GEN499 Importance of becoming a global citizen

Prepare:

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read the

A Model of Global Citizenship: Antecedents and Outcomes

Links to an external site.

article and watch the

Globalization at a Crossroads

Links to an external site.

video. Go to the UAGC Library and locate one additional source on global citizenship that will help support your viewpoint, or you may choose one of the following articles found in the Week 1 Required Resources

Reflect: Please take some time to reflect on how the concept of global citizenship has shaped your identity and think about how being a global citizen has made you a better person in your community.

Describe and explain a clear distinction between “globalism” and “globalization” after viewing the video and reading the article.

Describe how being a global citizen in the world of advanced technology can be beneficial to your success in meeting your personal, academic, and professional goals.

Explain why there has been disagreement between theorists about the definition of global citizenship and develop your own definition of global citizenship after reading the article by Reysen and Katzarska-Miller.

Choose two of the six outcomes of global citizenship from the article (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and the level of responsibility to act for the betterment of this world).

Explain why those two outcomes are the most important in becoming a global citizen compared to the others.

Describe at least two personal examples or events in your life that illustrate the development of global citizenship based on the two outcomes you chose.

Identify two specific general education courses.

Explain how each course influenced you to become a global citizen.

The Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

International Journal of Psychology, 2013
Vol. 48, No. 5, 858–870, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749
A model of global citizenship: Antecedents
and outcomes
Stephen Reysen1 and Iva Katzarska-Miller2
1
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, TX, USA
Department of Psychology, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, USA
2
A
s the world becomes increasingly interconnected, exposure to global cultures affords individuals
opportunities to develop global identities. In two studies, we examine the antecedents and outcomes of
identifying with a superordinate identity—global citizen. Global citizenship is defined as awareness, caring, and
embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act. Prior theory and research suggest that being aware of one’s connection with others in the
world (global awareness) and embedded in settings that value global citizenship (normative environment) lead to
greater identification with global citizens. Furthermore, theory and research suggest that when global citizen
identity is salient, greater identification is related to adherence to the group’s content (i.e., prosocial values and
behaviors). Results of the present set of studies showed that global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness
with others) and one’s normative environment (friends and family support global citizenship) predicted
identification with global citizens, and global citizenship predicted prosocial values of intergroup empathy,
valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act
for the betterment of the world. The relationship between antecedents (normative environment and global
awareness) and outcomes (prosocial values) was mediated by identification with global citizens. We discuss the
relationship between the present results and other research findings in psychology, the implications of global
citizenship for other academic domains, and future avenues of research. Global citizenship highlights the unique
effect of taking a global perspective on a multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of everyday actions,
environments, and identity.
Keywords: Global citizenship; Social identity; Normative environment; Global awareness; Prosocial values.
A
lors que le monde devient de plus en plus interconnecté, l’exposition à des cultures globales offre aux
individus l’opportunité de développer des identités globales. Dans deux études, nous avons examiné les
antécédents et les conséquences de s’identifier à une identité dominante – le citoyen global. La citoyenneté globale
est définie comme la conscience, la bienveillance et l’adhérence à la diversité culturelle, tout en promouvant la
justice sociale et la durabilité, joint à un sens des responsabilités à agir. La théorie et la recherche antérieures
suggèrent que le fait d’être conscient d’être connecté aux autres personnes dans le monde (conscience globale) et
d’être enchâssé dans des milieux qui valorisent la citoyenneté globale (environnement normatif) amène une plus
grande identification aux citoyens globaux. De plus, la théorie et la recherche suggèrent que lorsque l’identité de
citoyen global est saillante, une plus grande identification est reliée à une adhérence au contenu du groupe (c.-à-d.
les valeurs et les comportements prosociaux). Les résultats des présentes études ont montré que la conscience
globale (connaissance et interconnexion avec les autres) et l’environnement normatif d’une personne (les amis et
les membres de la famille qui soutiennent la citoyenneté globale) prédisaient l’identification aux citoyens globaux.
De plus, la citoyenneté globale prédisait les valeurs prosociales de l’empathie intergroupe, de la mise en valeur de
la diversité, de la justice sociale, de la durabilité environnementale, de l’entraide intergroupe et du sens des
responsabilités à agir pour l’amélioration du monde. L’identification aux citoyens globaux jouait un rôle
médiateur sur la relation entre les antécédents (environnement normatif et conscience globale) et les conséquences
(valeurs prosociales). Nous discutons de la relation entre les présents résultats et les résultats des autres recherches
en psychologie, des implications de la citoyenneté globale pour les autres domaines académiques et des avenues
de recherche futures. La citoyenneté globale met en lumière l’effet unique de la prise de perspective globale sur
Correspondence should be addressed to Stephen Reysen, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce,
Commerce, TX 75429, USA. (E-mail: stephen.reysen@tamuc.edu).
© 2013 International Union of Psychological Science
MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
859
une multitude de sujets liés à la psychologie, sur les plans des actions quotidiennes, de l’environnement et de
l’identité.
A
medida que el mundo se vuelve cada vez más interconectado, la exposición a las culturas globales les ofrece
a los individuos oportunidades para desarrollar identidades globales. En dos estudios examinamos los
antecedentes y consecuencias de la identificación con una identidad supraordinal —el ciudadano global. La
ciudadanı́a global se define como la conciencia, el cuidado y la aceptación de la diversidad cultural a la vez que se
promueve la justicia social y la sustentabilidad, emparejada con un sentido de responsabilidad de acción. La
teorı́a e investigaciones previas sugieren que el ser consciente de la conexión que uno tiene con otras personas del
mundo (conciencia global) y estar inserto en entornos en que se valora la ciudadanı́a global (entorno normativo)
conduce a una mayor identificación con los ciudadanos globales. Además, la teorı́a e investigación sugieren que
cuando la identidad del ciudadano global es destacada, la mayor identificación se relaciona con la adhesión al
contenido del grupo (por ej., los valores y comportamientos prosociales). Los resultados de la presente serie de
estudios mostraron que la conciencia global (el conocimiento y la interconexión con los demás) y el propio
entorno normativo (los amigos y familia que apoyan la ciudadanı́a global) predijeron la identificación con los
ciudadanos globales, y la ciudadanı́a global predijo los valores prosociales de empatı́a intergrupal, valoración de
la diversidad, justicia social, sustentabilidad ambiental, ayuda intergrupal y una sentida responsabilidad de
actuar para la mejora del mundo. La relación entre los antecedentes (entorno normativo y conciencia global) y
los resultados (valores prosociales) estuvo mediada por la identificación con los ciudadanos globales. Se discuten
la relación entre estos resultados y otros resultados de investigaciones psicológicas, las implicaciones de la
ciudadanı́a global para otros ámbitos académicos y los futuros lineamientos de investigación. La ciudadanı́a
global destaca el efecto único de adoptar una perspectiva global frente a una multitud de temas pertinentes a la
psicologı́a de las acciones cotidianas, los entornos y la identidad.
Spurred by globalization, the concept of global
citizenship identity has become a focus of theorizing across various disciplines (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a). In psychology, with a few exceptions (e.g., immigration, self-construal), little
research has empirically explored the vast effects
of globalization on identity and psychological
functioning. Calls for greater attention to the
effects of cultural (Adams & Markus, 2004) and
global (Arnett, 2002) influences on everyday life
have been relatively ignored. In the present paper
we cross disciplinary boundaries to draw on
theoretical discussions of global citizenship, and
utilize a social identity perspective (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987) to add conceptual and structural
clarity to the antecedents and outcomes of taking a
globalized perspective of the world.
Clarifying the concept of global citizenship is
difficult due to the use of seemingly synonymous
terms to describe a superordinate global identity,
and the influence of theorists’ disciplinary perspectives in defining the construct. A multitude of
labels are used to describe inclusive forms of
citizenship, such as universal, world, postnational,
and transnational citizenship. While some theorists
use the terms interchangeably, others make clear
distinctions. For example, Golmohamad (2008)
equates global citizenship with international and
world citizenship, while Haugestad (2004) suggests
that a global citizen is concerned about social
justice, a ‘‘world citizen’’ is concerned about trade
and mobility, and an ‘‘earth citizen’’ is concerned
about the environment.
The confusion regarding global citizenship is
exacerbated as theorists draw from diverse disciplines and perspectives (e.g., political, theological, developmental, educational) to define the
construct. For example, theorists in philosophy
may highlight morality and ethics, education
theorists may highlight global awareness, while
others may eschew the concept altogether as
idealist and untenable because there is no concrete
legal recognition of global group membership (for
a review of competing conceptions of global
identity see Delanty, 2000; Dower, 2002a). In an
effort to integrate the various disciplinary framings
and highlight the commonalities in prior discussions of global citizenship, Reysen, Pierce,
Spencer, and Katzarska-Miller (2012b) reviewed
global education literature and interviews with
self-described global citizens, and indeed found
consistent themes regarding the antecedents
(global awareness, normative environment) and
values posited to be outcomes of global citizenship
(intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social
justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup
helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the
betterment of the world).
For the purpose of the present research, we
define global citizenship, as well as the related
constructs identified by Reysen and colleagues
(2012b), by drawing from prior interdisciplinary
theoretical discussions. Global awareness is defined
860
REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER
as knowledge of the world and one’s interconnectedness with others (Dower, 2002a; Oxfam, 1997).
Normative environment is defined as people and
settings (e.g., friends, family, school) that are
infused with global citizen related cultural patterns
and values (Pike, 2008). Intergroup empathy is
defined as a felt connection and concern for people
outside one’s ingroup (Golmohamad, 2008;
Oxfam, 1997). Valuing diversity is defined as an
interest in and appreciation for the diverse cultures
of the world (Dower 2002b; Golmohamad, 2008).
Social justice is defined as attitudes concerning
human rights and equitable and fair treatment of
all humans (Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Heater, 2000).
Environmental sustainability is defined as the belief
that humans and nature are connected, combined
with a felt obligation to protect of the natural
environment (Heater, 2000). Intergroup helping is
defined as aid to others outside one’s group, and is
enacted through behaviors such as donating to
charity, volunteering locally, and working with
transnational organizations to help others globally
(Dower, 2002a). Responsibility to act is defined as
an acceptance of a moral duty or obligation to act
for the betterment of the world (Dower, 2002a,
2002b). In line with themes found in prior
theorizing, we adopt the definition of global
citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing
cultural diversity while promoting social justice
and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act (Snider, Reysen, &
Katzarska-Miller, in press).
SOCIAL IDENTITY PERSPECTIVE
To empirically examine the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship, we utilize a social
identity perspective (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Individuals feel
different levels of identification (i.e., felt connection) with social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Each group has a prototype or set of interrelated
attributes (i.e., group content), that are specific to
that group (Hogg & Smith, 2007). When a
particular group membership is salient, the more
strongly one identifies with the group the more
depersonalization and self-stereotyping occur in
line with the group’s content such as norms,
beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviors (Turner et al.,
1987), and personality (Jenkins, Reysen, &
Katzarska-Miller, 2012). In effect, when an identity is salient, one’s degree of identification with
the group predicts adherence to the group’s
normative content (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Turner
et al., 1987).
EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
CONTENT
Following a social identity perspective, we argue
that membership in the group ‘‘global citizen’’ is
psychological in nature. As suggested by
Golmohamad (2008), global citizenship is a mindset or attitude one takes. In effect, individuals
perceive themselves to be global citizens and can
feel a psychological connection with global citizens
as a group. Consequently, greater identification
with global citizens should predict endorsement of
the group content (i.e., norms, values, behaviors)
that differs from the content of other groups (e.g.,
American). To test this notion, Reysen and
colleagues (2012b) asked participants to rate
endorsement of prosocial values (e.g., intergroup
helping), and identification with global citizens,
cosmopolitans, world citizens, international citizens, and humans. Global citizenship identification predicted endorsement of intergroup
empathy, valuing diversity, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility
to act, beyond identification with the other superordinate categories.
Additional studies showed that global citizenship identification predicted participants’ degree of
endorsement of prosocial values and related
behaviors (e.g., community service, recycling,
attending cultural events) beyond identification
with subgroup identities (e.g., nation, state,
occupation). Across the studies, global citizenship
content (i.e., prosocial values) was shown to differ
from the content of other social identities. In
effect, there is converging evidence that the content
of global citizenship is related to the prosocial
values (e.g., social justice, environmentalism)
posited in the literature, and global citizenship
identification predicts these prosocial values
beyond identification with other superordinate
and subgroup identities.
EVIDENCE OF ANTECEDENTS TO
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
As the world has become increasingly connected,
exposure to global cultures affords individuals
opportunities to develop global identities (Norris,
2000). To examine the influence of cultural context
on global citizenship identity, Katzarska-Miller,
Reysen, Kamble, and Vithoji (in press) assessed
participants’ perception of their normative environment (i.e., friends and family express an
injunctive norm that one ought to be a global
citizen), global citizenship identification, and
MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
endorsement of prosocial values in samples from
Bulgaria, India, and the United States.
Participants sampled in the US rated their
normative environment and global citizenship
identification lower than participants sampled in
the other two countries. Mediation analyses
showed that the relationship between cultural
comparisons (US vs. Bulgaria, US vs. India) and
global citizenship identification was mediated by
participants’ perception that others in their normative environment valued global citizenship (i.e.,
participants’ environment contained an injunctive
norm that prescribes being a global citizen).
Further analyses showed that global citizenship
identification mediated the relationship between
cultural comparison and social justice, intergroup
empathy and helping, and concern for the environment. In other words, one’s normative environment is a strong predictor of global citizenship
identification, and global citizenship identification
mediates the relationship between cultural setting
and prosocial values.
Global awareness represents knowledge of
global issues and one’s interconnectedness with
others. Gibson, Reysen, and Katzarska-Miller
(2011) randomly assigned participants to write
about meaningful relationships (interdependent
self-construal prime) or not (control) prior to
rating their degree of global citizenship identification and prosocial values. Participants primed with
interdependence to others showed greater global
citizenship identification and prosocial values
compared to participants in the control condition.
The relationship between priming interdependence
(vs. no prime) and global citizenship identification
was mediated by students’ perception of their
normative environment. Furthermore, global citizenship identification mediated the relationship
between the interdependence prime (vs. no prime)
and endorsement of prosocial values. In effect,
raising participants’ awareness of interconnectedness with others led to greater endorsement of
prosocial values through a greater connection with
global citizens.
Conversely, raising the saliency of global competition (related to an independent self-construal)
can reduce identification with global citizens.
Snider and colleagues (in press) randomly assigned
college students to read and respond about
globalization leading to the job market becoming
more culturally diverse, more competitive, or did
not read a vignette. Participants in the competition
condition rated global citizenship identification,
academic motivation, valuing diversity, intergroup
helping, and willingness to protest unethical
corporations lower than participants in the
861
culturally
diverse
framing
condition.
Furthermore, participants exposed to the competition vignette were more willing to reject outgroups
than those in the diversity framed condition.
Students’ degree of global citizenship identification
mediated the relationship between globalization
message framing and academic motivation, valuing diversity, intergroup helping, and willingness
to protest unethical corporations.
To summarize, past research has shown that
one’s normative environment (friends, family) and
global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness with others) predict global citizenship identification. Global citizenship identification is
consistently found to mediate the relationship
between normative environment and global awareness, and degree of endorsement of the group’s
content (i.e., prosocial values). Therefore, there is
considerable evidence to suggest a model of global
citizenship in which normative environment and
global awareness predict global citizenship, and
global citizenship predicts endorsement of prosocial values.
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH
In the present paper we test a model of the
antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship
identity. Following past theorizing (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008;
Schattle, 2008) and research (Gibson et al., 2011;
Katzarska-Miller et al., in press; Reysen et al.,
2012b; Snider et al., in press) we hypothesize a
structural model of global citizenship with one’s
normative environment (i.e., close others endorse
being a global citizen) and global awareness
(knowledge and interconnectedness with others)
predicting identification with global citizens, and
global citizenship identification predicting endorsement of prosocial values that represent the
group’s content (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to
act). In Study 1 we test the proposed structural
model, and in Study 2 we replicate the model with
a second sample of participants.
STUDY 1
The purpose of Study 1 is to test the predicted
model of global citizenship. Past theory and
research suggest that one’s normative environment
and global awareness predict greater global
citizenship identification, and identification with
global citizens predicts prosocial value outcomes.
862
REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER
In effect, global citizenship is expected to mediate
the relationship between antecedents (normative
environment and global awareness) and outcomes
(prosocial values).
Method
Participants and procedure
Undergraduate college participants (N ¼ 726,
57.6% women) completed the survey for either
course credit toward a psychology class or extra
credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age
was 28.90 years (SD ¼ 9.98). Participants rated
items assessing normative environment, global
awareness, global citizenship identification, intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice,
environmental sustainability, intergroup helping,
felt responsibility to act, and demographic information. All items used a seven-point Likert-type
scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly
agree.
Materials
Normative environment. Two items (‘‘Most
people who are important to me think that being
a global citizen is desirable,’’ ‘‘If I called myself a
global citizen most people who are important to
me would approve’’) were combined to assess the
perception that others in one’s environment believe
that people ought to identify as global citizens
(injunctive norm) (a ¼ .82).
Global awareness. Four items (‘‘I understand
how the various cultures of this world interact
socially,’’ ‘‘I am aware that my actions in my local
environment may affect people in other countries,’’
‘‘I try to stay informed of current issues that
impact international relations,’’ ‘‘I believe that I
am connected to people in other countries, and my
actions can affect them’’) were combined to form a
global awareness index (a ¼ .80).
Global citizenship identification. Two items
(‘‘I would describe myself as a global citizen,’’
‘‘I strongly identify with global citizens’’) were
adapted from prior research (see Reysen, Pierce,
Katzarska-Miller, & Nesbit, 2012a) to assess
global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89).
Intergroup empathy. Two items (‘‘I am able to
empathize with people from other countries,’’ ‘‘It
is easy for me to put myself in someone else’s shoes
regardless of what country they are from’’) were
used to assess intergroup empathy (a ¼ .76).
Valuing diversity. Two items (‘‘I would like to
join groups that emphasize getting to know people
from different countries,’’ ‘‘I am interested in
learning about the many cultures that have existed
in this world’’) were combined to assess valuing
diversity (a ¼ .91).
Social justice. Two items (‘‘Those countries that
are well off should help people in countries who
are less fortunate,’’ ‘‘Basic services such as health
care, clean water, food, and legal assistance should
be available to everyone, regardless of what
country they live in’’) were combined to assess
belief in social justice (a ¼ .74).
Environmental
sustainability. Two
items
(‘‘People have a responsibility to conserve natural
resources to foster a sustainable environment,’’
‘‘Natural resources should be used primarily to
provide for basic needs rather than material
wealth’’) were combined to assess belief in
environmental sustainability (a ¼ .76).
Intergroup helping. Two items (‘‘If I had the
opportunity, I would help others who are in need
regardless of their nationality,’’ ‘‘If I could, I
would dedicate my life to helping others no matter
what country they are from’’) were adapted from
past research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) to
assess intergroup helping (a ¼ .76).
Responsibility to act. Two items (‘‘Being
actively involved in global issues is my responsibility,’’ ‘‘It is my responsibility to understand and
respect cultural differences across the globe to the
best of my abilities’’) were combined to assess felt
responsibility to act (a ¼ .78).
Results
All of the assessed variables were moderately to
strongly positively correlated with one another (see
Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and zeroorder correlations between the assessed variables).
We conducted a series of structural equation
models using AMOS 19 to examine the predicted
model’s fit, subsequent modification, and the
mediating role of global citizenship identification.
Due to the related nature of the prosocial values,
we allowed the disturbance terms for the variables
to covary. We evaluated model fit using the
normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit
index (CFI), for which values greater than .90 are
acceptable. Following Browne and Cudeck (1993),
MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
863
TABLE 1
Study 1: Correlations and means (standard deviations)
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Normative environment
1.0
2. Global awareness
.44
1.0
3. Global citizenship
identification
4. Intergroup empathy
.75
.53
1.0
.34
.54
.42
1.0
5. Valuing diversity
.47
.59
.51
.49
1.0
6. Social justice
.39
.33
.41
.40
.44
1.0
7. Environmental
sustainability
8. Intergroup helping
.38
.36
.38
.40
.42
.63
1.0
.37
.50
.39
.55
.54
.53
.47
1.0
9. Responsibility to act
.49
.59
.56
.58
.65
.51
.54
.63
9
1.0
Mean (SD)
4.58
(1.44)
4.76
(1.24)
4.57
(1.54)
4.98
(1.40)
4.84
(1.57)
5.62
(1.36)
5.63
(1.29)
5.54
(1.34)
5.09
(1.44)
All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.
we set the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of .08 as an acceptable level.
Items loaded well on each of the factors,
including normative environment (.83, .84), global
awareness (.49 to .91), global citizen identification
(.86, .91), intergroup empathy (.85, .74), valuing
diversity (.96, .86), social justice (.78, .76), environmental sustainability (.80, .76), intergroup helping
(.78, .80), and responsibility to act (.78, .82). The
predicted model adequately fit the data, w2(146) ¼
820.24, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(075; .085),
NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922. However, examination of
the modification indices suggested allowing two
of the global awareness item errors to covary.
Following this allowance, the model difference was
significant (Dw2(1) ¼ 211.70, p 5 .001), and the fit
indices showed the model appropriately fit the data,
w2(145) ¼ 608.54,
p 5 .001;
RMSEA ¼ .066,
CI(.061; .072), NFI ¼ .931, CFI ¼ .946.1
As shown in Figure 1, normative environment
and global awareness were positively related (r ¼ .51,
p 5 .001). Normative environment (b ¼ .78,
p 5 .001, CI ¼ .701 to .858) and global awareness
(b ¼ .20, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .104 to .287) predicted
global citizenship identification (significance
1
computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping with
5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals). Global
citizenship identification predicted intergroup
empathy (b ¼ .53, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .445 to .606),
valuing diversity (b ¼ .61, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .542 to
.667), social justice (b ¼ .53, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .439 to
.608), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .50,
p 5 .001, CI ¼ .418 to .581), intergroup helping
(b ¼ .51, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .419 to .594), and felt
responsibility to act (b ¼ .70, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .633
to 769). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000
iterations), the indirect effect of normative environment and global awareness on the prosocial values
(e.g., social justice) was reliably carried by global
citizenship identification (see Table 2 for standardized betas of indirect effects and 95% biascorrected confidence intervals; all indirect effects
were significant at p 5 .001, two-tailed).
Discussion
The purpose of Study 1 was to examine our
predicted model of global citizenship identification. Following a small modification, the model
Contact the first author for detailed model information, including item loadings and disturbance term intercorrelations. In
Studies 1 and 2 we also examined the reversed causal model, with the outcomes (prosocial values) predicting antecedents
(global awareness, normative environment) through global citizenship identification. The reversed model showed relatively
appropriate fit to the data in Study 1, w2(147) ¼ 821.16, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(.074; .085), NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922, and
Study 2, w2(147) ¼ 1299.96, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .081, CI(.077; .085), NFI ¼ .903, CFI ¼ .913. However, in Study 1, the final
predicted model showed lower AIC (738.54) and ECVI (1.02, CI ¼ .919; 1.13) values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 947.16,
ECVI ¼ 1.31, CI ¼ 1.19; 1.44). In Study 2, the predicted model showed lower AIC (1252.35) and ECVI (1.04, CI ¼ .958; 1.14)
values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 1425.96, ECVI ¼ 1.19, CI ¼ 1.10; 1.29). Thus, in both studies the predicted model
showed a better fit than the reversed causality model.
864
REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER
Intergroup
Empathy
.53*
Normative
Environment
Value
Diversity
.61*
.78*
.53*
.51*
Global
Citizenship
Social Justice
.50*
.51*
Sustain
Environment
.20*
.70*
Global
Awareness
Intergroup
Helping
Responsible
To Act
Figure 1. Study 1 final model standardized betas, *p 5 .001.
TABLE 2
Study 1: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification
Normative environment
Variable
Empathy
Diversity
Social justice
Sustainability
Helping
Responsibility
Global awareness
Indirect
CILower
CIUpper
Indirect
CILower
CIUpper
.41
.48
.41
.39
.40
.55
.348
.418
.340
.323
.328
.484
.486
.537
.492
.467
.476
.622
.10
.12
.10
.10
.10
.14
.053
.061
.054
.052
.051
.072
.163
.183
.160
.153
.159
.211
Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects
are significant at p 5 .001.
showed appropriate fit to the data. As hypothesized, normative environment and global awareness predicted global citizenship identification,
which then predicted greater endorsement of
prosocial values (e.g., environmental sustainability). We designed Study 2 to replicate the
final adjusted model with a second sample of
participants.
STUDY 2
The purpose of Study 2 is to replicate the final
adjusted model from Study 1 in a separate sample
of participants. We predict the model will show an
appropriate fit to the data similar to Study 1.
Method
Participants and procedure
Undergraduate college participants (N ¼ 1201,
62.8% women) completed the survey for either
course credit toward a psychology class or extra
credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age
was 25.86 years (SD ¼ 9.24). The procedure and
materials were identical to Study 1. The scales of
normative environment (a ¼ .81), global awareness
(a ¼ .80), global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89),
intergroup empathy (a ¼ .80), valuing diversity
(a ¼ .82), social justice (a ¼ .73), environmental
sustainability (a ¼ .78), intergroup helping
(a ¼ .77), and responsibility to act (a ¼ .79)
showed appropriate reliability.
MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
865
awareness (b ¼ .21, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .126 to .280)
predicted global citizenship identification (significance computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping
with 5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals).
Global citizenship identification predicted intergroup empathy (b ¼ .49, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .425 to
.553), valuing diversity (b ¼ .49, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .424
to .556), social justice (b ¼ .40, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .322
to .474), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .42,
p 5 .001, CI ¼ .340 to .486), intergroup helping
(b ¼ .41, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .339 to .483), and felt
responsibility to act (b ¼ .59, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .517
to .652). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000
iterations), the indirect effect of normative environment and global awareness on the prosocial
values (e.g., intergroup helping) was again reliably
carried by global citizenship identification (see
Table 4 for standardized betas of indirect effects
and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals; all
Results
All of the assessed variables were moderately to
strongly positively correlated with one another (see
Table 3 for means, standard deviations, and zeroorder correlations between the assessed variables).
Items loaded well on each of the factors, including:
normative environment (.79, .86), global awareness
(.50 to .89), global citizen identification (.89, .89),
intergroup empathy (.88, .77), valuing diversity
(.83, .85), social justice (.73, .79), environmental
sustainability (.83, .77), intergroup helping
(.82, .78), and responsibility to act (.79, .83). The
model fit the data, w2(145) ¼ 1122.35, p 5 .001;
RMSEA ¼ .075, CI(.071; .079), NFI ¼ .916,
CFI ¼ .926. Similarly to Study 1, normative environment and global awareness were positively
related (r ¼ .47, p 5 .001). Normative environment
(b ¼ .74, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .670 to .801) and global
TABLE 3
Study 2: Correlations and means (standard deviations)
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Normative environment
1.0
2. Global awareness
.43
1.0
3. Global citizenship
identification
4. Intergroup empathy
.70
.49
1.0
.33
.51
.39
1.0
5. Valuing diversity
.35
.56
.39
.46
1.0
6. Social justice
.28
.34
.30
.36
.40
1.0
7. Environmental sustainability
.33
.43
.31
.42
.40
.57
1.0
8. Intergroup helping
.28
.46
.32
.53
.56
.52
.49
1.0
9. Responsibility to act
.41
.62
.47
.53
.61
.41
.51
.61
9
1.0
Mean (SD)
4.37
(1.33)
4.75
(1.18)
4.26
(1.44)
4.85
(1.42)
4.96
(1.41)
5.57
(1.29)
5.64
(1.19)
5.54
(1.31)
4.96
(1.37)
All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.
TABLE 4
Study 2: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification
Normative environment
Variable
Empathy
Diversity
Social justice
Sustainability
Helping
Responsibility
Global awareness
Indirect
CILower
CIUpper
Indirect
CILower
CIUpper
.36
.36
.29
.31
.30
.43
.313
.310
.235
.249
.251
.379
.415
.416
.353
.360
.359
.487
.10
.10
.08
.09
.09
.12
.058
.058
.048
.049
.049
.070
.147
.148
.124
.129
.129
.175
Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects
are significant at p 5 .001.
866
REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER
indirect effects were significant at p 5 .001, twotailed).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present studies was to test a
model of the antecedents and outcomes of global
citizenship identity. As hypothesized, one’s normative environment and global awareness predicted global citizenship identification, and one’s
connection to global citizens predicted endorsement of prosocial values that represent the content
of the group: intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability,
intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act.
Global citizenship identification mediated the
relationship between normative environment and
global awareness and prosocial values. Overall, the
proposed structural model of the antecedents and
outcomes of global citizenship was supported.
Clarifying global citizenship
Arguments about the meaning of global citizenship across various disciplines have resulted in a
state of confusion and a lack of definition.
Converging on a definition is difficult given the
variety of synonymous category labels (e.g.,
cosmopolitan, planetary citizen), and theorists’
tendency to highlight certain components (e.g.,
social justice) over others (e.g., environmental
sustainability). We adopt the definition of global
citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing
cultural diversity, while promoting social justice
and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act (Snider et al., in press). The
model of global citizenship tested in the present
paper supports each aspect of this definition.
Individuals who are highly identified global
citizens are globally aware, express caring and
empathy for others, embrace cultural diversity,
promote social justice and environmentally sustainable living, and feel a responsibility to act to
help others.
The model of global citizenship also supports a
wealth of theorizing (Davies, 2006; Dower, 2002a,
2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008; Schattle, 2008)
and research examining global citizenship (Gibson
et al., 2011; Katzarska-Miller et al., in press;
Reysen et al., 2012b; Snider et al., in press). The
consistent pattern across the literature and
research shows global awareness and normative
environment as antecedents to global citizenship,
and the prosocial values as components of the
content of global citizen identity. Utilizing a social
identity perspective, the present research is the first
to show that the antecedents to global citizenship
predict one’s degree of identification with the
category, and global citizenship identification
predicts endorsement of prosocial values hypothesized to represent the content of the group identity.
Thus, while past theorizing has highlighted components of the model, the present results show the
pathways to identification with global citizens, and
the prosocial outcomes to feeling connected to the
superordinate global category.
Global awareness and superordinate
identities
The present model shows global awareness as an
antecedent to identification with global citizens.
As noted by Dower (2002a), all humans are global
citizens; however, some individuals lack the
awareness to recognize their connection with
humanity as a whole. Thus, global citizenship
represents an inclusive group membership with all
humans. A wealth of social psychological research
supports the notion that categorizing with an
inclusive superordinate category results in prosocial values and behaviors (for a review see Crisp &
Hewstone, 2007). For example, salience of one’s
human identity leads to greater forgiveness to an
outgroup for past harm. However, human identity
salience can also reduce the motivation of victim
groups to act collectively, and salience of benevolent (vs. hostile) human group content can lead
perpetrators to legitimize harmful actions against
outgroups and retain negative attitudes (see
Greenway, Quinn, & Louis, 2011).
We suggest that inherent in the content of global
citizen identity is the notion of valuing diversity
and multiculturalism (i.e., recognition of multiple
identities) that is absent in human identity content.
Indeed, Reysen et al. (2012b) found global citizenship identification to uniquely predict prosocial
values beyond identification with the category
label human, as well as other superordinate groups
(e.g., international citizen). In other words, global
citizen content differs from other superordinate
group labels, and raising the saliency of global
citizen will affect participants differently than
saliency of human due to the differing group
content. The present results support past research
by showing that the extent to which individuals are
aware of the larger world and their place in that
world predict prosocial values (including valuing
diversity and intergroup helping) through greater
identification with the superordinate category
‘‘global citizen.’’
MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
Normative environment
A second antecedent to global citizenship identification is the extent that one’s normative environment supports aspects of global citizenship.
Results from the present set of studies show that
perceiving valued others embedded in one’s everyday settings (e.g., friends, family) as endorsing
global citizenship (injunctive norm) predicts identifying with the group. The results support past
research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) that
shows the relationship between cultural context
and identification with global citizens is mediated
by the degree others in one’s normative environment prescribe the identity. Global citizen theorists, rightly, argue for greater integration and
support for global citizenship education between
school and community (Dower, 2002a, 2002b).
Embedding injunctive norms in the everyday lives
of students may lead to greater identification with
others around the world and subsequent endorsement of prosocial values and behaviors.
The strong influence of social norms on
attitudes and behavior has a long history in
psychology. Individuals shape and are shaped by
the cultural patterns that are produced, reproduced, and modified by individuals in settings in
which they are embedded. In other words, everyday environments (e.g., home, school, work, cities)
are intentionally constructed places that hold the
cultural patterns from prior generations, and
engaging in the settings can influence individuals
through implicit conditioning and priming of
everyday actions (Adams & Markus, 2004).
Cultural patterns and norms afford various
identities to individuals, and to the extent that
these identities are valued, can influence one’s
degree of identification (Reysen & Levine, 2012).
Thus, to the extent that patterns related to global
citizenship are embedded in one’s environment
(Adams & Markus, 2004), and others within that
environment endorse those beliefs, greater identification with global citizens can be expected.
Global citizenship and prosocial identity
content
Global citizenship identity content contains values
and behaviors (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to
act) that are typically examined in isolation with
one another in psychology. The present model
highlights the interconnected nature of these
prosocial values and their relation to social
867
identity processes. For example, work on intergroup empathy finds that empathetic feelings for a
person in need are reserved for ingroup members
(Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006). Global
citizen identity relates to empathetic concern for
ingroup and outgroup members. Priming shared
human experiences reduces prejudice toward outgroups and increases support for peace (Motyl
et al., 2011). Similarly, global citizenship relates to
valuing diversity, reduced prejudice toward outgroups, and greater endorsement of world peace
(Katzarska-Miller, Barnsley, & Reysen, 2012;
Reysen et al., 2012b).
Groups, and social and moral norms, influence
one’s personal values and subsequent intention to
engage in environmental behaviors (Bamberg &
Möser, 2007). Global citizenship identity content
includes a desire to act for environmentally
sustainable societies (Reysen et al., 2012b). The
relationship between salience of relationships and
helping others is mediated by one’s felt interconnectedness with others (Pavey, Greitemeyer, &
Sparks, 2011). Similarly, global citizenship is
related to a variety (i.e., charity, volunteering) of
helping behaviors (Reysen et al., 2012b), and the
relationship between global awareness (knowledge
and interconnectedness with others) and intergroup helping is mediated by global citizenship
identification (Gibson et al., 2011). Research
shows the importance of social identities in
predicting collective action (van Zomeren,
Postmes, & Spears, 2008). As shown in the present
model, and in past research (Gibson et al., 2011;
Reysen et al., 2012b), global citizens report a
responsibility to act for the betterment of humanity. Overall, the research described above examined prosocial values separately, while the present
research integrates these disparate areas of
research as outcomes of a psychological connection with others in the world.
Implications and future directions of
global citizenship
Beyond the prosocial values that represent the
content of global citizen identity, the present
research has implications for a variety of areas
within psychology and other disciplines (e.g.,
education, political science, business). For example, psychological concepts of moral identity and
critical moral consciousness are related to empathy, social justice, and a moral responsibility to act
(Mustakova-Possardt, 2004). The motivation
behind a moral identity is posited to be a spiritual
search for truth, similar to the concept of a
868
REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER
religious quest motivation. In a recent series of
studies, Katzarska-Miller et al. (2012) found that
global citizenship identification is closely related to
a religious quest motivation. Global citizenship is
also similar to past findings examining ‘‘worldmindedness,’’ which is positively related to endorsement for collective action and suggested to lead
to greater felt connection with the global community (Der-Karabetian, 1992). Within education,
cooperative learning highlights students’ interconnectedness with others and results in greater
empathy and perspective taking, justice beliefs,
and wellbeing (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). The
underlying mechanism behind cooperative learning may reside in the salience of interconnectedness with others, similar to the interconnectedness
component predicting global citizenship.
Based on social identity perspective, global
citizenship has implications for intergroup relations. As previously noted, superordinate group
salience can have beneficial but also negative
effects on intergroup bias (see Crisp & Hewstone,
2007). The present model shows global citizenship
identification predicting greater intergroup empathy, helping, and valuing diversity. In a recent
study, Jenkins and Reysen (2011) presented
participants with either morally positive or negative information about an outgroup prior to rating
the perception of the outgroup and endorsed
actions. Participants’ prior rating of global citizenship identification moderated the relationship of
valence of information on outgroup attitudes such
that when the outgroup was portrayed negatively
(vs. positively), highly identified global citizens
were less likely to view the outgroup as an enemy,
which resulted in a lower desire to avoid the
outgroup.
Global citizenship has implications for research
examining immigrants and global travelers. For
example, Berry’s model of acculturation strategies
(e.g., Berry, 2001) has recently been adapted to
account for a larger global identity (Banerjee &
German, 2007). Work on bicultural identities (e.g.,
Chen, Benet-Martı́nez, & Bond, 2008) shows that
bicultural individuals who integrate disparate
cultural identities show better psychological
adjustment in their new environments. Perhaps
an umbrella identity can aid immigrants by
providing an inclusive identity that allows for
identification with both new and prior subgroup
identities. In effect, global citizenship may provide
global sojourners with a way to reduce the
perceived distance between cultures by simultaneously identifying with the larger superordinate
global citizen category.
Unethical companies can elicit moral outrage
and protest behaviors on the part of consumers
(Cronin, Reysen, & Branscombe, in press). In
response, corporations endorse and advertise
corporate social responsibility, regardless of
whether they actually perform responsible business
practices, which affects how consumers view those
corporations. Consumer reactions to corporate
practices may depend on consumers’ global
citizenship identification and interact with whether
the corporations’ actions reflect global citizen
values. Corporations are also pushing to hire
employees with a greater global focus and openness to new ideas and experiences. Global citizenship identity is related to greater intellectualism
and openness (Jenkins et al., 2012) beyond
identification with other identities (e.g., nation,
human). Perhaps the characteristics companies
desire in new employees are those associated with
global citizen identity. The present model of global
citizenship holds implications for how companies
present their public image, how consumers react,
and employee hiring and training.
Limitations
Although the present set of studies is novel in
showing antecedents and outcomes of identifying
with global citizens, there are limitations that
should be considered when interpreting the results.
First, participants in the present study consisted of
American undergraduate college students attending a university in northeastern Texas. As shown
by Pippa Norris’ (2000) examination of World
Values Survey results, younger individuals are
more likely than older adults to feel an attachment
with the world as a whole. While similar patterns
of association between global citizenship identification and endorsement of prosocial values have
been found in a community sample including older
adults (Reysen et al., 2010) and participants
sampled in other countries (Katzarska-Miller
et al., in press), caution should be taken in
generalizing the results. Future research can
examine the model tested in the present paper in
other cultural contexts and demographically variable populations. Second, the measures used in the
present studies are subjective self-reports rather
than objective behavioral measures. Future
research should examine whether global citizenship identification is related to prosocial behaviors
when the identity is salient.
Third, the present studies are correlational. The
purpose of modeling the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship is to direct future
MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
research endeavors that can experimentally manipulate aspects of the model. Fourth, we implied a
causal direction of antecedents leading to global
citizenship, and global citizenship leading to outcomes. However, practicing global citizen oriented
activities (e.g., community service) may also lead
to greater global citizenship (e.g., Schattle, 2008).
While we examined, and found, the reverse
causality model to show poorer fit to the data
than the predicted model, future research examining aspects of the model (e.g., manipulating
responsibility and examining the effect on global
citizenship identification) is needed.
CONCLUSION
Globalization has encouraged many disciplines to
examine the nature of citizenship, identity, and
more generally, the effects of increasing interconnectedness with others. One outcome is the
affordance of identifying the self with a global,
rather than national, identity—global citizen. In
two studies, we tested a model of the antecedents
and outcomes of identification with global citizens.
Global awareness and one’s normative environment predict identification with global citizens,
and global citizenship predicts prosocial values of
intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social
justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup
helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the
betterment of the world. The relationship between
normative environment and global awareness and
prosocial values is mediated by global citizenship
identification. Global citizenship highlights the
unique effect of taking a global perspective on a
multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of
everyday actions and environments (e.g., helping
behaviors). The field of psychology has relatively
ignored the exponential cultural and social change
and impact of globalization. Global citizenship
exemplifies the recognition of the impact of
globalization on identity and subsequent prosocial
effects on attitudes and behaviors.
Manuscript received March 2012
Revised manuscript accepted May 2012
First published online July 2012
REFERENCES
Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a
conception of culture suitable for a social psychology
of culture. In M. Schaller, & C. S. Crandall (Eds.),
The
psychological
foundations
of
culture
(pp. 335–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
869
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization.
American Psychologist, 57, 774–783.
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after
Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new metaanalysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27, 14–25.
Banerjee, P., & German, M. (2007, October).
Amalgamated religious–ethnic identities: The promise
of an emerging postmodern paradigm. Paper presented
at Intellectbase International Consortium conference,
Atlanta, GA.
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615–631.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative
ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chen, S. X., Benet-Martı́nez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008).
Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological
adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigrationbased and globalization-based acculturation. Journal
of Personality, 76, 803–837.
Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social
categorization. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 163–254.
Cronin, T., Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R.
(in press). Wal-Mart’s conscientious objectors:
Perceived illegitimacy, moral anger and retaliatory
consumer behavior. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology.
Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or
framework for action? Educational Review, 58, 5–25.
Delanty, G. (2000). Citizenship in a global age: Society,
culture, politics. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Der-Karabetian, A. (1992). World-mindedness and the
nuclear threat: A multinational study. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 293–308.
Dower, N. (2002a). Global citizenship: Yes or no?
In N. Dower, & J. Williams (Eds.), Global citizenship:
A critical introduction (pp. 30–40). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Dower, N. (2002b). Global ethics and global citizenship.
In N. Dower, & J. Williams (Eds.), Global citizenship:
A critical introduction (pp. 146–157). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Gibson, S. A., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2011).
Priming interdependence and global citizenship.
Manuscript in preparation.
Golmohamad, M. (2008). Global citizenship: From
theory to practice, unlocking hearts and minds.
In M. A. Peters, H. Blee, & A. Britton (Eds.),
Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and
pedagogy
(pp.
521–533).
Rotterdam,
The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Greenway, K. H., Quinn, E. A., & Louis, W. R. (2011).
Appealing to common humanity increases forgiveness but reduces collective action among victims of
historical atrocities. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 569–573.
Haugestad, A. K. (2004). Norwegians as global neighbors and global citizens. In A. K. Haugestad, &
J. D. Wolfhorst (Eds.), Future as fairness: Ecological
justice and global citizenship (pp. 218–240).
New York, NY: Rodopi.
870
REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER
Heater, D. (2000). Does cosmopolitan thinking have a
future? Review of International Studies, 26, 179–197.
Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social
context: A social identity perspective. European
Review of Social Psychology, 18, 89–131.
Jenkins, S., & Reysen, S. (2011, November). A
mediated moderation model of outgroup perception
and avoidance. Poster presented at the 9th annual
Pathways Student Research Symposium, College
Station, TX.
Jenkins, S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012).
Ingroup identification and personality. Journal of
Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Relations and
Identity, 5, 9–16.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010). The impact of
social interdependence on values education and
student wellbeing. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, &
N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook
on values education and student wellbeing
(pp. 825–848). New York, NY: Springer.
Katzarska-Miller, I., Barnsley, C. A., & Reysen, S.
(2012). Global citizenship, religiosity, and political
orientation. Manuscript in preparation.
Katzarska-Miller, I., Reysen, S., Kamble, S. V., &
Vithoji, N. (in press). Cross-national differences in
global citizenship: Comparison of Bulgaria, India, and
the United States. Journal of Globalization Studies.
Motyl, M., Hart, J., Pyszczynski, T., Weise, D.,
Maxfield, M., & Siedel, A. (2011). Subtle priming
of shared human experiences eliminates threatinduced negativity toward Arabs, immigrants, and
peace-making. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47, 1179–1184.
Mustakova-Possardt, E. (2004). Education for critical
moral consciousness. Journal of Moral Education, 33,
245–269.
Norris, P. (2000). Global governance and cosmopolitan
citizens. In J. S. Nye Jr, & J. D. Donahue (Eds.),
Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 155–177).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Oxfam (1997). A curriculum for global citizenship.
Oxford, UK: Oxfam.
Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011).
Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives
and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37, 905–917.
Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating
for global citizenship. In A. A. Abdi, &
L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and
global citizenship (pp. 223–237). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Reysen, S., & Levine, R. V. (2012). People, culture, and
place: An integrative approach to predicting helping
toward strangers. In P. J. Rentfrow (Ed.),
Psychological geography. Washington, DC: APA.
Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Katzarska-Miller, I., & Nesbit, S.
(2012a). Measuring ingroup identification: The single
item ingroup identification scale. Manuscript in
preparation.
Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Spencer, C., & Katzarska-Miller,
I. (2012b) Exploring the content of global citizenship
identity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Snider, J. S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I.
(in press). How we frame the message of
globalization matters. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology.
Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006).
Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of
group membership. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943–956.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory
of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin, &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D.,
& Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social
group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008).
Toward an integrative social identity model of
collective action: A quantitative research synthesis
of
three
socio-psychological
perspectives.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.
Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005
Globalisation, Globalism and
Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal
Marianna
Educational
EPAT
©
0013-1857
September
O
4
37
Globalisation,
riginal
2005 Philosophy
Article
Papastephanou
2005
Philosophy
Globalism
of Ltd.
Education
and
andTheory
Cosmopolitanism
Society of Australasia
Blackwell
Oxford,
UK
Publishing,
M P
University of Cyprus
Abstract
In this paper, I discuss globalisation as an empirical reality that is in a complex relation
to its corresponding discourse and in a critical distance from the cosmopolitan ideal. I argue
that failure to grasp the distinctions between globalisation, globalism, and cosmopolitanism
derives from mistaken identifications of the Is with the Ought and leads to naïve and
ethnocentric glorifications of the potentialities of globalisation. Conversely, drawing the
appropriate distinctions helps us articulate a more critical approach to contemporary cultural
phenomena, and reconsider the current place and potential role of education within the
context of global affairs. From this perspective, the antagonistic impulses cultivated by
globalisation and some globalist discourse are singled out and targeted via a radicalization
of educational orientations. The final suggestion of the article concerns the vision of a more
cosmopolitically sensitive education.
Keywords: globalisation, nation-state, identity, antagonism, hybridity, Bauman,
Giddens, Kristeva, Dewey
Introduction
As early as 1916, John Dewey wrote:
Every expansive era in the history of mankind has coincided with the
operation of factors which have tended to eliminate distance between
peoples and classes previously hemmed off from one another. Even the
alleged benefits of war, so far as more than alleged, spring from the fact
that conflict of peoples at least enforces intercourse between them and
thus accidentally enables them to learn from one another, and thereby to
expand their horizons. Travels, economic and commercial tendencies,
have at present gone far to break down external barriers; to bring peoples
and classes into closer and more perceptible connection with one another.
It remains for the most part to secure the intellectual and emotional
significance of this physical annihilation of space. (Dewey, 1993, p. 110)
Today, although the relevant empirical phenomena have advanced in incredible
ways and paces, the intellectual and emotional significance has not been debated
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
534 Marianna Papastephanou
exhaustively, let alone secured. The economic and commercial tendencies that
Dewey noticed have now taken the form of a shift of the population to the tertiary
sector of economy, i.e. services, commerce, transport, etc. (Habermas, 1998, p. 308),
what is often seen as knowledge economy, and an unprecedented flow of information across the globe. These facts—and many more—constitute the phenomenon of
globalisation, which has become the object of globalist studies.
In this paper, after exploring the connection of globalisation and globalism
meta-theoretically, I discuss some tendencies in the globalist examination of the
factual, intellectual and emotional significance of globalisation and show how they
affect educational theory. A critical assessment of these tendencies leads me to suggestions regarding the direction globalism and the theorization of the cosmopolitan
pedagogical ideal must take.
Globalisation
Globalisation is an empirical phenomenon that has been primarily felt as a structural
transformation of the world economic system operating in a complex dialectics with
time and space compression effected by advances in technology and communication.
Politically, globalisation is playing a major role in issues of state sovereignty, worldorder, extra-state policies and administration practices. Culturally, it is intervening
dramatically in the (re)shaping of identities and self-conceptions, the premises of
human encounter and exchange of world-interpretations and the frame of diverse
sensitivities, creativities and responses to aesthetic experience. As a result of its
multi-dimensionality and the chaotic force of its effects, globalisation denotes the
‘indeterminate, unruly and self-propelled character of world affairs: the absence of
a centre, of a controlling desk, of a board of directors’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 38).
Theoretical responses to the facts of globalisation vary and often conflate empirical
reality and rhetorical myth. The line distinguishing the two is fuzzy since our access
to empirical reality is always linguistically and culturally mediated but this should
not lead us to blurring the distinction itself. To see Globalisation as a ‘discursively
constructed master discourse of uncontrollable global market forces’ (Janice Dudley,
cf. Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 451) ignores the material effects of globalisation
and their extra-linguistic factual character. That this character is thematized and
known to us through our linguistically mediated interactions (a chiefly epistemological matter) should not obscure the fact that globalisation occurs as a set of
actualities that radicalize and accentuate older phenomena of cross-cultural human
contact. Such a set may be entangled in a complex dialectics with its discursiveness,
as its narrativity, its representation and the imaginary investments they create play
an important ideological role in that very consolidation and promotion of globalizing effects and the construction of the particular symbolic sphere that nurtures
globalisation. Globalisation often becomes an ideological device that states and
governments employ as an excuse for imposing certain policies that would otherwise
fail to gain public acceptance or support. But it would be erroneous to conclude
that the admission of the ideological role globalisation plays should lead us somehow to deny its reality. It could even be politically dangerous since the political
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism 535
significance of a discursive construction differs from that of a detectable reality and
focusing on the former would engender one-sided interpretations overlooking the
need to deal with the latter. In any case, as Giddens writes,
… a few years ago, there was some doubt, particularly on the left, about
whether globalization was a reality. The unpersuaded would write
‘globalization’ in inverted commas, to demonstrate their essential scepticism
about the idea. This controversy has moved on. Discussion continues
about how best to conceptualize globalization, but few would any longer
deny its influence—as signalled by the role of global financial markets,
new developments in electronic communication and geopolitical
transitions [ … ]. Discussion of globalization is no longer concentrated on
whether or not it exists, but on what its consequences are (Giddens,
2001, p. 3).
In this respect, I argue, the idea that ‘globalization is best understood as a kind of
imaginary’ (Smith, 1999, p. 2) should rather correspond to globalism than the
latter’s object of inquiry. For, the facticity of globalisation is one thing but the
thematization of this facticity is quite another.
For many thinkers, especially Third Way advocates, the impact of globalisation
‘has been compared to that of the weather; a “self-regulating, implacable Force of
nature” about which we can do nothing except look out of the window and hope
for the best’ (Andrews, 1999, p. 1). But also critics of the Third way such as
Bauman diagnose the same quality. ‘Globalization is not about what we all or at
least the most resourceful and enterprising among us wish or hope to do. It is about
what is happening to us all. It explicitly refers to the foggy and slushy “no man’s
land” stretching beyond the reach of the design and action capacity of anybody in
particular’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 39). These meteorological metaphors that have been
employed by many theorists to illustrate the unanticipated and unintended character
of globalisation prove indirectly the facticity of this phenomenon and the need for
a nuanced conceptual treatment of globalisation and its discursive thematization.
Given such a chaotic multiplicity and lack of determinate responsibility or liability,
it is no wonder that the causes and consequences of globalisation, ‘let alone the
new political arrangements and kinds of democracy—cosmopolitan, realist, liberal,
radical—that should respond to globalization are debated and contested’ (Isin &
Wood, 1999, p. 92). To render the distinction between empirical reality and its
theorization more operative, I suggest that we reserve the term ‘globalization’ for
the description of the intensification of global interconnectedness and use the term
‘globalism’ for the discursive treatment and analysis of the empirical phenomenon.
Globalisation as an empirical phenomenon involves various practices—some of
which are discursive—and states of affairs. But the discourse about globalisation,
i.e. its thematization, should be examined separately, at least for methodological
purposes, and under a different heading: the term I suggest is ‘globalism’. To use
an example, it is part of globalisation that a multinational company operating in a
Western state may cause an ecological disaster that will affect primarily the climatological conditions of some remote countries or perhaps even the whole planet.
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
536 Marianna Papastephanou
The debate on this phenomenon, however, belongs to a particular discourse that
we may call globalist.
Globalism
Following Isin & Wood, we may regard globalism as a discourse that constitutes
globalisation as an object (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 92). Therefore, globalism is not
a process or a set of realities independent from researchers.1 It is a ‘discourse in
which the very idea of globalization is articulated, disseminated, justified, debated,
in short, constituted as an object of reflection and analysis’ (Isin & Wood, 1999,
p. 94).
Globalist discourse operates at many levels deploying a large variety of descriptive, evaluative and normative judgements—most frequently in a syncretic and
eclectic fashion. But one may synthesize some of the approaches so as to group
them in three main categories of responses to globalisation.
1. The first category includes the positions that express deep concern about globalisation as a new form of domination propelled by a ‘homogenization’ principle.
2. The second comprises those that have a more positive and optimistic outlook resting
on what I would call a ‘global diversity thesis’.
3. The third involves positions that share the pessimism of the first category but explain
it via a description that acknowledges more subtle differentiations and accepts the
dual nature of globalisation.
The first and third focus on the concentration of power whereas the second on its
dispersal. One may associate the first with Eric Hobsbawm, the second with Featherstone, Giddens and Appadurai and the last with Bauman. (It should be noted
here that there is nothing ‘essential’ about the association of the above thinkers
with the corresponding positions on globalisation. Categorizations of the above
kind serve methodological purposes and can become easily relativized by the
polemical shifts that often guide theoretical discussions. For instance, Giddens’s
approach can be largely associated with the ‘global diversity thesis’ but when he
confronts the glorifications of globalisation that derive from the conservative internationalist camp he adopts a far more sceptical and critical outlook. Therefore, like
all generalizations, the above segregation of positions is subject to the vagaries of
deliberation.)
1. Hobsbawm deplores the fact that globalisation puts heterogeneity and particularity
under threat by imposing a single dominant culture as the model of all operations.
Globalisation is ‘a state of affairs in which the globe is the essential unit of operation
of some human activity, and where this activity is ideally conducted in terms of
single, universal, systems of thought, techniques and modes of communication.
Other particularities of those who engage in such activities, or of the territories in
which they are conducted, are troublesome or, at best, irrelevant’ (Hobsbawm,
1998, p. 1).
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism 537
2. The opposite holds for Featherstone who ‘calls into question the homogenization
thesis, arguing that globalization often results in indigenization and syncretization of
global symbols and hybridization of various local symbols’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p.
105). To him, complexity is the most important feature of globalisation. He argues
that a paradoxical consequence of that phenomenon and the awareness of ‘finitude
and boundedness of the planet and humanity, is not to produce homogeneity but to
familiarize us with greater diversity, the extensive range of the local cultures’ (cf.
Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 451). Giddens singles out and focuses on another
positive effect of globalisation, namely, the freedom that stems from the enlargement of the economic, political and cultural horizons of people. Thus, he considers
globalisation a ‘transformation of space and time in which the development of
global systems and networks reduces the hold of local circumstances over people’s
lives’ (Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 449).
3. Giddens’ approach appears one-sided when compared to Bauman’s position. Bauman associates the above kind of freedom with the potentialities of a small percentage of the population worldwide. ‘The global network of communication, acclaimed
as the gateway to a new and unheard of freedom, is clearly very selectively used; it
is a narrow cleft in the thick wall, rather than a gate’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 44). The
sway of a localizing trend triggers a new social division and hierarchy. The knowledge economy that cancels old modes and relations of production, as well as the
movement of the footloose élites and their sense of time are such that secure for the
rich an unprecedented independence from the poor. Those are now even removed
from the sight of the privileged classes and become so tied to their local circumstances that social mobility seems no longer to be a feasible life option for them.
Habermas’s analysis converges with Bauman’s on this point. As Habermas writes,
‘pauperized groups are no longer able to change their social situation by their own
efforts’ (1998, p. 315). Overall, the third large category of positions we notice in
globalist discourse provides a comprehensive and nuanced reading of globalisation
but concentrates on a diagnosis of negative global effects. I will return to the
positions that have consolidated in globalist discourse thematically after I examine
how educational theory has responded to them by generating what I would call
‘educational globalism’.
The main positions of general globalism are traceable and informative in educational globalism too. Additionally, within it, one may discern perspectives from
which the relation of education and globalisation can be examined. One perspective
is concerned with research in ways by which practices, institutions, discourses and
structures of education have been affected by globalisation. Another places more
emphasis on ways by which educational policies express and respond to the pressures of globalisation (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, p. 421), i.e. on how education
actively engages with the facts of globalisation and often with the promotion of
globalizing effects. A third perspective, which appears as yet underdeveloped,
explores ways by which education should try to counterbalance the negative effects
of globalisation and extend the potentialities of it for all in a democratic fashion.
Most authors have dealt with the first two points in a diagnostic mode. [With
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
538 Marianna Papastephanou
respect to this last point, cosmopolitanism can contribute a lot having first being
defined in an appropriate way.]
What underlies most approaches, however, is the same feeling of unease, powerlessness and bewilderment that characterizes general globalism. As Gregory Heath
remarks, ‘education sits in an unfamiliar and interesting position in the face of
globalisation. This is new territory for education, its institutions and practitioners’
(2002, p. 37). Patrick Fitzsimons comments that, regarding globalisation, ‘exactly
how education is involved or what it can or should do, is not quite as clear’ (2000,
p. 505). Overall, education seems to be unsure of its direction regarding globalisation
and this is often attributed precisely to the tensions between the global and the local
and unity and difference that mark globalist discourse (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 520).
A Critique of Globalist Positions
The position I defend in relation to the theorization of globalisation, which underlies the suggestions in the educational frame that will follow, is deontological. By
this I mean that my approach is primarily concerned with the imperatives and the
impact of globalisation regarding the ethical dimension of intersubjectivity rather
than with the economic growth or techno-informational progress it may facilitate.
Issues such as productivity, efficiency and profit enter the picture of a deontological
approach only when and if they answer the question: for whom? Who or which
group of people benefit from globalisation? How are justice and equality affected?
What seems to be happening to diversity and cultural plurality in a globalized
world? How does the Is of globalisation relates to the Ought of the vision of better
conditions for all biota?
Therefore, I shall concentrate on how globalisation is viewed as affecting unity
and plurality, social and international justice, and emancipatory enrichment of
humanity and protection of natural life. I shall expound my critique thematically
by focusing on the issues of (i) the nation-state and territoriality, (ii) diversity and
homogeneity, (iii) identity and rootlessness and (iv) equality and life options.
The Nation-state and Territoriality
The nation-state and its prospects constitute a crucial point of contention within
globalism. Advocates of globalisation celebrate its challenging impact on the modernist
construction of the nation-state because they associate with this configuration the
terror of totality and homogeneity and treat it as a barrier to ‘cosmopolitanism’.
Detractors of globalisation (and of the corresponding appreciative globalist theory)
defend the nation-state invoking a very wide spectrum of arguments. For polemical
reasons, or due to lack of true engagement in the debate, many thinkers who regard
globalisation positively draw a caricature of their opponents and reduce the latter’s
defense of the nation-state to a conservative and reactionary commitment to obsolete notions such as consanguinity, community ethos, and cultural purism. ‘For
some, the de-realisation and de-territorialisation of place associated with the
growth of globalisation and symbolic exchange results in a loss of social meaning
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism 539
and disruption of established senses of community and identity’ (Usher, 2002,
p. 48). This picture is accurate only for a small group of globalist theorists and
within it there is room for a variety of positions, not all of which could be considered
as motivated by conservative nationalist concerns. By contrast, there are those who
defend the nation-state precisely because they see it as the last bulwark of particularity against the homogenizing flows of globalisation. Additionally, there are thinkers
who offer the theoretical means for dissociating the nation-state from the unity versus
plurality binarism by unmasking operations of domination that use diversity and
totality equally effectively for their purposes but detrimentally for people and nature.
Let us examine the issue of the nation-state more closely. It may be true that
‘the establishment of any sovereign state required as a rule the suppression of stateformative ambitions of many lesser collectivities’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 40). But
accounts presenting the nation-state as a product of homogenization at the expense
of the lives of millions of people by suppressing uprisings, oppositional movements,
and so on (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 93) are one-sided and eurocentric. They are so
in the sense that they generalize the data that concern major Occidental states to
cover all cases of territorial sovereignty on the planet without taking into consideration
independence wars and anti-colonial movements. The reason why I pinpoint this
has nothing to do with a defense of the nation-state or a belief in its preservation.
It aims solely to draw attention to its double nature which problematizes any effort
to render the nation-state a scapegoat on which we could project the trials of modernity and establish its overcoming as the new legitimating metaphor of globalisation.
Another reason motivating some globalist theorists to allocate globalisation’s
challenges of the nation-state immediately into the sphere of progressivism is the
assumption that national territoriality is intimately bound up with tribal instincts
that impede the just and equal treatment of alterity imposing homogeneity. Globalisation then is presented as the process that disarms territoriality and allows
more diasporic and differentiated political configurations to flourish. A concomitant—and equally faulty assumption—is that cosmopolitanism is a simple matter of
rootlessness. In turn, this idea leads to a mistaken identification of globalized
managerialism and footloose entrepreneurs as ‘emerging cosmopolitan classes’ (Isin
& Wood, 1999, 7). Both assumptions are reflected in the following connection of
globalisation and postmodernism. ‘If globalization is contesting the sovereignty of the
nation-state and making its boundaries permeable, giving rise to various forms of
cosmopolitan citizenship, postmodernization is creating new forms of social differentiation, establishing new relationships between class and citizenship’ (Isin &
Wood, 1999, p. 23). I will deal with the issue of rootlessness and cosmopolitanism
later on but now I will turn to territoriality.
Contrary to the fashionable idea that the territorial principle of political organization
emanates from a dormant tribalism, Bauman writes that it ‘does not stem from the
natural or contrived tribal instincts alone (not even primarily)’ (1998, pp. 41–2)
and proves that its relation to globalisation is far more complicated. Beneath the
surface gloss, and despite its threat to the nation-state, globalisation encourages
forms of tribal territoriality for reasons of money and power. The territorial principle
is being revived now because ‘global finance, trade and information industry
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
540 Marianna Papastephanou
depend for their liberty of movement and their unconstrained freedom to pursue
their ends on the political fragmentation, the morcellement of the world scene’
(Bauman, 1998, p. 42). Thus, homogenizing and imperialist forces use plurality in
a strategic way while destroying those aspects of that plurality that would slow
down the ‘free movement of capital and limit market liberty’ (p. 42). ‘Far from
acting at cross-purposes and being at war with each other, the political “tribalization”
and economic “globalization” are close allies and fellow conspirators’ (p. 42).
In those circumstances, the task of a profound postmodernist outlook would be,
I argue, to unveil the fact that in the complexities of globalisation doubleness
borders with duplicity. This becomes more evident if we recall that the debilitating
effects of globalizing processes on territorial sovereignty do not affect all nationstates equally. On the contrary, some powerful nations stand up against extra-national
publics and stop the globalizing measures the latter impose so long as they do not
serve the interests of the former. An obvious and relatively recent example is ‘the
refusal of the United States to accept one of the few international agreements
genuinely accepted by everyone else, namely, the commitment to cut the emission
of greenhouse gases down to the required level. It has thus single-handed sabotaged
a global measure’ (Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 3).
I would like to conclude this section by stressing that if competitiveness damages
the significance intersubjectivity may acquire for our lives, then, the nation-state,
by not being the only possible carrier of competitiveness, cannot be the only cause of
oppression of alterity, culturally or socially. Recalling the cold war, we realize the
fact that at that time the nodal points of coexistence and competition were the
blocks of states rather than the states themselves (Bauman, 1998, p. 40). And in
the Fordist and post-Fordist landscapes, economy has gradually shifted some of the
political initiative and control from the nation-state to extra-national formations
while preserving and even exacerbating self-interested antagonism2 among nations3
and individuals. The persistence of competitiveness and its negative effects (that
we cannot take up here)4 transcending the nation-state ought to put us on guard
vis-à-vis postmodern political optimism. Like other things, imperialism takes a
new form too. It no longer conquers territories but preserves and intensifies the
aggression and competitiveness that used to characterize the nationalist claims of
superiority.
Diversity and Homogeneity
However, affirmative responses to globalisation do not herald only the limitations
confronting the nation-state. They also discard the idea that the New World order
promotes a Western-led homogenization as too simplistic and argue that, though
Occidental influence is significant, ‘there is a degree of cultural interpenetration,
hybridity and fluidity across different localities around the globe’ (Isin & Wood,
1999, p. 94). Equated with either modernization or Westernization, globalisation
becomes bereft of the multiplicity of its rationalities. Moreover, within the frame
of globalisation-as-modernization the mobilization of encounter and influence of
non-western cultures would be underestimated. For many globalist theorists, ‘the
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism 541
“global” and the “local” are not opposing but mutually constituting elements of
globalization’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 94).
For Bauman, on the other hand, this complexity and interrelation of the global
and the local—what he calls ‘glocalization’—is precisely the vehicle of new modes
of domination and oppression of diverse others. Glocalization as the process of the
‘world-wide redistribution of sovereignty, power, and freedom to act’ (Bauman,
1998, p. 42) divides the world into the tourists of the planet and the vagabonds of
regions, i.e. those that ‘inhabit the globe’ and the others that ‘are chained to place’
(p. 45). Moreover, I believe, counterarguments to the positive globalist outlook do
not emanate solely from different interpretations and appraisals of the interconnection of the global and local. Doing justice to the qualitative asymmetries of influence
among cultures is an additional motivation for turning a critical eye on favourable
treatments of globalisation. ‘If globalization has to adjust to local particularities, of
which “nations” are an important subvariety, particularities are much more powerfully
affected by globalization and have to adjust to it or be eliminated by it’
(Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 2). Hence, what is sidestepped by the positive category of
globalist discourse is the fact that, in certain cases, the difference in degree makes all
the difference in the world and the deflationist theorization of modernization and
Westernization misdirects globalism.
Consider for instance the fact that to the critical and often dismissive treatments
of globalisation through the employment of notions such as ‘Americanization’,
Westernization’, and ‘McDonaldization’ is counterpoised a set of terms such as
‘diaspora’, ‘hybridity’, ‘metissage identities’ and so on. However, if one thinks over
the generality of the latter set of terms one cannot but notice that they do not really
articulate processes that run truly counter the occidental domination of cultural
influence. Contrasted to the concrete character of the terms signifying one-sided
expansion and concentration of power, the generality and vagueness of ‘diaspora’
and ‘hybridity’ speaks for a lack of analogous influence of non-western cultures on the
western ones rather than a possibility for a more even-handed reshuffling and dispersal of power. None of the defenders of the complexity of cultural interpenetration
seems to have terms to offer that account for how the Western world is influenced
by non-Western cultures—and that is no accident. The lack of terms theorizing e.g.
‘Easternization’ is very telling regarding the asymmetries of cultural interplay.
Also, the implicit assumption of some positive treatments of globalisation that
cultural influence is a matter of free play in which people select merrily what they
find attractive is politically insensitive and sociologically blind to issues of power
and control. Capitalism with its subsystems of economy and administration penetrates lifeworlds anchoring in them and often eroding them in ways that go far
beyond the scope of cultural merry-go-rounds. Finally, we should take into account
the qualitative differences that mark the reception of or, adaptation to, otherness
by diverse cultures. Even when western cultures are influenced by others this does
not occur with respect to what they really desire but with respect to what they lack.
For instance, the ‘fastfoodization’ of foreign food we notice in the western world
has added variety to western eating habits without contributing significantly to
changes of western perceptions of time, labor, and lifestyle. Eating Chinese or
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
542 Marianna Papastephanou
Indian or Mexican food relates to cultural sufficiency, desire, social position and
overall influence in ways that are strikingly different from those surrounding the
introduction of fast food in the non-Western world. Fast food in the latter world
goes hand in hand with a change in the conception of time, the sense of worthy
activity and the assumptions about what is nutritious or healthy.
Identity and Rootlessness
Many globalists hope that the recognition of the fact that subjectivities are constructions rather than essences will lead to eliminating or complicating the neat
categorization of people that usually sparks off wars, violence, exclusion and racism. It is true that phenomena of globalisation could be credited with a reassertion
of fluid, diasporic, hybrid and contingent identities but this is only one side of the
story. Only by way of a logical leap one could justify the identification of fluidity
as such with its potential fruitful political interpretation. That is to say, the
diasporic and the hybrid identity on their own do not determine the conditions of
their political treatment or their cultural reception and ethical significance. To give
an example, the relativized identity of footloose élites does not appear very helpful
when they negotiate in the good old capitalist fashion about their interests. Worse,
it does not seem to enter the picture when they display the disarming innocence
of the unsuspecting with regard to their own, subtle or manifest, complicities.
In this respect, rootlessness may be a disguise of a deep and unreflective rootedness
in the Occidental culture of performativity, modernization and profit. A closer look
shows that the hope that rootlessness is the royal route to transcending a tyrannical
conception of identity is grounded in problematic and ethnocentric premises. Let
us first examine an example of the attention rootlessness has received. In certain
locations, the space-time compression results in globalized senses of place. This
‘can lead to what Benko refers to as non-places, spaces “devoid of the symbolic
expressions of identity, relations and history: examples include airports, motoways,
anonymous hotel rooms, public transport”—and possibly even cyberspace’ (cf.
Usher, 2002, p. 47). This phenomenon invites a careful interpretation. In my
opinion, the anonymity of a hotel room, instead of rendering it a non-place, is
precisely one of the features that root it in a particular culture in relational distinction to non-anonymous space. The sense of normalcy it enjoys because it is ours
empties it in our eyes of any content as we forget that its lack of name is exactly
what makes it northwestern, i.e. ours and nobody else’s.
As to airports being non-places, once again, this idea mirrors our ethnocentric
forgetfulness that efficiency, passports, security, regional or racial origin and so on,
are still loaded with various cultural meanings. For instance, as Habermas argues,
international flights, global stock market transactions, the millennium, conferences
etc, are scheduled by the Christian calendar (1998, p. 307). I believe that this
example proves that the identity of the supposed non-places, which is not discernible
to us when we assume that history and culture are cancelled out when conventionally standardized, is surely felt by those who follow our conventions temporarily
and then return to their own. ‘World air travel is possible because of a number of
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism 543
arrangements which link all airports and airlines of the globe, and which are
handled in a standardized manner everywhere and, in fact, with the use of a single
language of communication for all essential technicians anywhere in the world’
(Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 1). Thus, the so-called rootlessness and its supposed manifestations speak more for the homogenizing effects of globalisation and the eurocentrism they encourage rather than the redemption of pluralism. If there is freedom
from the constraints of identity, that freedom is for those others who make the effort
to adjust to our normalized and eurocentrically anonymized modes of existence.
Equality and Life Options
The approaches I have placed in the large category of affirmative theorizations of
globalisation also converge in their appreciation of the new opportunities for
improvement of people’s lives. ‘The movement of people, money, and information
across national and cultural boundaries means that we now have access to markets,
cultural practices, and products as never before. This access clearly has the potential for enriching our lives by providing lifestyle and employment options that were
once beyond our reach. [ … ] Even the remotest cultural traditions are now readily
accessible to us’ (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, p. 419). It is true that politically pessimist
globalist discourses often downplay these opportunities or unduly demystify them
as being a smoke screen. But the undue emphasis on prospects for equality and
enlarged existential choice founders upon serious problems too. These involve
issues such as for whom the employment options are truly available, what happens
to cultures that are not very adaptable to the globalizing rationale and to what
extent (and filtered through what) remote cultures are really accessible.
Besides, any account of globalisation, precisely those which purport to grasp the
complexities and paradoxes of the phenomenon, must pay attention to the fundamental
inequalities that solidify or emerge from the course of restratification (Bauman, 1998,
p. 43) effected through globalisation. As Habermas diagnoses, ‘the gap between the
living conditions of the employed, the underemployed, and the unemployed is widening’ (1998, p. 315). Globalisation as, primarily, ‘a redistribution of privileges and
deprivations, of wealth and poverty, of resources and impotence’ (Bauman, 1998,
p. 43) widens the scope of choice for some and drastically narrows it for some others.
Given that our times are marked ‘by the structural menace to the welfarist
domestication of capitalism and by the revival of a neoliberalism unhampered by
considerations of social justice’ (Habermas, 1998, p. 314),5 equality is sacrificed
on the altar of performativity. A consequence of economic globalisation and the
competitiveness it has imposed is the transformation and reduction of the welfare
state mirrored in the fact that benefits drop, access to social security is toughened
and pressure on the unemployed is increased (Habermas, 1998, p. 315).
Educational Globalist Discourse
The dilemmas and tensions of globalism are noticeable in educational theory too.
Some commentators concentrate on the complexities of the global knowledge
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
544 Marianna Papastephanou
economy and their impact on education directing their endeavours in a theorization
of the new possibilities. Novel conceptions of spatiality, the cyberspace, and diaspora
(Usher, 2002) as well as the features of knowledge economy (Peters, 2002)6 attract
the attention of theorists in a way that often refrains from painting a gloomy
picture—or sometimes creates a picture that is even overtly optimist.
Some others refer to the fact that globalisation threatens traditional forms and
structures of pedagogy to render them obsolete (Heath, 2002). Haynes (2002, p. 103)
contrasts the conception of the university ‘as a community of academics engaged
in a range of traditions or practices’ with its conception as a ‘quasi-governmental
administrative entity’—a conception shaped by globalizing procedures and the
tolerance or welcome they encounter in educational systems and policies. The latter
conception should be combated because it reduces the university to an organization
‘employing workers to value-add to customers intending to maximise personal
economic rewards from future engagement in a more competitive national economy’
(p. 103).
Others focus not so much on the threats confronting tradition and community
but rather on what they view as an overwhelming tendency of the globalized world
to treat education solely as a means to an end (Coxon, 2002, pp. 69–70). Education,
then, turned to a commodity (Bagnall, 2002, p. 81), becomes ‘instrumental to
goods which lie outside the realm of knowledge and rational or critical understanding’ (Heath, 2002, p. 38).7 In this way, it is complicitous in the cultivation of
consumptive subjectivities (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 519) and the promotion of policies
that aim to ‘ensure the competitiveness of the national economy in the face of
globalization’ disregarding the democratic deficits they involve (Rizvi & Lingard,
2000, p. 421). Such deficits affect detrimentally, among other things, gender sensitive
state policies and educational practices (Blackmore, 2000).8
True, there is a positive side in the relation of globalisation and education which
seems to relate chiefly to new modes of encouraging multiculturalism, group differentiated citizenship, diversity and cross-cultural encounters. However, this
admission should not be overgeneralized and exaggerated lest the negative side will
be obscured and covered up. Some educationalists have already acknowledged that
the educational systems of the newer states emerging as a result of recent developments
in world affairs ‘may be shaped by some degree by colonialism’ (Dale, 2000, p.
446). Bagnall argues that the internationalisation of higher education may be seen
as ‘counter-ethical to the extent that it is irremediably cultural hegemonic regardless of the efforts that are made to be sensitive and responsive to the cultures into
which it is marketed’ (2002, p. 85). Others diagnose a homogenizing linguistic
imperialism operating in educational systems worldwide endangering linguistic
diversity and plurality (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2001; …

GEN499 Importance of becoming a global citizen

Top-quality papers guaranteed

100% original papers

Confidential service

Money-back guarantee

Enjoy the free features we offer to everyone

Calculate how much your essay costs

How to place an order

What we are popular for

Ask experts to write you a cheap essay of excellent quality