Instrumentalism, ideals and imaginaries: theorising the contested space of global citizenship education in schools

Abstract

This paper exposes the tensions between different agendas and calls for what is loosely called 'global citizenship education' by developing a set of sociological conceptual tools useful for engaging with associated educational forms and ideals. It presents the instrumentalist and normative agendas at play within global citizenship education policy, theory and practice. Recent theoretical critiques of more mainstream global citizenship education are considered, encapsulated in calls for a form of 'cosmopolitan learning'. This learning is associated with the development of epistemic virtues (Rizvi 2009) and calls for an epistemological shift (Andreotti 200?) in the way knowledge, learning and identities are seen. It is argued that there is much to be gained from this recent body of academic work, but that it must also be accompanied by empiricallyinformed understandings of current school contexts and the hegemonic notions of corporate cosmopolitan capital at play. The position is taken that no matter how global citizenship education is theorised, key theoretical, conceptual, and practical questions need to be asked that expose the normative, universalist and instrumentalist agendas at play.

Maintaining Global Citizenship Education in Schools: A Challenge for Australian Educators and Schools

“…Policies and approaches vary from country to country, because of differing national contexts and perspectives. This is reflected in the variety of approaches to GCE being taken in schools in the many countries surveyed by UNESCO (2014), across Europe (Bourn, 2016), and the UK (Mannion et al, 2011;Oxley & Morris, 2013;Marshall, 2011). The range noted here includes economic, or technical-economic, cultural, political, global social-justice or rights based agendas.…”

“…Global citizenship education remains a highly contested space, with a set of distinct competing agendas in the curriculum approaches used (UNESCO, 2014;Marshall, 2011). Policies and approaches vary from country to country, because of differing national contexts and perspectives.…”

Are WE the world? A critical reflection on selfhood and global citizenship education

“…He argues that the tasks of the "global citizen" might reflect the European colonizing mission. Writing from a sociological perspective, Marshall (2011) points out that promoting education for a particular "type of active and impassioned global citizenship and social change in fact advocates an instrumentalist, 'cosmopolitan capital model. ' " (p. 418) Considering the difficulties that exist at a conceptual level regarding global citizen subjectivity, it is not surprising that translation of such ideas into educational practices then becomes difficult.…”

Global citizenship education within a context of accountability and 21st century skills: The case of Olympus High School

“…Marshall (2011) identifies several different agendas behind the current call for global citizenship education in schools. Among these, two are particularly at odds: the "technical-economic" and "social justice" agendas.…”

“…From a technical-economic point of view, teaching and learning about the world are pursued to help the individual become more competent and successful in the global marketplace; from a social justice point of view, the aim is instead to benefit humanity as a whole, for instance by preparing students to confront global challenges and work toward a more just and peaceful world. Marshall (2011) notes that the field of GCE is currently lacking empirical research that might inform "how schools negotiate the tensions between these agendas" (p. 10). Empirical documentation can help us to understand the challenges and possibilities of GCE and to situate the two competing agendas within the current socio-political context.…”