in this system and serves the purpose of human capital development, which sees students as workers developing the ability to work smarter and faster, and views learning as the development of working skills for economic consumption (Rhodes and Szelenyi, 2011; Hudson and Sidhu, 2011; Jones, 2009). Despite neo-liberalism being a thread that is constant throughout the literature that was used what was not constant was the way in which the various authors perceived and presented neo-liberalism within the discourse of global citizenship education. It is in this area that I feel we can see the mirroring of the various national discourses, depth and breadth of the overall definition, and level of comfort with global citizenship education.
The majority of the literature produced by American scholars, or by foreign scholars sponsored by American institutions, and the one piece by Australian scholars, discussed global citizenship from a neo-liberal perspective as one of the foci of their works, even if it was not one of the central focuses of the piece or a main theoretical framework. In the case of the American scholars they came down pretty evenly divided between those that were uncritical of the neo-liberal perspective of global citizenship education and those that were. Some described global citizenship, and the building of the competency, as a marketing tool or a resume filler that the students’ needs to develop in order to compete and successfully participate in global market. It painted global citizenship as way to make the citizen a more efficient, effective, and useful cog in the global machinery that make-up the economies of all nations. Global citizenship education is presented as a skill that needs to be developed to help one succeed, not as one that should be developed because it better serves the public good. Others discussed neo-liberalism as the frame in which they analyzed global citizenship education often discussing it as an alternate approach that is the antithesis of the us v. them mentality that globalization and neo-liberalism often perpetuates.
To be clear, due to its role as the dominant political philosophy of the early 21st century all of the authors, in some way, engaged the global citizenship discourse from a neo-liberal perspective [establishment of one dominant global market, privatization, marketization, open transnational trade, a liberal economy driven by capitalism/technology, and a focus on broad globalizing trends, e.g. power structures and global flows] (Schultz, 2007; Jones, 2009; Fanghanel, 2010). This philosophy measures success through economic principals of efficiency, profitability, and productivity, which promote competitive behavior between individuals in the economic, political, and social domains. Human action and social institutions, including education, are judged on an economic rationale in this system and serves the purpose of human capital development, which sees students as workers developing the ability to work smarter and faster, and views learning as the development of working skills for economic consumption (Rhodes and Szelenyi, 2011; Hudson and Sidhu, 2011; Jones, 2009). Despite neo-liberalism being a thread that is constant throughout the literature that was used what was not constant was the way in which the various authors perceived and presented neo-liberalism within the discourse of global citizenship education. It is in this area that I feel we can see the mirroring of the various national discourses, depth and breadth of the overall definition, and level of comfort with global citizenship education.
The majority of the literature produced by American scholars, or by foreign scholars sponsored by American institutions, and the one piece by Australian scholars, discussed global citizenship from a neo-liberal perspective as one of the foci of their works, even if it was not one of the central focuses of the piece or a main theoretical framework. In the case of the American scholars they came down pretty evenly divided between those that were uncritical of the neo-liberal perspective of global citizenship education and those that were. Some described global citizenship, and the building of the competency, as a marketing tool or a resume filler that the students’ needs to develop in order to compete and successfully participate in global market. It painted global citizenship as way to make the citizen a more efficient, effective, and useful cog in the global machinery that make-up the economies of all nations. Global citizenship education is presented as a skill that needs to be developed to help one succeed, not as one that should be developed because it better serves the public good. Others discussed neo-liberalism as the frame in which they analyzed global citizenship education often discussing it as an alternate approach that is the antithesis of the us v. them mentality that globalization and neo-liberalism often perpetuates.
In the only piece from Australian scholars the focus was on the industry that is the internationalization and marketing of their higher education institutions throughout the pacific and East Asian regions. In this piece global citizenship and foreign students are presented as consumers with Australian higher education authorities marketing themselves to them in a bid to increase profits. Higher education is presented like a business with the bottom line speaking the loudest, which falls directly in line with fundamental neo-liberal beliefs. Along with these differing perspectives on global citizenship I believe that I sensed a more parochial and guarded definition of, and approach to, global citizenship education then their European and Canadian colleagues; I feel this is directly reflective of the isolation and size of these two countries, which combined can lead to a far less consistent level of interaction with those from other countries and their population.
The work that came out of the scholars and institutions of the European Union and Canada (or as before those sponsored by European and Canadian institutions) that was used to for this webpage tended to focus more on internationalization (considered by many to be the inevitable and overt impact of globalization on higher education) of the various areas of education including the prospects of infusing a global perspective into the community through curricula development, campus development, and pedagogy development (assessment, learning and teaching outcomes). This makes sense from the European perspective due to that fact that for the last 12- 15 years the region has been working on the development of the “European Higher Education Area”, also known as the Bologna Process. The Bologna Accords (the outcome of the process) is “a series of agreements between European countries designed to ensure comparability in the standards and quality of higher education qualifications”, which would allow for smoother student exchanges and expected increase in foreign student enrollment (About the Bologna Process, 2010), and is at its core an attempt at regional internationalization. From the Canadian perspective, with the reciprocity that its citizens have with England, Jamaica, and other states of the Caribbean, this is also important information for Canadian higher education authorities.
Both the Canadian and the European literature were concerned with the idea of ethics, social change and justice, and in my opinion show a higher level of comfort and more depth and breadth in the development of their understanding of the idea of inclusion of global perspective then the Americans and the Australians. In my opinion this is directly reflective to the physical make-up of Europe; when land and resources are scarce due to numerous countries competing for them one eventually learns that it is sometimes better to cooperate and collaborate, which lends itself to more open doors and international exchange, and which I feel has resulted in the liberal society that have developed there over the millennia in Europe. I believe the constant interaction with those that are different that occurs throughout the Continent has made higher education institutions in Europe more receptive to this concept. As stated earlier due to their reciprocity in citizenship and fairly open immigration policies towards England and various countries in the Caribbean, this is something that I imagine would also be of interest to the Canadian higher education establishment as well. Where the Canadians differ is that unlike the Europeans they also focus greatly on the idea of respect for, as well as the protection and inclusion of indigenous knowledge in their concept of global citizenship, which directly reflect the large and diverse indigenous population that resides in Canada (the majority of which live in poverty). Indigenous populations like these do not exist in Europe thus their lack of focus on this and more of a focus on racial and class issues.
The work that came out of the scholars and institutions of the European Union and Canada (or as before those sponsored by European and Canadian institutions) that was used to for this webpage tended to focus more on internationalization (considered by many to be the inevitable and overt impact of globalization on higher education) of the various areas of education including the prospects of infusing a global perspective into the community through curricula development, campus development, and pedagogy development (assessment, learning and teaching outcomes). This makes sense from the European perspective due to that fact that for the last 12- 15 years the region has been working on the development of the “European Higher Education Area”, also known as the Bologna Process. The Bologna Accords (the outcome of the process) is “a series of agreements between European countries designed to ensure comparability in the standards and quality of higher education qualifications”, which would allow for smoother student exchanges and expected increase in foreign student enrollment (About the Bologna Process, 2010), and is at its core an attempt at regional internationalization. From the Canadian perspective, with the reciprocity that its citizens have with England, Jamaica, and other states of the Caribbean, this is also important information for Canadian higher education authorities.
Both the Canadian and the European literature were concerned with the idea of ethics, social change and justice, and in my opinion show a higher level of comfort and more depth and breadth in the development of their understanding of the idea of inclusion of global perspective then the Americans and the Australians. In my opinion this is directly reflective to the physical make-up of Europe; when land and resources are scarce due to numerous countries competing for them one eventually learns that it is sometimes better to cooperate and collaborate, which lends itself to more open doors and international exchange, and which I feel has resulted in the liberal society that have developed there over the millennia in Europe. I believe the constant interaction with those that are different that occurs throughout the Continent has made higher education institutions in Europe more receptive to this concept. As stated earlier due to their reciprocity in citizenship and fairly open immigration policies towards England and various countries in the Caribbean, this is something that I imagine would also be of interest to the Canadian higher education establishment as well. Where the Canadians differ is that unlike the Europeans they also focus greatly on the idea of respect for, as well as the protection and inclusion of indigenous knowledge in their concept of global citizenship, which directly reflect the large and diverse indigenous population that resides in Canada (the majority of which live in poverty). Indigenous populations like these do not exist in Europe thus their lack of focus on this and more of a focus on racial and class issues.