Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbje20

Download by: [Durham University Library] Date: 11 November 2015, At: 15:00

British Journal of Educational Studies

ISSN: 0007-1005 (Print) 1467-8527 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20

Global Citizenship: A Typology for Distinguishingits Multiple Conceptions

Laura Oxley & Paul Morris

To cite this article: Laura Oxley & Paul Morris (2013) Global Citizenship: A Typology forDistinguishing its Multiple Conceptions, British Journal of Educational Studies, 61:3, 301-325,DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2013.798393

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393

Published online: 26 Jun 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1210

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

British Journal of Educational StudiesVol. 61, No. 3, September 2013, pp. 301–325

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: A TYPOLOGY FORDISTINGUISHING ITS MULTIPLE CONCEPTIONS

by LAURA OXLEY1 and PAUL MORRIS, Institute of Education, University of London

ABSTRACT: The promotion of ‘Global Citizenship’ (GC) has emerged as agoal of schooling in many countries, symbolising a shift away from nationaltowards more global conceptions of citizenship. It currently incorporates aproliferation of approaches and terminologies, mirroring both the diverseconceptions of its nature and the socio-politico contexts within which it isappropriated. This paper seeks to clarify this ambiguity by constructing atypology to identify and distinguish the diverse conceptions of GC. The typol-ogy is based on two general forms of GC: cosmopolitan based and advocacybased. The former incorporates four distinct conceptions of GC – namely,the political, moral, economic and cultural; the latter incorporates fourother conceptions – namely, the social, critical, environmental and spiritual.Subsequently, we briefly illustrate how the typology can be used to evaluatethe critical features of a curriculum plan designed to promote GC in England.The typology provides a novel and powerful means to analyse the key fea-tures of the very diverse range of educational policies and programmes thatpromote GC.

Keywords: global citizenship, global citizenship education, global dimension,cosmopolitanism, curriculum analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

In a recent seminar series, different speakers used Global Citizenship (GC) as abasis for: justifying a ban in western society on face-covering veils for women;promoting and working with differences across cultural and religious divides;deconstructing western hegemony; and giving citizens new skills enabling themto resolve conflicts and contest injustices. A similar ambiguity emerged at a work-ing group when GC was proposed as one of the primary goals for developmenteducation funded by the United Kingdom, but was later removed after an agreeddefinition of the term could not be provided. This diversity mirrors that in broaderwritings, policies and practices of GC education.

GC has, along with ‘lifelong learning’, taken on the status of a ‘global’ or‘travelling’ educational policy. It is now promoted as a goal of schooling gen-erally, and specifically of school subjects such as Civics and Social Studiesin many countries; and in many others, variants of GC – such as the ‘GlobalDimension’ and ‘Global Awareness’ – are promoted. However, it is subject to a

ISSN 0007-1005 (print)/ISSN 1467-8527 (online)© 2013 Society for Educational Studieshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

302 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

wide range of interpretations in the diverse contexts in which it is appropriated andpromoted.

An associated construct, Global Citizenship education (GCE), is also entwinedwith a number of overlapping ideas including development education, democraticeducation, education for cosmopolitan citizenship, peace education and humanrights education. Consequently, as identified by Marshall (2005, 2007), both GCand GCE are used ambiguously and understood differently both within and acrosscontexts. The resulting confusion is not merely a problem of semantics: as Byers(2005) notes, the term global is used to invoke ideas ranging from ‘[people whoare] well-rounded [and] adaptable’ to G. W. Bush’s ‘civilizing mission’ in the‘Global War on Terrorism’.

This paper begins by identifying and distinguishing the main ways in whichGC has been categorised to date, within three major categories: ‘dichotomous’(polarised categorisations of GC); ‘GC attributes’ and GC ‘-isms’ (ideologicalunderpinnings of GC). We then propose a typology for identifying and distinguish-ing the diverse and major conceptions of GC. Finally, the paper suggests how thetypology might be used to analyse a curriculum promoting a form of GCE.

The typology is constructed using McCracken’s (1988) five stages, throughwhich observations and relationships in academic texts are explored and com-bined into themes and categories through an iterative process. Relevant literaturein English was identified through an extensive library search to discover materialsfocused on GC as their main theme. We started with large edited works relat-ing to GC (and GCE) and subsequently investigated journal articles and booksreferenced in these texts, until a comprehensive picture had formed. The tex-tual analysis initially involved drawing out and coding ideas and statements fromeach text; these were then aligned with each other to draw out relationships andinterconnections. These were then subjected to critical scrutiny and patterns andthemes were identified.

Eight conceptions were identified that emphasise distinct understandings ofthe nature and purposes of GC. At an early stage it became clear that within eachof these conceptions there were a number of variations: for example, the politicalconception incorporated those who saw GC as a means to promote a world stateand those who advocated anarchy. Accordingly, we have also identified some ofthe noticeable variations within each of the eight conceptions. Following an outlineof existing typologies, we summarise these eight conceptions and describe theapproaches to GC associated with each, the key theorists and the contemporaryproponents. We subsequently illustrate, by analysing an intended GCE curriculumusing the typology, how it can be employed as a device to explore and evaluate thepractical implications of the range of ideas and perspectives within the field of GC.

2. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE

‘Citizenship’ itself is viewed from many angles: for example, as a set of rights(Marshall, 1950), as a set of attributes (Cogan, 1998 & 2000), as a ‘status, feeling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 303

or practice’ (Osler and Starkey, 2005) or as ‘a category, a tie, a role or an iden-tity’ (Tilly, 1996). However, GC is distinctive because of the polarity of opinion itengenders: for some it implies universality and a deep commitment to a broadermoral purpose, while for others it cannot feasibly be a valid concept due to the per-ceived absence of a ruling authority (e.g. a world government) on which to basesuch an idea of citizenship. Thus Parekh (2003, p. 12) rejects the idea of the globalcitizen with ‘no political home’ and advocates instead the idea of the ‘globallyoriented citizen’. Nevertheless, it is clear from the growing literature, policies andpractices employing GC (as identified by Schattle, 2008b) that it is a distinctivecategory within and beyond the field of citizenship, meriting comprehensive anal-ysis. In developing a typology, the varied interpretations need to be both alignedwith each other and with associated concepts such as cosmopolitanism, humanrights, development and democracy.

We identified three approaches currently used to describe and distinguish mod-els of GC. We term these the dichotomous, the attributes and the -isms. The firstconsists of models that are characterised by the use of binary or polarised distinc-tions between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ conceptions of GC, whether the polaritiesare explicit (for example, Shultz’s [2011] ‘weak’ versus ‘strong’) or implicit (forexample, Tully’s [2008] ‘modern’ versus ‘diverse’). The presentation and critiqueof the negative often serves to provide powerful rationalisations for the positive.

Models that illustrate this approach are shown in Table 1. Generally, thecategory in Column A is portrayed as the hegemonic, dominant form; and thatin Column B as the counter-hegemonic, ideal form. Notable exceptions to this arethe models constructed by Lapayese (2003) and by Cameron and Haanstra (2008),who argue for a balance between the two forms in each of their models. Thisapproach is useful because it provides a critical perspective and identifies sets of

TABLE 1: Examples of dichotomous approaches to models of global citizenship

Source

Column A (often hegemonic,dominant form of global

citizenship)

Column B (oftencounter-hegemonic, idealform of global citizenship)

Falk (1993, 1997) Globalisation from above Globalisation from belowLapayese (2003), using

Olssen (2002) andIchilov (2002)

Common grounds approach Grounded global citizenship

Andreotti (2006b) Soft global citizenship Critical global citizenshipArneil (2007) Civilising global citizenship Rooted global citizenshipCameron and Haanstra

(2008)Northern agency Southern agency

Tully (2008) Modern global citizenship Diverse global citizenshipShukla (2009) Vertical global citizenship Horizontal global citizenshipShultz (2011) Weak intercultural focus and

weak structural analysisStrong intercultural focus and

strong structural analysis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

304 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

ideals for GC; but for our purposes a more nuanced analysis is necessary, ratherthan a polarised ‘good/bad’ scaffold.

The ‘global citizen attributes’ approach includes models that focus on thedesired attributes of global citizens, and some of these (for example, Falk, 1993;Roman, 2004) also incorporate the binary distinctions described in Table 1. Thisapproach is often rooted in the work of curriculum developers seeking to identifythe aims and pupil learning outcomes in the construction of school curricula: forexample, to develop responsibility and empathy (Schattle, 2008b) or knowledgeof other cultures (Veugelers, 2011). Gerzon’s (2010) five worldviews (egocentric,ideocentric, sociocentric, multicentric and geocentric) provide a sliding scale ofidentity attributes that to some extent mirror Hanvey’s (1976) five global perspec-tives (perspective consciousness, ‘state of the planet’ awareness, cross-culturalawareness, knowledge of global dynamics and awareness of human choices).These models also provide a strong normative vision of GC, but are not stronglylinked to the ideas such as rights, action and social dynamics that are the founda-tions of theories of citizenship and GC, particularly within the political sciencesand philosophy. They therefore fall under the category critiqued by Biesta andLawy (2006, p. 72) in which an ‘assumption [is made that] citizenship can beunderstood as the outcome of an educational trajectory’. They argue that citizen-ship should not be perceived as a form of identity but as a ‘practice’; and theywould categorise GC traits listed above as overly individualistic and disconnectedfrom citizens’ real lives.

Further, by assigning ‘sets’ of inclusive or exclusory characteristics andbehaviours to each category of global citizen, stereotypes are created, such as‘modernisers and globalisers’ (Tully, 2008, p. 33) and ‘the neoliberal globalcitizen’ (Shultz, 2007, p. 250), which downplay the potential for individuals tohold multiple, shifting and flexible identities as explored by Sen (2006) and Isinand Wood (1999).

The third approach, ‘GC-isms’, distinguishes GC on the basis of their ideolog-ical underpinnings. This approach forms the essence of this article, since it allowsthe core concerns and intentions behind conceptions of GC to be explored indetail. Models within this approach can also be distinguished between those whichare normative and those which are empirically derived. An example of the latteris Schattle’s (2008a) distinction between ‘moral cosmopolitanism, liberal multi-culturalism, neoliberalism and environmentalism’, based on an extensive rangeof interviews and document/web analysis; similarly, Richardson’s (2008) setof ‘Global Imaginaries’ (‘Imperial’, ‘Bipolar’, ‘Multipolar’, ‘Ecological’ and‘Monopolar’) is based on a historical analysis of the Canadian curriculum. Neitherof these typologies, however, allows space for spiritual and religious conceptionsof GC; but this is justified, as categories are derived from observed manifesta-tions of GC within particular contexts, rather than from an analysis of prevailingliterature, much of which is normative.

Overall, whilst these three approaches effectively distinguish critical featuresof conceptions of GC, the first two are driven by a normative perspective and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 305

tend to employ dichotomous and sometimes stereotyped distinctions. Our goalis to develop a typology that includes both normative and empirically groundedconceptions of GC in terms of their ideological underpinnings. It is crucial toemphasise that the typology does not intend to provide hard-and-fast dividersbetween types of GC: as with the associated concept of globalisation, it embodiesa complex, shifting and overlapping range of meanings – and as we proceed, weidentify many of those overlaps. It is thus intended as a device to explore the criti-cal features of a construct that is understood in diverse ways and is changing overtime.

3. CONFLICTING AND CONVERGING FORMS OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

We identified eight principal conceptions of GC and these were grouped intotwo broad forms/types, namely: the ‘cosmopolitan’, which represents an essen-tially mainstream set of models; and an alternative, ‘advocacy’ based, set ofmodels. Within each of these eight conceptions we also identified perspectivesthat, while focusing on the same conception, take a stance of a more ‘radi-cal’ nature (meaning that, within the same general theme, they offer a critiqueof prevailing or mainstream perspectives). The cosmopolitan type contains fourdistinct conceptions that derive from the main approaches to distinguishing andanalysing the dimensions/features of social organisations; namely, the political,moral, economic and cultural. Across the literature, significant use is increasinglymade of the term ‘cosmopolitanism’: primarily as a synonym for GC and some-times as an associated but differentiated concept. For a number of authors the termcosmopolitanism has been preferred to GC because it avoids the focus on citizen-ship and links the concept to the classical philosophies of Plato, Diogenes and theStoics from which GC is seen to be derived. We elaborate on this below.

The ‘advocacy’ types were so described because they portray themselvesin contrast to at least one of the four cosmopolitan conceptions and they tendto involve a strong degree of advocacy from a particular perspective. Theseconceptions are: social, critical, environmental and spiritual. Table 2 summarisesthe key theorists for each conception, their contemporary proponents and their keyconcepts.

Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship

The typology in Table 2 identifies four forms of GC that are labelled‘cosmopolitan’. The term ‘cosmopolitanism’ – which derives from Ancient Greekideas of universality, where the ‘cosmos’ (universe/world) is one’s ‘city’ (livingplace/community) – has seen a resurgence in popularity, especially following itsusage by Nussbaum (1996), Appiah (2006) and, in the education field, Popkewitz(2008) and Osler and Starkey (2008). Often couched within a framework ofhuman rights, cosmopolitanism is regarded by some as a neo-imperial form of GCsince its universalist perspective (the notion that all human beings share the same

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

306 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

TABLE 2: Categories of global citizenship identified from prevailing literature

ConceptionKey theorists

(contemporary proponents) Focus, key concepts

Cosmopolitan typesPolitical global

citizenshipKant; Rawls (Held;

McGrew; Linklater;Carter; Archibugi;Wendt)

A focus on the relationships of theindividual to the state and otherpolities, particularly in the formof cosmopolitan democracy

Moral globalcitizenship

Stoics; Kant; Sen;Nussbaum (Osler andStarkey; Veugelers;Cabrera)

A focus on the ethical positioning ofindividuals and groups to eachother, most often featuring ideasof human rights

Economic globalcitizenship

Hayek; Friedman; Smith;Quesnay; Bowen (Carrolland Shabana; Waddockand Smith; Logsdon andWood)

A focus on the interplay betweenpower, forms of capital, labour,resources and the humancondition, often presented asinternational development

Cultural globalcitizenship

J. S. Mill; Nietzsche(übermensch) (He;Brimm; De Ruyter andSpiecker)

A focus on the symbols that uniteand divide members of societies,with particular emphasis onglobalisation of arts, media,languages, sciences andtechnologies

Advocacy typesSocial global

citizenshipHabermas (communicative

rationality) (Falk; Coganand Derricott)

A focus on the interconnectionsbetween individuals and groupsand their advocacy of the‘people’s’ voice, often referred toas global civil society

Critical globalcitizenship

Escobar; Said; Gramsci;Marx; critical pedagogy(for example, Freire)(Andreotti; Tully; Shultz)

A focus on the challenges arisingfrom inequalities and oppression,using critique of social norms toadvocate action to improve thelives of dispossessed/subalternpopulations, particularly througha post-colonial agenda

Environmental globalcitizenship

Enviro-scientific research(Dobson; Richardson;Jelin)

A focus on advocating changes inthe actions of humans in relationto the natural environment,generally called the sustainabledevelopment agenda

Spiritual globalcitizenship

Danesh; religious texts(Noddings;Golmohamad; Lindner)

A focus on the non-scientific andimmeasurable aspects of humanrelations, advocating commitmentto axioms relating to caring,loving, spiritual and emotionalconnections

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 307

fundamental values) is rooted within a set of institutions and practices that are saidto be West-centric (Arneil, 2007; Tully, 2008). However, as Humes acknowledges,there are significant pragmatic advantages to the cosmopolitan position:

One thinks, for example, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of theChild. The spread of awareness of the principles enshrined in such documents, it isargued, puts pressure on oppressive regimes and gives hope to those who suffer fromvarious forms of political persecution. (Humes, 2008, p. 43)

Peters et al. (2008) identify three types of cosmopolitan GC: political, moral andeconomic. While these are useful, they omit what Waks (2008, p. 204) describesas ‘aesthetic-cultural cosmopolitanism’, which, he suggests, represents ‘a kind ofmulti-national sophistication’. These four types (political, moral, economic andcultural) are analysed below.

Political Global Citizenship

This is the most identifiable form since it relates directly to the idea of citizen-ship as a political status rather than in the more enigmatic forms described below.The three main styles of thinking that pervade this conception are cosmopolitandemocracy (a more mainstream interpretation); world state; and anarchy (moreradical alternatives).

The first form of political GC promotes a form of global governance thatstresses democratisation and strengthening of current international institutionssuch as the United Nations into a ‘well-ordered world society’ (Pogge, 1989,p. 216). This is often referred to as a form of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’, asadvocated by Held (1995, 2004), McGrew (1997), Dower (2000, 2003), Linklater(1998) and Archibugi (2008), among others. However, Tully (2008, p. 23), froma post-colonial perspective, considers this an extension of ‘Western imperial-ism’; and Roman (2004, p. 245) similarly describes its proponents as ‘democraticcivilizers’ engaged in a form of ‘neo-colonial humanism’. Conversely, proponentsof cosmopolitan democracy such as Held (2004) argue that, with the democrati-sation of the institutions of global governance, problems of western power anddominance will recede and new forms of cooperation and global social justicewill emerge.

The second, more radical conception of political GC envisages a ‘world state’as sovereign, including what Wendt (1999, p. 202) terms a ‘monopoly on thelegitimate use of organized violence’ in addition to non-violent visions of worldgovernment such as those promoted by the World Service Authority (2013). Thisis viewed by some as a worthwhile but unlikely ideal (for example, Carter, 2001;Dewey, 1918/1982; Heater, 2002; Shaw, 2000; Singer, 2004), and by a minorityas a real possibility (for example, Carneiro, 2004; Chase-Dunn and Inoue, 2012;Wendt, 2003; Yunker, 2011). However, the dream of instituting a formal statusfor all human beings of ‘world citizenship’ is criticised by many as unfeasible and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

308 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

unrealistic (for example, Graber, 2004; Johnson, 2004; Tinnevelt, 2012), or indeedas undesirable (for example, Patomäki, 2012; Slaughter, 2004).

The final variant of political GC is what Gabay (2008) terms ‘anarcho-cosmopolitanism’. This rests on the claim that a truly ‘cosmopolitan’ ethic cannotbe adequately embedded within either a world or nation-state system, and an anar-chistic or libertarian socialist society is necessary to ‘develop a cosmopolitan ethicthat seeks to overcome selfish self-interest’ (Gabay, 2008, p. 198). This mirrorsthe emergence of ‘global civil society’, in so far as the spread of not-for-profit andvoluntary agencies that transcend nation-state boundaries could be regarded as aform of anarcho-cosmopolitanism (as described by Herzog [2004] in relation tothe work of Hannah Arendt), at least where their aims align with cosmopolitanvalues and ideas.

Moral Global Citizenship

The moral basis of cosmopolitanism is pervasive in academic and policydiscourses. The roots of moral cosmopolitanism are commonly located with theStoics of Ancient Greece, and also in the ideas of Kant, whose work Peters et al.(2008, p. 3) argue ‘defended and popularised the idea that human beings belongto a single moral community’. The idea of a global ethic is necessarily universal,in that its moral values would need to be universally accepted to be truly effective.However, the extent to which a global ethic supersedes more local or particu-lar moral obligations (e.g. to one’s family, culture or fellow national citizens),is controversial. Waks (2008) 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 arbi-trary and that patriotism, for example, is morally unacceptable; and the ‘new(or rooted) cosmopolitans’ such as Appiah (2006), Beck (2006) and Kymlicka andWalker (2012), who advocate a form of global moral ethics drawn from ‘a synthe-sis of liberal universalism and communitarianism’ (Waks, 2008, p. 209) in which,as Kymlicka and Walker (2012, p. 6) suggest, ‘the very same national identitiesthat bind people deeply to their own particular national community and territorycan also mobilize moral commitment to distant others’. Similarly, Papastephanou(2008, p. 179) claims: ‘particularity is not the opposite of universality, as is usuallytheorised, but rather a subset of it’ – that is, patriotism, as a moral ‘particularity’,can easily co-exist with a global ethic.

Moral cosmopolitanism is most visibly and famously expressed in declarationsof universal human rights such as in UN conventions. Many proponents argue for auniversal, or ‘strong cosmopolitan’, understanding of human rights (for example,Abdi and Shultz, 2008) and, since these can be reinterpreted and embedded withinlocal contexts, they are not incompatible with the more communitarian ideas ofthe ‘new cosmopolitans.’ Cabrera (2010), for example, argues that GC, supportedby a human rights framework, ‘can be understood as the fully realized form ofindividual cosmopolitanism. It provides a guide for individual action within a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 309

globally oriented but still individualistic moral frame’ (2010, p. 5). For others,human rights do not adequately embody a universal global ethic, as they can-not provide the foundations on which a system of global justice can be built: forexample, Navari (2000) critiques the fragile and uncertain ‘legal personality’ ofthe United Nations.

Economic Global Citizenship

The economic conception of GC is a category within which there are particu-lar tensions, as we highlight below. Pogge (2002) argues that cosmopolitanism ingeneral encompasses three elements: individualism, universality and generality.While the presence of the latter two in the economic sphere seem uncontrover-sial, their combination with individualism ties economic GC to divisive theoriesof neoliberalism and capitalism, and what Faulks (2000, p. 11) describes as ‘thincitizenship’. Richardson (2008, p. 128) depicts this as a ‘global imaginary’, which‘is founded on individualism and neo-liberal economic ideas that suggest thatdespite superficial differences individuals have the same fundamental wants andneeds, and by serving their own self-interest, ultimately the interests of the planetare also served’. Tied to notions of competition, the free market and human capital,neo-liberalism is disparaged for its disregard for moral and political cosmopolitanprinciples, in favour of economic growth, consumption and elitism (for example,Bauman, 1998; Falk, 1993; Isin and Wood, 1999; Roman, 2004; Schattle, 2008a;Szelényi and Rhoads, 2007).

Some argue that it is problematic to claim that economic GC, or its subset‘corporate’ GC, is morally blind. For example, Schattle (2008b) identifies movestowards ‘corporate social responsibility’ such as the UN Global Compact in2000 as increasingly pervasive. Logsdon and Wood (2005) introduce ‘GlobalBusiness Citizenship’, which, they maintain, allows businesses to implement‘responsible, ethical business practices to guide and ultimately define the courseof beneficial and fair globalization for all the world’s peoples’ (2005, p. 56).However Tully (2008) regards the philanthropic activities of multinational corpo-rations with scepticism, seeing them as a ‘smokescreen’ to distract attention fromthe real profit-maximising motives.

Garriga and Melé (2004) classify the profit-making motive as an ‘instru-mental’ rationale for corporate social responsibility; as opposed to the ‘ethical’rationale that includes frameworks based on human rights, ideas of sustainabledevelopment and the ‘common good’ (2004, p. 64). Waddock and Smith (2000,p. 48) state that, in the corporate context, ‘Citizenship, fundamentally, is about therelationships that a company develops with its stakeholders’, but go on to explainthe importance of values such as ‘mutual respect, human dignity, and ecologi-cal sustainability’ for businesses as global citizens (2000, p. 56). The extent towhich economic GC in its corporate manifestations can co-exist with conceptionsof social justice and global ethics is contested.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

310 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

The tensions and ambiguities in the field of international development arereflected in the more mainstream expression of economic GC. For example, theWorld Bank and the United Nations relate international development to indicatorssuch as halving those whose income less than $1 a day; making the benefits of newtechnologies available to all; and reducing infant mortality rates (examples fromthe Millennium Development Goals). However, Escobar (1995), Ziai (2007) andother post-development scholars argue: ‘the traditional concept of “development”is Eurocentric and has authoritarian and technocratic implications’ (Ziai, 2007,p. 9). Ziai claims that: ‘If one defined violent crime, racism, suicide, isolation,alienation, environmental destruction and the like as major indicators of a “bad”or “underdeveloped” society, the industrialized countries would hardly be at thetop of the “development” scale’ (2007, p. 8). Thus the manifestation of economicGC as international development adds additional controversies to those exploredabove relating to capitalism, neoliberalism and corporate philanthropic activities.

Cultural Global Citizenship

Cultural GC is described by Waks as:

To be cosmopolitan in this sense is to be open to those from other places, take aninterest in their cultural practices, learn about these practices through reading, travel,and personal contact, and even to shape a personal identity as a cosmopolitan throughsuch experiences. (2008, p. 204)

Brimm (2010) echoes this understanding, while Baogang He (2004, p. 84) pro-vides a less individualised perspective of cultural GC, linking it to ideas of‘cultural equality’. Some ideas of cultural GC also refer to the pervasive glob-alisation of media and languages: for example, the spread of MTV and theInternet giving people across the world common cultural expressions, as well asthe increasing dominance of the English language as described by Crystal (2003)and Phan (2008).

De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008) propose a more specific (and radical) concep-tion of cultural GC that contains four elements and employs McLaughlin’s (1992)distinction between minimal and maximal citizens:

[First,] being a citizen in the minimal sense means that a person is able to speak andread 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 quali-tative respect: a citizen in the maximal sense is someone who is culturally competenttoo. (De Ruyter and Spiecker, 2008, p. 353)

Cultural competence is the second element of this conception, referring to ‘aculturally and intellectually well-developed person’ who ‘actively plays a mod-est part in the cultural flourishing of the society’ (De Ruyter and Spiecker, 2008,pp. 354 and 355). This is open to the critique that it embodies class-based and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 311

elitist implications, as reflected in the claim: ‘Some citizens do not have any desireto become world citizens and do not need to, because their scope is relatively lim-ited’ (2008, p. 360). However, it remains a cosmopolitan perspective because theauthors suggest that ‘all citizens have a right to develop into a world citizen’ (2008,p. 360).

The third element relates to moral conceptions of cosmopolitanism: De Ruyterand Spiecker (2008, p. 358) posit that world citizens must also evaluate culturalpractices ‘from an ethical perspective’. They critique economic globalisation intheir claim that ‘world citizens would not be able to live in countries – unless as anactivist – in which human lives are being threatened’ (2008, p. 359). They assumepeople always have a choice where they live and do not elaborate the definitionof ‘threatened’, and, as Falk et al. (1991, p. 346) note, ‘There are many skeletonsin virtually every global actor’s closet’, and it would be difficult to justify livinganywhere. Finally, to be a world citizen within this conception one must live inwhat De Ruyter and Spiecker (2008, p. 359) call a ‘genre-rich society’, which isakin to a ‘multicultural society’. It is not enough, they claim, to be located withinsuch a society: one must actively access a variety of cultures. They assert, invokingJ. S. Mill (1867), that ‘citizens in liberal democracies’ are taught to ‘respect therights of others and evaluate the political, social and moral qualities of societies’(De Ruyter and Spiecker, 2008, p. 360), which are identified as the necessaryingredients of their conception of world citizenship. However, these four elementsof cultural GC tend toward a Nietzschean perspective, aiming to develop forms ofcultural ‘übermensch’ (‘superman’ or ‘beyond-man’) (Nietzsche, 1883/1961).

Despite the links to moral cosmopolitan ideas, cultural GC sometimesresembles the more contentious aspects of economic GC: for example, Romanemploys Bauman’s (1998) ‘tourist’/‘vagabond’ terminology to critique ‘intel-lectual tourists’ and ‘voyeurs’ who enjoy the fruits of unlimited travel andreify stereotypes and notions of cultural ‘otherness’, whilst so many are‘trapped in states of class, racialized and gendered immobility’ (Roman, 2004,pp. 240 and 242).

Advocacy Forms of Global Citizenship

The four other distinct conceptions that emerged from the literature were social,critical, environmental and spiritual. These include more relativist or holistic(anti-individualistic) ideologies, which provide an advocacy-based approach toGC in contrast to the aforementioned universalist cosmopolitan perspectives.

Social Global Citizenship

Falk (1993, p. 47) describes a form of GC that encompasses ‘transnationalactivism’, explaining the growth of global civil society as part of this move-ment: we label this ‘social GC’. This connects with both capitalist, institutional,cosmopolitan universalism and localised, grass-roots post-colonial relativism:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

312 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

along similar lines to Habermas’s (1984) ‘communicative rationality’. Whileoverlapping with Tully’s (2008) ‘diverse’ and other forms of critical GC, itis not necessarily drawn from post-colonial or post-development foundations.It is similar to ‘anarcho-cosmopolitanism’, in that its manifestation is generallythrough civil society organisations. However, with social GC there is not neces-sarily a universalist focus within the ideologies or aims of the organisations: forexample, ‘Freemasonry’ traditionally excludes women; and the ‘Universal NegroImprovement Association and African Communities League’ works towards ‘thegeneral uplift of the people of African ancestry of the world’. These members ofglobal civil society take a perspective within a particular social context (for exam-ple, Isin and Wood’s [1999] ‘urban citizenship’), or sociological discourse suchas gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and class; and thus reflect elements ofsocial GC.

The ideological basis of this conception is complex and derives from areassuch as feminism, multiculturalism and theories of ‘reflexive positionality’ (forexample, Rose, 1997). Banks (2008) promotes ‘multicultural citizenship’ (draw-ing on ideas from Kymlicka, 1995) that acknowledges the importance of liberalcosmopolitan thinking (e.g. through human rights) but argues that citizens mustdevelop ‘a delicate balance of cultural, national, and global identifications’(Banks, 2008, p. 322). Here there are clear overlaps between social GC andcultural GC. Comparable ideas in existing typologies are Schattle’s (2008a,p. 74) ‘liberal multiculturalism’, Szelényi and Rhoads’s (2007, p. 31) ‘globallyinformed nationalism/regionalism’ and Falk’s (1993, p. 46) ‘regional politicalconsciousness’.

Similarities can be also observed between social GC and the descriptionsabove of ‘the new cosmopolitanism’ (for example, as manifested in Coganand Derricott’s [1998 & 2000] concept ’multidimensional citizenship’). Despitesignificant overlaps between these two conceptions of GC, we found it helpfulto divide them since the social forms tend to be more relativist; and can alsoinclude individuals and organisations who, rather than working towards ‘moralcosmopolitan’ goals such as human rights, aim towards more secretive, partisanor even violent objectives.

Critical Global Citizenship

Critical GC is often posed in direct opposition to cosmopolitan forms of GC. Tully(2008), for example, uses intensely negative imagery to describe cosmopolitan, or‘modern’ types of GC, aligning them to western exploitation and imperialism aspart of a ‘civilising mission’ (2008, p. 25). He presents a powerful case for a typeof GC that he labels ‘diverse GC’ based upon an idealised world that ‘is recip-rocally sustained by the civic freedom of its citizens’ (2008, p. 29). The rootsof this conception lie within theories of post-development (for example, theo-ries by Escobar, 1995; Rahnema and Bawtree, 1997) and post-colonialism (forexample, Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988), and thus what Tully names ‘diverse’ GC is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 313

more aptly named ‘critical GC’. Roman (2004, p. 249) posits a similar conceptionof post-colonial GC, which he calls ‘relational genealogy’. This has its roots inthe post-structuralist critiques of Derrida and Foucault; the historicism/historicalmaterialism of Hegel, Marx and Gramsci; and the ‘Frankfurt School’ of criticaltheory, which also inspired Freire’s (1970, p. 40) influential notion of educational‘praxis’ (through which people would become ‘involved in the organized strug-gle for their liberation’), identified by Tully as central to the expression of his‘diverse’ GC.

Critical conceptions of GC tend to promote a form of ‘counter-hegemony’,emphasising the deconstruction of oppressive global structures, and are also con-nected to what Dei (2008, p. 479) describes as ‘a politics of social transformation’.While generally taking a relativist stance, potentially aligned with postmodernperspectives, a number of authors express explicit support for human rights (gen-erally a universalist, cosmopolitan standpoint): for example, Abdi and Shultz(2008) explore post-colonial ideas within a framework of human rights. This illus-trates the potential for associations between certain conceptions of critical GC andforms of moral and political GC, which present a clear contrast to post-colonialscholars taking a more localised and morally relativist stance (for example,Andreotti, 2006a; Arneil, 2007; Roman, 2004; Tully, 2008).

While critical GC can be viewed as a more radical subset of social GC,there are key distinctions between them. Social GC contains ideas that align withcritical, post-structuralist and post-colonial works – for example, Spivak’s andHarasym’s (1990) concept of ‘strategic essentialism’, and Isin and Wood’s (1999)‘diasporic and aboriginal citizenship’ – but, unlike proponents of critical GC,they are likely to take a more pragmatic approach, exploring shifting identitiesand working within institutional (and perhaps national) boundaries, often towardsgoals such as poverty reduction and social justice.

Environmental Global Citizenship

The global nature of environmental issues ensures that concern for theenvironment is a theme aligning with GC, particularly in educational contexts(for example, Isin and Wood, 1999; Richardson, 2008; Schattle, 2008a); but adistinct conception of ‘environmental GC’ is uncommon. This is partly becauseenvironmentalism derives to a certain extent from the non-human elements of biol-ogy, ecology and geography, which reflect the science–arts–humanities academicsplit in their separation from the humanistic social concepts of politics, economicsand culture. It is also possibly due to the conceptual complexity of applyinga citizenship approach to human relationships with a non-sentient object (froma non-spiritual perspective): as raised by Jelin (2000, p. 60), ‘does nature haverights?’ If this is considered to be the case (e.g. animal rights; according to Reganand Singer, 1976), the rights-responsibilities framework is reversed: from a focuson human rights to a focus on human responsibilities. The ‘Gaia hypothesis’(Lovelock and Margulis, 1974), which portrays the earth as a homeostatic living

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

314 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

organism, has added to the ecocentric idea of the earth or nature as a being needingprotection on an intrinsic level.

These perspectives are regarded by Ferry (1995), from an anthropocentricposition, 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 inclaims that killing off a large proportion of the human population was necessary torestore the earth’s natural balance. Žižek (2010) also challenges the notion that theearth is fragile and that ‘Mother Nature’ needs protection from humans. Similarly,Ward (2009) argues in his ‘Medea Hypothesis’ that the earth is ultimately self-destructive without the ‘assistance’ of humans. While such viewpoints are fairlyextreme, the anthropocentric position is more visible in mainstream environmentalmovements (such as the United Nations Environment Programme) than the eco-centric position. As Jelin (2000) argues, justifications for environmentalism tendto focus first on the rights of living human beings across the world to enjoy cleanair, fresh water and uncontaminated food; and second on the rights of future gen-erations to enjoy the same – reflecting the ‘sustainability’ element in ‘sustainabledevelopment’. In some locations such as the Brazilian Rainforests, the rights ofindigenous peoples to their natural habitat and culture are often included withinenvironmental conservation efforts (for example, UNESCO and United NationsEnvironment Programme, 2002), revealing links to critical and cultural GC as out-lined above. Dobson (2006, p. 176) uses the term ‘ecological politics’ to describeissues arising from our ‘metabolistic relationship with our non-human naturalenvironment’, describing his credo as ‘thick cosmopolitanism’ (2006, p. 165).While this links directly to moral cosmopolitanism, it also reflects Andreotti’s(2006b) postcolonial conception of GC.

Environmental GC tends to be manifested within the realms of government,global civil society, or within the corporate world. The activities of these agentsmay fall within the scope of moral cosmopolitan approaches, in which conceptssuch as sustainable development, global justice and human rights take prece-dence: for example, in United Nations Millennium Development Goal Seven,‘Ensure Environmental Sustainability’. Environmental GC can also overlap withanarcho-cosmopolitanism or social GC: Greenpeace in particular has an anarchicreputation and tends to disregard nation-state and private boundaries in favour ofdirect action (as discussed in Associated Press, 2009; Hooper, 2009; McCurry,2010; Press Association, 2010); while organisations such as WWF have beenaccused by PR Watch (2007) of ‘selling out’ by working with corporate actors suchas Coca-Cola: a more ‘social GC’ stance on the basis of the above description.However, despite convergences between environmentalism and other forms of GC,the emphasis on environmentalism as a strong feature of GC justifies its sepa-rate categorisation. This conception tends to prioritise what Richardson (2008,p. 128) describes as an ‘ecological awareness of the fundamental interrelatednessof all aspects of the Earth’, from an anthropocentric or an ecocentric position.Sustainable development is the mainstream viewpoint within this conception,emphasising ‘a sense of connectedness, empathy, and an appreciation for diversity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 315

and difference’; that is, what Richardson (2008, p. 122) terms ‘The EcologicalImaginary’.

Spiritual Global Citizenship

The idea of spiritual GC, like the environmental conception, goes further than themoral, cultural, social and political forms in that it generally promotes a form ofholism and connections between faith (or emotion) and our relationship to theworld. Conroy and Davis (2008, p. 200), for example, argue that ‘deeper’ notionsof the self and society combine with ‘the energies of metaphysical commit-ment’ to formulate an understanding of the world or universe beyond the rational,empiricist Enlightenment model: a form of ‘transcendence’. This idea reflects reli-gious teachings and faith-based meditations but also certain forms of humanism(excluding antireligious secular humanism), especially humanistic writings thatemphasise affective elements which transcend rational philosophy and cannot bemeasured empirically. Examples include Lindner’s (2012) depiction of a holisticGC; spiritual interpretations of ‘ubuntu’ (Battle, 1997); the ‘love for humanity’,associated by Dei (2008, p. 486) with ‘African and indigenous humanism’; ‘spir-itual happiness’ and ‘spiritual awakening’ (Noddings, 2003, pp. 173 and 200);and the type of GC described by Danesh (1997, p. 81) and Golmohamad (2004,p. 140) as a combination of deep maturity, empathy and unselfish altruism, leadingtowards an ‘integrative attitude’.

This conception relates to intangible phenomena such as ‘love’ and ‘caring’that are also found in many conceptions of moral GC; similarly, some conceptionsof spiritual GC share aspects with cultural GC (such as the need for students tounderstand religious and cultural symbolism). Significant intersections are alsofound with social GC: a large number of global civil society organisations haveroots in one or more of the major world religions; and conversely many of theworld religions not only work with intergovernmental organisations such as theUnited Nations but also promote forms of political GC themselves (for examplethe promotion of the ideal of World Government by the Bahá’í Faith) – althoughWarburg (1999) argues that these are ultimately conservative rather than liberal-democratic since they oppose a secular model in favour of a theocratic system ofgovernance.

Faith-based holistic manifestations of GC also abound. Many religionspromote maxims such as the ‘Golden Rule’ (‘treat others as you would likethem to treat you’); emphasise humility, empathy and charity towards all human-ity; and focus on the pursuit of global social justice. However, religion canalso be seen as problematic; for example, where fundamentalism, sectarianismand extreme orthodoxies/close-mindedness arise. Nevertheless, as Golmohamad(2008, p. 532) observes, GC, as conceived within spiritual contexts, has the poten-tial 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’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

316 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

4. EVALUATING GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION CURRICULA

The above categories are not fixed or absolute: many conceptions of GC traversecategories and combine a variety of different elements from each. Nevertheless,the eight conceptions provide a powerful tool for analysing curriculum.

Below we briefly identify how the conceptions might be used as part of anevaluation of a curriculum designed to promote GC. Stake’s (1967) classic modelof evaluation, which distinguishes between the intended and observed outcomesof three dimensions of a curriculum (antecedents, transactions and outcomes),provides, when used in conjunction with our conceptions of GC, a basis forevaluating the global dimensions of a curriculum. Table 3 provides an exampleof our analysis for one conception (critical); and Table 4 juxtaposes the evalua-tive model with all eight conceptions. For heuristic purposes we only focus on theintended curriculum, although a full evaluation would necessitate an analysis ofboth the intended and observed, or enacted, curriculum. If our, albeit limited, goalwas to establish the forms of GC promoted in a curriculum plan and the extent towhich there was coherence between the three elements of the planned curriculum,then this would be shown by analysing the relevant elements of the curriculumusing the dimensions shown in Tables 3 and 4. The antecedents refer to conditions

TABLE 3: Analysis of ‘Developing a Global Dimension in the School Curriculum’ (DfES,2000) using our typology: critical conception.

INTENDEDANTECEDENTS(focused here on

visions of the existingcontexts and societies

in which thecurriculum

locates itself)

INTENDEDTRANSACTIONS

(focused here on theactivities and

encounters promotedby the curriculum)

INTENDEDOUTCOMES

(focused here on theshort-term and long-termimpacts envisaged by the

curriculum)

Critical Ideas about currentimages of thedeveloping worldbeing focused onnegative stereotypes;bias and stereotypingin the media; howperceptions andimages of differentcultures can influencethe extent to whichscientific and otherideas are accepted,used and valued;importance ofhighlighting similarityas well as difference

Offering a morebalanced view(e.g. both positive andnegative images ofAfrican countries,perhaps using schoollinks) and challengingpreconceptions about‘African societies’;encouragingdiscussion aboutstereotypes andprejudices(e.g. attempting tochoose one object torepresent our owncultural identity)

Appreciate how falseassumptions aresometimes made aboutcultures (e.g. based on justa few artefacts);understand the effects ofstereotyping, prejudiceand discrimination,recognise them anddevelop skills toassertively challenge andcombat them; develop acritical evaluation ofproblem-oriented andstereotyped images of lesseconomically developedcountries

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 317

or context in which the curriculum will be provided and includes the environmentin schools; the time allocated; the textbooks available and the ideas underpinningthe content of these; and the attitudes and priorities of key personnel. Transactionsrefer to what is planned to happen in schools and classrooms. Outcomes refer tothe knowledge, skills and attitudes pupils are expected to learn. By mapping eachof these against the eight conceptions, one can identify the conceptions of GCpromoted across the three dimensions. This might reveal that the present environ-ment in a school is oriented to promoting a social conception of GC that contrastsstrongly with the recommended pedagogy, which stresses a moral conception, andthe intended outcomes, which focus on an economic conception.

We explore how the typology might be used by analysing the document‘Developing a Global Dimension in the School Curriculum’, which explains howthe global dimension can be translated into practice by ‘Head teachers, seniormanagers, governors and Chief Executives/Chief Education Officers of localeducation authorities’ (Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2000, p. 1) inEngland. Andreotti (2006a) previously analysed the same document from a post-colonial perspective and argued, first, that the ideas of culture displayed within thedocument embody a liberal multiculturalist perspective that essentialises, depoliti-cises, belittles, commodifies and masks deeper bodies of cultural knowledge andunderstanding in favour of a western cultural perspective. Second, she argued thatthe economic concepts of development and poverty described by the documentderive from a modernist, again western, approach that promotes a patronisingaccount of poverty; and a misleading vision of globalisation as universal ratherthan, following Bauman (1998), asymmetric. The document was revised signif-icantly in 2005 and the revision took into account some of these post-colonialcritiques.

We analysed the intended antecedents, transactions and outcomes, with regardto each of the eight conceptions, contained within the original 2000 document(rather than the revised 2005 version, in order to facilitate comparison withAndreotti’s analysis). For the purposes of this illustration, we focused on depic-tions of the existing contexts and societies within which the curriculum locatesitself rather than investigating the full set of antecedents within a particular con-text. Similarly, in terms of transactions we focused on the activities and encounterspromoted within the curriculum document itself. For example, the documentcontains the text:

After visiting their local museum to see objects from other cultures, pupils at aBirmingham school were asked to choose one object that represented their culturalidentity. [ . . . ] They started to appreciate how false assumptions are sometimesmade about cultures . . . (DfES, 2000, p. 7)

Our analysis explored and situated such statements within the frames of each ofthe eight conceptions and identified the extent to which they aligned or contrastedwith other statements across the intended curriculum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

318 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIPTa

ble

4:Su

mm

ary

ofan

alys

isof

‘Dev

elop

ing

aG

loba

lDim

ensi

onin

the

Scho

olC

urri

culu

m’

(DfE

S,20

00)

usin

gou

rty

polo

gy

Inte

nded

ante

cede

nts

Inte

nded

tran

sact

ions

Inte

nded

outc

omes

Poli

tica

lM

ains

trea

m‘c

osm

opol

itan

dem

ocra

cy’

pers

pect

ive;

notp

reva

lent

Mai

nstr

eam

‘cos

mop

olit

ande

moc

racy

’pe

rspe

ctiv

e;no

tpre

vale

ntM

ains

trea

m‘c

osm

opol

itan

dem

ocra

cy’

pers

pect

ive;

notp

reva

lent

Mor

alFo

cus

onhu

man

righ

tsan

dre

spon

sibi

liti

es,s

tron

gco

smop

olit

anid

eals

;fai

rly

prev

alen

t

Som

ein

dica

tion

of‘n

ewco

smop

olit

an’

pers

pect

ive,

focu

son

hum

anri

ghts

and

resp

onsi

bili

ties

;fai

rly

prev

alen

t

Som

ein

dica

tion

of‘n

ewco

smop

olit

an’

pers

pect

ive,

focu

son

hum

anri

ghts

,ob

liga

tion

san

dem

path

y;fa

irly

prev

alen

t

Eco

nom

icFo

cus

onin

tern

atio

nald

evel

opm

ent

pers

pect

ives

;not

prev

alen

tIn

tern

atio

nald

evel

opm

entp

ersp

ectiv

esbu

tsom

edi

scus

sion

offa

irtr

ade;

fair

lypr

eval

ent

Focu

son

the

bene

fits

ofgl

obal

trad

ean

dte

chno

logy

for

inte

rnat

iona

ldev

elop

men

t;fa

irly

prev

alen

t

Cul

tura

lFo

cus

ongl

obal

isat

ion

ofar

ts,m

edia

,la

ngua

ges,

scie

nces

and

tech

nolo

gies

;po

sitiv

efe

atur

esof

mul

ticu

ltur

alis

m;

high

lypr

eval

ent

Str

ong

focu

son

mul

ticu

ltur

alaw

aren

ess-

rais

ing;

very

high

lypr

eval

ent

Str

ong

focu

son

mul

ticu

ltur

alaw

aren

ess;

very

high

lypr

eval

ent

Soc

ial

Focu

son

idea

sof

glob

alco

mm

unit

yan

den

hanc

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

betw

een

peop

les;

fair

lypr

eval

ent

Focu

son

rela

tion

ship

-bui

ldin

gbe

twee

nsc

hool

san

dpu

pils

indi

ffer

ent

coun

trie

san

dcu

ltur

es;v

ery

high

lypr

eval

ent

Str

ong

focu

son

co-o

pera

tion

and

incl

usio

n;ve

ryhi

ghly

prev

alen

t

Cri

tica

lFo

cus

onid

eas

abou

tbia

san

dst

ereo

typi

ng;f

airl

ypr

eval

ent

Focu

son

chal

leng

ing

ster

eoty

pes

and

mai

nstr

eam

perc

epti

ons

ofsu

balt

ern

popu

lati

ons;

notp

reva

lent

Focu

son

chal

leng

ing

ster

eoty

pes

and

chan

ging

pers

pect

ives

rega

rdin

gsu

balt

ern

popu

lati

ons;

fair

lypr

eval

ent

Env

iron

men

tal

Focu

son

‘sus

tain

able

deve

lopm

ent’

poli

cies

and

prin

cipl

es;

anth

ropo

cent

ric

pers

pect

ive;

not

prev

alen

t

Focu

son

man

agin

gth

een

viro

nmen

tsu

stai

nabl

y;fa

irly

prev

alen

tFo

cus

onan

thro

poce

ntri

cco

ncer

nsre

gard

ing

the

hum

anco

ndit

ion

inre

lati

onto

the

envi

ronm

ent;

notp

reva

lent

Spi

ritu

alFo

cus

onbe

lief

syst

ems

asco

hesi

veun

its;

notp

reva

lent

Focu

son

expl

orin

gth

ebe

lief

syst

ems

ofm

ajor

reli

gion

s;fa

irly

prev

alen

tFo

cus

onex

plor

ing

iden

titi

esin

rela

tion

tobe

lief

syst

ems;

notp

reva

lent

Key

:dar

kso

lid

shad

ing,

very

high

lypr

eval

ent;

dark

hatc

hed

shad

ing,

high

lypr

eval

ent;

ligh

that

ched

shad

ing,

fair

lypr

eval

ent;

nosh

adin

g,no

tpre

vale

nt.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 319

Limitations of space preclude a full presentation of the data analysis for eachof the eight conceptions. However, Table 3 provides an illustration of how oneof the conceptions – namely, the critical – manifested in the document. Table 4compares the relative prevalence of each of the conceptions in the document.

The most prevalent conceptions promoted are those of cultural and socialGC, while the political, critical, environmental and spiritual are far less domi-nant within the curricular intentions presented. The analysis also reveals severalinconsistencies within the intended curriculum: the outcomes within both culturaland critical GC focus on celebrating diverse cultures, challenging stereotypes andcritiquing negative images of so-called ‘less economically developed countries’;whereas the antecedents and transactions within economic GC indicate a tendencytoward such stereotypes. They focus on poverty and disasters in less economi-cally developed countries while masking inequalities within more economicallydeveloped countries and the role of the latter in the conditions of the former,apart from with regard to global trade which is given a positive spin. The cur-riculum’s approach to critical GC also reveals an internal inconsistency: while theantecedents and outcomes are fairly prevalent within the curriculum document,proposals for its intended delivery are fairly scanty in comparison with those fromother conceptions, which suggests a fundamental weakness in curriculum design.Disjunctures between these elements can cause problems in practice such as thoseidentified by McCowan (2009) in his work on ‘curricular transposition’. This por-trayal partially supports Andreotti’s (2006a) argument, but the typology providesa more nuanced and comprehensive analysis, allowing the curriculum to be eval-uated for its strengths (in this case, elements of cultural and social GC) as well asits weaknesses.

5. CONCLUSIONS

We began with the observation that GC is a concept that is both understood inmultiple (and often contradictory) ways and is also appropriated to advocate asimilarly disparate range of causes. Through an extensive review of the literaturewe have proposed a typology that categorises the diverse conceptions of GC andhave initially identified two general forms of GC, each of which contain four dis-tinct conceptions. By using the typology in conjunction with a model of evaluationwe also demonstrated, albeit briefly, how the typology can be used to evaluate acurriculum through an analysis of a document that advised schools in Englandhow to develop a global dimension.

The resulting typology provides a powerful device for analysing and differen-tiating policies and proposals that are premised on the need for promoting GC andsimilar concepts. As Byers (2005) indicates, the term GC is compelling ‘becausethose who invoke it do so to provoke and justify action’. The exercise of activecitizenship necessitates that we understand how such ambiguous expressions fitwithin a broader context and the underlying philosophies through which they aredeveloped and promoted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

320 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank colleagues who provided valuable feedbackon drafts of this article. They are particularly grateful to Euan Auld, DougBourn, Kate Brown, John Cogan, Joan DeJaeghere, Karen Edge, Sue Grey, DavidGrossman, Yu-Ping Hsu, Tristan McCowan, Diana Sousa and James Trewby fortheir detailed and thoughtful comments. Thanks also to an anonymous reviewerwho provided helpful suggestions for final revisions to the article.

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grantnumber ES/G018812/1).1

7. NOTE1 Laura Oxley was previously Laura Johnson.

8. REFERENCES

Abdi, A. A. and Shultz, L. (2008) Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship(Albany, NY, State University of New York Press).

Andreotti, V. (2006a) A Postcolonial Reading of Contemporary Discourses Related to theGlobal Dimension in Education in England (University of Nottingham. UnpublishedPhD).

Andreotti, V. (2006b) Soft versus critical global citizenship education, DevelopmentEducation, Policy and Practice, 3 (1). Available at: http://www.osdemethodology.org.uk/texts/softcriticalvan.pdf (accessed 3 January 2013).

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 CosmopolitanDemocracy (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).

Arneil, B. (2007) Global citizenship and empire, Citizenship Studies, 11 (3), 301–328.Associated Press. (2009, August 10) Greenpeace dumps rocks in sea to stop trawl-

ing, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/10/greenpeace-fishing-protest (accessed 3 January 2013).

Banks, J. A. (2008) Citizenship education and diversity: implications for teacher education.In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy,Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 317–331.

Battle, M. (1997) Reconciliation: The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu (Cleveland, OH,Pilgrim Press).

Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences (Cambridge, Polity Press).Beck, U. (2006) The Cosmopolitan Vision. (C. Cronin, Trans.) (Cambridge, Polity Press).Biesta, G. and Lawy, R. (2006) From teaching citizenship to learning democracy: overcom-

ing individualism in research, policy and practice, Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 63–79.

Brimm, L. (2010) Global Cosmopolitans: The Creative Edge of Difference (London,Palgrave Macmillan).

Byers, M. (2005, October 5) Are you a global citizen?, The Tyee. Available at: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/10/05/globalcitizen/ (accessed 1 February 2013).

Cabrera, L. (2010) The Practice of Global Citizenship (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 321

Cameron, J. and Haanstra, A. (2008) Development made sexy: how it happened and whatit means, Third World Quarterly, 29 (8), 1475–1489.

Carneiro, R. L. (2004) The political unification of the world: whether, when, and how –some speculations, Cross-Cultural Research, 38 (2), 162–177.

Carter, A. (2001) The Political Theory of Global Citizenship (London, Routledge).Chase-Dunn, C. and Inoue, H. (2012) Accelerating democratic global state formation,

Cooperation and Conflict, 47 (2), 157–175.Cogan, J. J. (1998 & 2000) Citizenship education for the 21st century: setting the context.

In J. J. Cogan and R. Derricott (Eds), Citizenship for the 21st Century: An InternationalPerspective on Education (London, Kogan Page), 1–21.

Cogan, J. J. and Derricott, R. (1998 & 2000) Citizenship for the 21st Century: AnInternational Perspective on Education (London, Kogan Page).

Conroy, J. C. and Davis, R. A. (2008) Citizenship, education and the claims of religiousliteracy. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education:Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 187–202.

Crystal, D. (2003) English as a Global Language (2nd edn) (Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press).

Danesh, H. B. (1997) The Psychology of Spirituality: From Divided Self to Integrated Self(Victoria, BC, Paradigm).

Dei, G. (2008) Anti-racism education for global citizenship. In M. Peters, A. Brittonand H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy(Rotterdam, Sense), 477–490.

Department for Education and Skills (2000) Developing a Global Dimension in theSchool Curriculum (Curriculum and Standards Guidance) (London, Department forEducation and Skills).

De Ruyter, D. J. and Spiecker, B. (2008) The world citizen travels with a different view.In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy,Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 351–363.

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 IllinoisUniversity 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).Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third

World (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).Falk, R. A. (1993) The making of global citizenship. In J. Brecher, J. B. Childs and J.

Cutler (Eds), Global Visions: Beyond the New World Order (Boston, South End Press),39–50.

Falk, R. A. (1997) Resisting ‘globalisation-from-above’ through ‘globalisation-from-below’, New Political Economy, 2 (1), 17–24.

Falk, R. A., Kim, S. S. and Mendlovitz, S. H. (1991) The United Nations and a Just WorldOrder (Boulder, CO Westview Press).

Faulks, K. (2000) Citizenship (London, Routledge).Ferry, L. (1995) The New Ecological Order (C. Volk, Trans.) (Chicago, 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.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

322 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping theterritory, Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

Gerzon, M. (2010). American Citizen, Global Citizen (Boulder, CO, SpiritScopePublishing).

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 andminds. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education:Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 519–533.

Graber, R. B. (2004) Is a world state just a matter of time? A population-pressurealternative, Cross-Cultural Research, 38 (2), 147–161.

Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol.1, Reason and theRationalization of Society (London, Heinemann Education).

Hanvey, R. G. (1976). An attainable global perspective. [Online]. American Forum forGlobal Education. Available at: http://www.globaled.org/an_att_glob_persp_04_11_29.pdf (accessed 3 January 2013).

He, B. (2004) World citizenship and transnational activism. In N. Piper and A. Uhlin(Eds), Transnational Activism in Asia: Problems of Power and Democracy (London,Routledge), 78–93.

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 CosmopolitanGovernance (Cambridge, Polity).

Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the WashingtonConsensus (Cambridge, Polity).

Herzog, A. (2004) Political itineraries and anarchic cosmopolitanism in the thought ofHannah Arendt, Inquiry, 47 (1), 20–41.

Hooper, J. (2009, July 8) Greenpeace activists hijack Italian power stations,The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/08/greenpeace-g8-protest-coal-italy (accessed 3 January 2013).

Humes, W. (2008) The discourse of global citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Brittonand H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy(Rotterdam, Sense), 41–52.

Ichilov, O. (2002) Differentiated civics curriculum and patterns of citizenship educa-tion: vocational and academic programs in Israel. In D. Scott and H. Lawson (Eds),Citizenship Education and the Curriculum (Westport, CT, Ablex), 88–107.

Isin, E. F. and Wood, P. K. (1999) Citizenship and Identity (London, Sage).Jelin, E. (2000) Towards a global environmental citizenship?, Citizenship Studies, 4 (1),

47–63.Johnson, A. L. (2004) Why not to expect a ‘world state’, Cross-Cultural Research, 38 (2),

119–132.Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights

(Oxford, Oxford University Press).Kymlicka, W. and Walker, K. (Eds) (2012) Rooted Cosmopolitanism: Canada and the

World (Vancouver, BC, UBC Press).Lapayese, Y. V. (2003) Review: toward a critical global citizenship education, Comparative

Education Review, 47 (4), 493–501.Lindner, E. (2012) Fostering global citizenship. In P. T. Coleman and M. Deutsch (Eds),

Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace (New York, Springer), 283–298.Linklater, A. (1998) The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of

the Post-Westphalian Era (Oxford, Polity).Logsdon, J. M. and Wood, D. J. (2005) Global business citizenship and voluntary codes of

ethical conduct, Journal of Business Ethics, 59 (1), 55–67.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 323

Lovelock, J. E. and Margulis, L. (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere:the gaia hypothesis, Tellus, 26 (1), 2–10.

MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London, Duckworth).Marshall, H. (2005) Developing the global gaze in citizenship education: exploring the

perspectives of global education NGO workers In England, International Journal ofCitizenship and Teacher Education, 1 (2), 76–92.

Marshall, H. (2007) Global education in perspective: fostering a global dimension in anEnglish secondary school, Cambridge Journal of Education, 37 (3), 355–374.

Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).

McCowan, T. (2009) Rethinking Citizenship Education: A Curriculum for ParticipatoryDemocracy (London, Continuum).

McCracken, G. (1988) The Long Interview (Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications).McCurry, J. (2010, February 14) Anti-whaling activists face trial in Japan, The

Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/14/sato-suzuki-trial-japan-whaling (accessed 3 January 2013).

McGrew, A. G. (1997) The Transformation of Democracy?: Globalization and TerritorialDemocracy (Cambridge, Polity, in association with the Open University).

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 and J. Cohen

(Eds), For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism (Boston, Beacon Press),2–17.

Olssen, M. (2002) Citizenship education and difference. In D. Scott and H. Lawson (Eds),Citizenship Education and the Curriculum (Westport, CT, Ablex), 7–25.

Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2005) Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion inEducation (Maidenhead, Open University Press).

Osler, A. and 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 forCivic Education]). pp. 204–212.

Papastephanou, M. (2008) Cosmopolitanism: with or without patriotism? In M. Peters,A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory andPedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 169–185.

Parekh, B. (2003) Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship, Review of International Studies,29, 3–17.

Patomäki, H. (2012) The problems of legitimation and potential conflicts in a world politicalcommunity, Cooperation and Conflict, 47 (2), 239–259.

Peters, M. A., Blee, H. and Britton, A. (2008) Introduction: many faces of global civilsociety: possible futures for global citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee(Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam,Sense), 1–13.

Phan, L. H. (2008) Teaching English as an International Language: Identity, Resistanceand Negotiation (Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).

Pogge, T. W. M. (1989) Realizing Rawls (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press).Pogge, T. W. M. (2002) World Poverty and Human Rights (Cambridge, Polity Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

324 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Popkewitz, T. S. (2008) Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform: Science,Education, and Making Society by Making the Child (New York, Routledge).

PR Watch (2007, June 5) WWF Greenwashes Coca-Cola, Center for Media andDemocracy: PR Watch. Available at: http://www.prwatch.org/node/6123 (accessed 3January 2013).

Press Association (2010, May 20) Greenpeace activists scale BP’s London headquarters inoil protest, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/greenpeace-activists-scale-bp-building-roof (accessed 3rd January 2013).

Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (Eds) (1997), The Post-development Reader (London, ZedBooks).

Regan, T. and Singer, P. (1976) Animal Rights and Human Obligations (Englewood Cliffs,NJ, Prentice-Hall).

Richardson, G. (2008) Conflicting imaginaries: global citizenship education in Canada asa site of contestation. In M. Peters, A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global CitizenshipEducation: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 115–131.

Roman, L. G. (2004) States of insecurity: Cold War memory, ‘global citizenship’ andits discontents, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25 (2),231–259.

Rose, G. (1997) Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics, Progressin 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 (Lanham, MD, Rowman &

Littlefield).Sen, A. (2006). Identity and Violence: the Illusion of Destiny (New York, W. W. Norton &

Co).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 inter-

national NGOs and a grassroots movement in the Narmada Valley, India, Education,Citizenship and Social Justice, 4 (1), 133–147.

Shultz, L. (2007) Educating for global citizenship: conflicting agendas and understandings,The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53 (3), 248–258.

Shultz, L. (2011) Engaging the multiple discourses of global citizenship education withina Canadian university: deliberation, contestation, and social justice possibilities. In L.Shultz, A. A. Abdi and G. H. Richardson (Eds), Global Citizenship Education in Post-secondary Institutions: Theories, Practices, Policies (New York, Peter Lang), 13–24.

Singer, P. (2004) One World: The Ethics of Globalization. (2nd edn) (New Haven, CT, YaleUniversity Press).

Slaughter, A.-M. (2004) A New World Order (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).Spivak, G. C. (1988) Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (Eds),

Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Urbana, University of Illinois Press),271–313.

Spivak, G. C. and Harasym, S. (1990) The Postcolonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies,Dialogues (New York, Routledge).

Stake, R. E. (1967) The countenance of educational evaluation, Teachers College Record,68, 523–540.

Szelényi, K. and Rhoads, R. A. (2007) Citizenship in a global context: the perspectives ofinternational 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 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 1–17.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 325

Tinnevelt, R. (2012) Federal world government: the road to peace and justice?, Cooperationand Conflict, 47 (2), 220–238.

Tully, J. (2008) Two meanings of global citizenship: modern and diverse. In M. A. Peters,A. Britton and H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory andPedagogy (Rotterdam, Sense), 15–40.

UNESCO and United Nations Environment Programme (2002) Cultural diversityand biodiversity for sustainable development. Paper presented at the jointly con-vened UNESCO and UNEP High-level Roundtable, World Summit on SustainableDevelopment. Johannesburg, 3 September 2002.

Veugelers, W. (2011) The moral and the political in global citizenship: appreciatingdifferences in education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9 (3–4), 473–485.

Waddock, S. and Smith, N. (2000) Relationships: the real challenge of corporate globalcitizenship, Business and Society Review, 105 (1), 47–62.

Waks, L. J. (2008) Cosmopolitanism and citizenship education. In M. Peters, A. Brittonand H. Blee (Eds), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy(Rotterdam, Sense), 203–219.

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, NJ, Princeton University Press).

Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press).

Wendt, A. (2003) Why a world state is inevitable, European Journal of InternationalRelations, 9 (4), 491–542.

World Service Authority (2013) World Government of World Citizens. Available at: http://www.worldservice.org/ (accessed 1 February 2013).

Yunker, J. A. (2011) Recent consideration of world government in the IR literature: a criticalappraisal, World Futures: The Journal of Global Education, 67 (6), 409–436.

Ziai, A. (Ed.) (2007), Exploring Post-development: Theory and Practice, Problems andPerspectives (London, Routledge).

Žižek, S. (2010) Living in the End Times (London, Verso).

CorrespondenceLaura OxleyFaculty of Policy and Society, c/o Room 825aInstitute of Education, University of London20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0ALEmail: laura.oxley@outlook.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dur

ham

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:00

11

Nov

embe

r 20

15