An ideology critique of global citizenship education

Abstract

In the last two decades, global citizenship education has become a catchphrase used by international and national educational agencies, as well as researchers, to delineate the increasing internationalisation of education, framed as an answer to the growing globalisation and the high values of citizenship. These developments, however, have created issues, due to the presence of two conflicting discourses. While the discourse of critical democracy highlights the importance of ethical values, social responsibility and active citizenry, a neoliberal discourse privileges instead a market-rationale, focused on self-investment and enhanced profits. These two discourses are not separated; they rather appear side by side, causing a confusing effect. This article aims to analyse global citizenship education as an ideology, unveiling not only its hidden (discursive) content, but also the role played by nondiscursive elements in guaranteeing the coexistence of antagonistic discourses. It will be argued that not only the critical democratic discourse does not offer any resistance or threat to the neoliberal structuring of higher education, this discourse can function as an apologetic narrative that exculpates all of us who still want to work in universities, notwithstanding our dissatisfaction with their current commodification.

We, the non-global citizens: Reflections on the possibilities and challenges of democratic global citizenship education in higher education contexts

“…Pashby (2013) explains how 'pivoting' critical approaches into a neoliberal educational agenda can foreclose the critical potential of these approaches. Pais and Costa (2017) wonder, within an educational context in which individualist and competitive goals prevail, "[w]hat prevents global citizenship education, particularly within a critical democratic vein, from becoming commoditised, and thus utterly determined by the place of enunciation?" (Pais & Costa, 2017, p. 8).…”

“…As mentioned, the complexity of the concept of global citizenship (Tully, 2014) is further increased when the role and purposes of HE are incorporated within the construct of GCE. Pais and Costa (2017) suggest that democratic approaches to GCE are compromised by being embedded in an intrinsically competitive HE context. "The problem arises", they write, "when we conceive education not as the realisation of a collectively motivated goal through continuous ethical commitment, but as the strictly individualistic goal of passing the course or achieving the highest grade" (Pais & Costa, 2017, p. 8).…”

“…So, there is a possibility that the individualistic or collaborative nature of the assignment might have some impact. However, assignments in HE (and likely beyond) tend to be an individualist practice and Pais and Costa (2017) might be right in highlighting that, in this context, neoliberal GCE approaches are likely to prevail.…”

“…But the dilemma that Pais and Costa (2017) present, and these students illustrate, might go beyond the discussion on GCE. What it is challenged here, I argue, it is not that much democratic approaches to GCE but perhaps the mere possibility of democratic education -understood in relation to collective goals -in the context of HE.…”

Integrating Gender into Global Citizenship Education

“…신자유주의적 관점에서의 세계 시민교육은 경제 세계화에 발맞추어 글로벌 시장경제에 참여할 수 있는 역량을 겸비한 세계시민을 양성하는 것을 강조한 관점이다 (Carter, 2001;Dill, 2013;Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2008;조혜승 2016 (Camicia & Franklin, 2011). 이 관점은 국내 세계시민교육 현장에서 주 로 인식되었던 관점이기도 하다 (Cho & Mosesson, 2017 (Andreotti, 2006;Davies, 2006;Ibrahim, 2005;Pais & Costa, 2017). 예를 들어, 인 류애적 관점의 세계시민교육은 빈곤 자체를 문제로 인식한다면, 비 판적 관점의 세계시민교육은 빈곤을 야기하고 지속시키는 국가간 혹 젠더 관점에서 본 세계시민교육 -세계시민교육 교과서 분석을 중심으로 -115 은 국가내 불평등한 권력 관계, 차별, 불평등 등을 문제로 상정한다 (Andreotti, 2006;Pais & Costa, 2017 The purpose of this study is to explore the contents of global citizenship education(GCE) from a gender perspective, and to lay the theoretical foundation to integrate gender issues into GCE.…”