Previewpdf

Conversations on Global
Citizenship Education
This volume offers a remarkable collection of theoretically and practi-

cally grounded conversations with internationally recognized scholars
who share their perspectives on Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in
relation to university research, teaching, and learning.
Conversations on Global Citizenship Education brings together
the narratives of a diverse array of educators who share their unique
experiences of navigating GCE in the modern university. Conversations
focus on why and how educators’ theoretical and empirical perspectives
on GCE are essential for achieving an all-embracing GCE curriculum
which underpins global peace. Drawing on the Freirean concept of “con-
scientization”, GCE is presented as an educational imperative to combat
growing inequality, seeping nationalism, and post-truth politics.
This timely volume will be of interest to educators who are seeking to
develop their theoretical understanding of GCE into teaching practice,
researchers and students who are new to GCE and who seek dynamic
starting points for their research, and general audience who are inter-
ested in learning more about the history, philosophy, and practice of
GCE.
Emiliano Bosio is a Senior Lecturer at Tokyo Woman’s Christian Univer-

sity, Japan.
Critical Global Citizenship Education
Edited by Carlos Alberto Torres, University of California
Los Angeles, USA.
1 Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global

Carlos Alberto Torres
2 Educating the Global Environmental Citizen

Understanding Ecopedagogy in Local and Global Contexts
Greg William Misiaszek
3 The Struggle for Citizenship Education in Egypt

(Re)Imagining Subjects and Citizens
Edited by Jason Nunzio Dorio, Ehaab D. Abdou, Nashwa
Moheyeldine
4 Teacher Education for Sustainable Development and Global

Citizenship
Edited by Philip M. Bamber
5 Exploring the Complexities in Global Citizenship Education

Hard Spaces, Methodologies, and Ethics
Edited by Lauren Ila Misiaszek
6 Conversations on Global Citizenship Education

Perspectives on Research, Teaching, and Learning in Higher
Education
Edited by Emiliano Bosio
Conversations on Global
Perspectives on Research, Teaching,
and Learning in Higher Education
Edited by Emiliano Bosio

First published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
The right of Emiliano Bosio to be identified as the author of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-36544-8 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-74056-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-34689-7 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
Contents
List of Figures and Tablesvii

Acknowledgmentsviii
List of Contributorsix
Forewordxiii
Introductionxix
PART I
Critical Views in Global Citizenship Education:
Critical Pedagogy, Otherwise/Postcoloniality,
Conviviality, and Planetary Citizenship 1
1 Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship Education3

HENRY A. GIROUX AND EMILIANO BOSIO
2 Global Citizenship Otherwise13

SHARON STEIN AND VANESSA ANDREOTTI
3 Global Citizenship Education as a Counter Colonial

Project: Engaging Multiple Knowledge Systems for
Transformational Change37
LYNETTE SHULTZ
4 From Global to Planetary Citizenship: A Proposal

for Evolving Brazil University Curriculum45
SILVIA ELISABETH MORAES, EDUARDO MORAES ARRAUT,
AND JOSEFINA MORAES ARRAUT
5 Cultivating Global Citizenship Education and Its

Implications for Education in South Africa62
YUSEF WAGHID
vi Contents
PART II
Global Skills for Social Justice, Critical Semiotics, and
the Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization,
and Global Citizenship Education 73
6 Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education 75

DOUGLAS BOURN
7 Educating for Global Citizenship in Diverse

and Unequal Societies 89
MASSIMILIANO TAROZZI
8 Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics 103

MAUREEN ELLIS
9 Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization,

and Global Citizenship Education 123
MIRI YEMINI
PART III
Flourishing, Awareness, Responsibility, Participation,
and Humanism as the Underpinning for Global
Citizenship Education 135
10 Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education 137

WILLIAM GAUDELLI
11 Global Citizenship Education as Awareness,

Responsibility, and Participation 153
HANS SCHATTLE
12 Global Citizenship Education and Humanism:

A Process of Becoming and Knowing 170
MARIA GUAJARDO
13 Global Citizenship Education as a Metacritical

Pedagogy: Concluding Reflections 185
EMILIANO BOSIO
Index 190
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
2.1 In Earth’s CARE Global Justice Framework 16
2.2 and 2.3 The House Modernity Built and Its Hidden Costs 24
7.1 A Global Social Justice Framework 90
13.1 Principles of Metacritical Global Citizenship Education 186
Tables
I.1 Example of Interview Questions xxi
2.1 Mainstream Global Citizenship/Global Citizenship
Otherwise23
2.2 Modern Promises and the Colonial Processes
That Subsidize Them 25
2.3 LAPSED Approaches to Social Justice and Change 26
Acknowledgments
The idea for this book came from my dialogues on Global Citizenship
Education (GCE) with Carlos Alberto Torres who I would like to par-
ticularly thank for inspiring my work. I would also like to thank all the
outstanding scholars from all over the world for their contributions and
commitment to support this book, which I am hopeful will make an
important contribution to research, teaching, and learning in GCE and
demonstrate its value toward more just societies.
List of Contributors
Vanessa Andreotti is a Full Professor and Canada Research Chair in Race,

Inequalities, and Global Change in the Department of Educational
Studies at the University of British Columbia. Her research examines
historical and systemic patterns of reproduction of inequalities and
how these limit or enable possibilities for collective existence and
global change.
Eduardo Moraes Arraut is Adjunct Professor of Geomatics at the
Department of Hydric Resources and Environment, Civil Engineering
Division, Technological Institute of Aeronautics (ITA), where he
teaches the undergraduate and postgraduate courses in remote sensing
(RS) and geographical information systems (GIS). He is also the
co-coordinator for South America of the Group for Sustainable Use
and Management of Ecosystems (SUME), Commission on Ecosystem
Management (CEM), and International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN).
Josefina Moraes Arraut is Adjunct Professor at the Department of
Atmospheric Sciences at the Federal University of Campina Grande.
Josefina teaches several undergraduate and graduate courses on the
topics – Dynamic Meteorology, Synoptic Meteorology, Physical
Oceanography, Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction and supervises various
MSc and PhD students on their thesis work on those same areas. Prior
to this engagement, she worked as a researcher at the Centre of Earth
System Sciences in Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, as
a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere
Studies, at George Mason University and as a visiting research scientist
at the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading.
Emiliano Bosio is a Senior Lecturer in Education at Tokyo Woman’s
Christian University, Tokyo, Japan. He is also a Research Committee
Member at the Center for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) in the United
States and is Contributor to the Academic Network on Global
x List of Contributors
Education and Learning (ANGEL), a UK based network established
in close cooperation between Global Education Network of Europe
(GENE) and the Development Education Research Centre (DERC) at
the University College London, Institute of Education. His work is
centered on developing and integrating innovative, ethical, and critical
approaches to global learning and global citizenship education into
university curriculum across East Asia, Europe, and the United States.
Douglas Bourn is Professor of Development Education and Director of the
Development Education Research Centre at University College London,
UK. He is author of The Theory and Practice of Development Education
(2015), Understanding Global Skills for 21st Century Professions (2018)
and editor of Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning
(2020) and was previously (2008–2015) the editor of the International
Journal of Development Education and Global Learning.
Maureen Ellis is Senior Research Associate at the Development Education
Research Centre, University College London, and Associate Lecturer,
The Open University, UK. Maureen does research in Linguistic
Anthropology, Cognitive Semiotics, and Comparative Education. Her
vision/mission is communicating Progressive Revelation; Omega union
of Science and Spirituality; emergent, evolutionary co-creative Quantum
Consciousness.
William Gaudelli is the eighth Dean of the College of Education
at Lehigh University. Dean Gaudelli’s career spans 30 years as a
classroom teacher, researcher, professor, and seasoned administrator.
A prominent international scholar, his research areas focus on
global citizenship education and teacher education and development.
Dr. Gaudelli most recently served as the Chair of the Department of
Arts and Humanities at Teachers College, Columbia University.
Henry A. Giroux is a world-renowned educator, author and public
intellectual. He holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship
in the Public Interest, and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in
Critical Pedagogy. Professor Giroux has authored, or coauthored over
65 books, written several hundred scholarly articles, delivered more
than 250 public lectures, and been a regular contributor to print,
television, and radio news media outlets.
Maria Guajardo is Professor in Leadership Studies at Soka University,
Tokyo, Japan. Her area of expertise includes leadership, with a
focus on women, GCE, and leadership development. She served as
the inaugural Dean for the Faculty of International Liberal Arts at
Soka University, then as Vice-President, and is the founding director
of the Women’s Leadership Initiative at Soka University. Prior to her
arrival in Japan, Maria was sought out internationally as a speaker
List of Contributors xi
and trainer on Leadership, Inclusive Excellence, and Racial Healing.
She is the recipient of a U.S. Congressional Commendation for her
advancement of Latino education. Currently she serves as a Trustee for
Soka University of America. Maria, a licensed clinical psychologist,
received her A.B. from Harvard University, and her M.A. and Ph.D.
from the University of Denver.
Silvia Elisabeth Moraes is Professor and Supervisor at the education
postgraduate programme, Federal University of Ceará. Her
postdoctorate research was on Habermas’ theory of communicative
action at the University of São Paulo. She held a Senior Internship
at the Development Education Research Center (DERC), University
College London (UCL). Professors Moraes’ main interests are
curriculum theory, citizenship, theory of communicative action, and
postcolonialism.
Hans Schattle is Professor of Political Science at Yonsei University in
Seoul, South Korea. He works across the usual dividing lines in
political science and international relations, with interests ranging
from globalization, citizenship, media, and democracy to the
politics of Europe and East Asia. Professor Schattle has written
two books, The Practices of Global Citizenship and Globalization
and Citizenship, both published by Rowman & Littlefield, as well
as numerous articles in academic journals. He earned his doctorate
in politics at Oxford and, most recently, he has coedited the volume
Making Social Democrats: Citizens, Mindsets, Realities, published
by Manchester University Press.
Lynette Shultz is Professor and Director of the Centre for Global Citizenship
Education and Research at the University of Alberta. She is an advisor on
several international boards including the Global Centre for Pluralism,
The World University Network, and the International Research Center
on Global Citizenship Education.
Sharon Stein is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational
Studies at the University of British Columbia. Her work offers critical
and decolonial analyses of the role of higher education in society, and
seeks to pluralize the available imaginaries of justice, responsibility,
sustainability, and change.
Massimiliano Tarozzi is full professor in Education at the Department of
Life Quality Studies, where he teaches in the areas of General Education
and Global Citizenship Education and he is chairing the International
Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education. He is Director of the
International Research Centre on Global Citizenship Education (IRC-
GloCEd) at the University of Bologna and Coordinator of the Academic
Network on Global Education & Learning (ANGEL) in the UK.
xii List of Contributors
Carlos Alberto Torres is Distinguished Professor of Education at the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and former Director of
the UCLA-Latin American Center. He is also the Founding Director of
the Paulo Freire Institute in São Paulo, Brazil; Buenos Aires, Argentina;
and UCLA. He is considered one of the world’s leading authorities
on Latin American Studies and Global Citizenship Education, and
the principal biographer of Brazilian philosopher and critical social
theorist, Paulo Freire.
Yusef Waghid is a Distinguished Professor of philosophy and education
and reads philosophy of education at Stellenbosch University in South
Africa. He is the principal editor of the acclaimed journal, Citizenship
Teaching and Learning. He is coeditor with Ian Davies, Li Hu Ho,
Dina Kiwan, Carla Peck, Andrew Peterson, and Edda Sant of Global
Citizenship and Education (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan).
Miri Yemini is Senior Lecturer at the Tel Aviv University and Cochair
UNESCO Chair on Technology, Internationalization, and Education.
Foreword
Books speak to us
“When evening comes, I return home and go into my study. On the

threshold, I strip off my muddy, sweaty, workday clothes, and put
on the robes of court and palace, and in this graver dress, I enter
the antique courts of the ancients and am welcomed by them, and
there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born.
And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their
actions, and they, in their humanity, reply to me. And for the space
of four hours, I forget the world, remember no vexation, fear poverty
no more, tremble no more at death: I pass indeed into their world.”1
In this book of conversations, Professor Emiliano Bosio raises several

open-ended questions introducing four themes. These are: i) the ration-
ales behind GCE, ii) the operations of global citizenship concept in the
institutional context of universities, iii) the attitudes vis a vis global cit-
izenship in their own universities, and iv) how GCE intersect with the
domains of learning objectives, curriculum, and instruction.
Built through these questions, these dialogues reference critical views
of global citizenship which is the first section of the book; the second
section addresses what are the global skills for social justice; and the
third section discusses the humanistic foundations of GCE. This last
subject is consistent with the model of the United Nations and particu-
larly UNESCO. At the end of the book, there is a synthesis from editor
Emiliano Bosio confronting the dilemmas, conundrums, and challenges
of implementation of GCE in higher education, not only in industrial
advance societies – home of the majority of the authors in this volume –
but also in developing social formations.
Because this book is accessible yet rigorous, and speaks about polit-
ical activism and GCE as a potential social movement 2 , in many ways,
this book follows the pledge of Michael Burawoy for public sociology.
This style of scientific disciplinary work in the eyes of Burawoy should
engage “multiple publics in multiple ways”.3 I would argue that public
xiv Foreword
sociology, like public science, should engage particularly nonacademic
audiences. A book of dialogues is a perfect conduit for this endeavor.
The origins of this book date back to a dialogue that Professor
Emiliano Bosio and I had at UCLA in 2018, when he interviewed me
for his dissertation. I derived a great deal of pleasure in our dialogue
and began to understand better the important research that Professor
Emiliano Bosio was conducting.4 Apropos of our dialogues, I invited
Professor Emiliano Bosio who was ready to finish his doctoral disserta-
tion at the University of London and a seasoned scholar in his own right,
to produce a book of dialogues for the series.
Dialogue is a quintessential feature of academia and scholarship. We
dialogue with authors dead centuries ago and we call them classics. We
dialogue with contemporary authors and we learn from them and even
confront their views which is part and parcel of knowledge construction
and scientific work. We dialogue in our classrooms with our students, in
person and through digital pedagogy but we dialogue all the time about
our areas of expertise, commitments, research findings, and dreams.
Reading Machiavelli some years ago, I was struck by a famous sen-
tence as I discovered later, which become very meaningful to me, and is
the epigraph for the first section of this Foreword. Since my early begin-
nings as a reader, I rarely approached books only as sources of informa-
tion. The good ones allowed me to engage in dialogue with their authors.
Listen to what Machiavelli’s metaphorical analysis tells us; we know
there are no many palaces, courts, or rituals of changing our clothes out
of respect to these dead masters after arriving to our study these days.
However, in many ways, those books that become meaningful for many
generations are somewhat independent of the author, even though the
author communicates with us through her or his prose or narrative. A
vignette will illustrate. I was with Paulo Freire on a lovely spring day of
1983 visiting Stanford University bookstore. In one of the shelves, Freire
saw his famous book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Rather than getting it,
holding it, caressing the pages of the book as if it will be one of his chil-
dren, he walked past the book and told me that every time he sees a copy
of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he would like to say “good morning”.
This simply vignette helps understand that for Freire, his now-classic
book has taken a life on its own. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a book
that challenges, illuminates, and questions generations of readers while
entertaining all sorts of dialogues for people in the pursuit of knowledge
and praxis for social justice.
Dialogue as a Source of Learning and Democracy
“The moral qualities of dialogue or deliberation account for yet

another conception of democracy relying on the transformation of
people’s preferences. Despite many versions of this general outlook,
all rely on dialogue as a means of containing selfish interest and
Foreword xv
the power of factions based on them. This constraint is achieved
by dialogue’s tendency to exclude those positions which cannot be
sustained on an impartial basis”5
As the editor of this book indicated, “The tone of the interviews – which
inevitably takes the shape of conversations on GCE – connects the nar-
rative of senior educators and makes the book distinctive in three differ-
ent ways. Firstly, while some publications have had elements focusing on
critically analyzing GCE, it is unusual for senior educators’ “voices” who
actually teach GCE to be represented within a book, and it is not common
for specific localized theory and pedagogy regarding GCE to be closely
examined in a form of conversation. Secondly, this work is unique as a sin-
gle author publication that focuses on critically analyzing GCE in terms
of conversation with those educators who have considerable experience
in the field. Thirdly, the intention of this book is to offer a “roadmap”
regarding GCE theoretical approaches and teaching experience.”
We may have underestimated the value of dialogues in academy.
Philosopher of education, Nicholas Burbules highlighted the different
meanings of dialogue which should be part and parcel of our pedagogy,
teaching, and research. Burbules argues that dialogue has many mean-
ings. It could be defined as inquiry, as conversation, as debate, as a game,
as instruction, and as a type of interaction which, in his opinion, can be
also constructed as a pedagogical communicative relation.6 In the same
vein, I have argued in one of my books that dialogue is a method and
experience of learning and struggle.7
Dialogue has been defined as a particular kind of communica-
tive relation, a conversational interaction directed, and intentionally
toward teaching and learning. Dialogue is different from storytelling,
which entertains and may eventually educate. From critical perspec-
tives, through dialogue and narrative, critical experiences can be con-
structed as theories that may speak of truth and sincere caring, ever
more important in this time and age of post-truth dishevelment. Alas,
dialogues also speak about the struggles, dreams, and hopes of the par-
ticipants.8 Dialogues can empower but also disempower. Dialogues that
empower are engaging, imaginative, playful. Engaging dialogue allows
oral stories to come alive, vignettes to be educational, and they become
a tool of enlightenment and empowerment as well as a source of recon-
structed collective histories embedded in individual stories. For instance,
dialogues about peace work, drawing particularly from oral stories of
women peace activists, offer a unique perspective of social struggles in
the United States.9
Dialogues allow for voices to emerge and new narratives to develop
without the restriction of the grammar and syntax of written prose.
The outcomes of spontaneous or planned dialogues do not have to
be judged necessarily in terms of the context of discovery or scientific
xvi Foreword
validation. A good dialogue unleashes sources of creativity, even ena-
bling the craft of fiction, the art of poetry, and the appraisal of the syn-
ergism between theory and practice to emerge in a vivid, even exuberant
form, going beyond idiosyncrasies and viewpoints.10
Dialogues are constructive but they are also disruptive because they
can bring out some of our own contradictions as individuals and/or
scholars. They can question forms of interpretation and style of analysis
that, at least in academia, are considered well established. Dialogues
as experimental, disruptional or simply innovative writing demonstrate
how the boundaries between “literature” and other forms of cultural
writing “have become hopelessly blurred”.11
These dialogues are about GCE as it is taught in universities. GCE
should be part of an educational policy that is technically competent,
ethically sound, and politically feasible, and should find a special place
in our universities’ curricula. There is no question that in the United
States, we do need a reasonable and honest government administration
to create these conditions because Trump’s administration was nothing
of that sort. Even in the shadow of an authoritarian populist regime
in the United States, many scholars in the US universities continue our
commitment to social justice education.
Dialogues on Global Citizenship Education.
“While the World may be increasingly interconnected, human rights

violations, inequality, and poverty still threaten peace and sustaina-
bility. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response
to those challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to
understand that these are global, not local issues and to become
active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure, and
sustainable societies.”12
Dialogical practices are central to address how education (and, particularly,

GCE) relates to the common good. GCE is seen as a key mechanism that
has the potential to identify common interests, problems, and solutions
via negotiation and coordination involving a dialectic of the global and
the local. I have suggested13 that global citizenship should add value to
national citizenship14 and to the global commons. The concept of global
commons builds on three components that define the common good of
humanity: (1) Planet; (2) Peace; (3) People.15 Global commons are defined
by three basic propositions. The first is that our planet is our only home,
and we have to protect it. Secondly, global peace is an intangible cultural
good of humanity with immaterial value. Global peace is a treasure of
humanity. Thirdly, there is a need to find ways for people to live together
democratically in an ever-growing diverse world, seeking to fulfill their
individual and cultural interest and achieving their inalienable rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Foreword xvii
As we have argued elsewhere,16 the central question regarding peace
concerns the process of how we can cultivate the spirit of solidarity across
differences. The authors of these dialogues about GCE believe that this
evolving concept may help global peace, the planet, and all people through
its contribution to civic engagement, via its three key elements – cognitive
(to better understand the world and its complexities), affective (to enable
living together with others respectfully and peacefully), and behavioral (to
activate).17 Other important aspects include considerations for equality of
opportunity, welfare, and cultural diversity in a cosmopolitan view of the
world as proposed by Ulrich Beck18.
We confront many challenges in trying to incorporate GCE into our
curricula – How to build better schools – that is, intellectually richer
schools – particularly for those who are socially disadvantaged in
terms of power and resources? How to build a global democratic mul-
ticultural citizenship curriculum where everybody learns from the rich
diversity of society and where the trends toward fragmentation (i.e.
balkanization and separatism) in modern societies can be prevented
and even reversed? How might the experience of the uneducated,
unemployed, angry, and disenfranchised be included in new models of
learning and praxis?19
Conversations on Global Citizenship Education: Perspectives on
Research, Teaching and Learning provide a rich gamut of experiences
and reflections on how GCE has been played out in the teaching and
curriculum of many universities in diverse parts of the world. It is not
only a very accessible book, but one that has been selected as one of
the Routledge research texts to be put forward for Routledge pledge for
OA funding as part of their partnership with Knowledge Unlatched. If
successful, this book will be made Open Access upon publication with
thanks to funding support from libraries across the globe.
Carlos Alberto Torres
Notes
1 See Joshua Kaplan. (1961). Political theory: The classic texts and their con-
tinuing relevance. The Modern Scholar (14 lectures in the series; lecture
#7/disc 4), 2005. Other relevant sources are J. R. Hale, The Literary Works
of Machiavelli. Oxford University Press, 139 and https://www.goodreads.
com/quotes/66377-when-evening-comes-i-return-home-and-go-into-my/
2 (2017). For an additional perspective on the topic, see Torres, Carlos
Alberto. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global Citi-
zenship Education. New York and London: Routledge, 109–128.
3 Burawoy, Michael. (2005). For public sociology (PDF). American Socio-
logical Review. 70:4–28. doi: 10.1177/000312240507000102. Retrieved
September 13, 2020.
xviii Foreword
4 See C.A. Torres & E. Bosio. (2020). Continuing our dialogues, we had pub-
lished two of them in 2020. Global Citizenship Education at the crossroads:
Globalization, global commons, common good and critical consciousness
prospects. Comparative Journal of Curriculum, Learning, and Assess-
ment. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-019-09458-w
Torres, C., & Bosio, E. (2020). Critical Reflections on the Notion of
Global Citizenship Education. A dialogue with Carlos Alberto Torres in
relation to higher education in the United States. Encyclopaideia, 24(56),
107–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/10742
5 Nino, Carlos A. (1996). The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy.
New Haven, Yale University Press, 101.
6 Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice. New
York and London: Teacher College Press.
7 (1998). I will reprise briefly herein some of the analyses I did in one of my
favorite books published in 1998 that sought to understand the beginnings
of the critical studies in education in the United States. See Carlos Alberto
Torres, Editor. Education, Power and Personal Biographies. Dialogues
with Critical Educators. New York and London: Routledge.
8 Neil Noddings. (1991). Stories in dialogue: Caring and interpersonal
reasoning. In C. Witherell and Neil Noddings (Eds.), Stories Life Tell.
Narrative and Dialogues in Education. 157–170. New York and London:
Teachers College Press.
9 Judith Porter Adams. (1991). Peacework. Oral Histories of Women Peace
Activists. Boston: Twayne.
10 Rita Guibert. (1973). Seven Voices, Seven Latin American Writers Talk
with Rita Guibert. New York, Alfred A. Knoft.
11 David William Foster. (1985). Alternative Voices in the Contemporary
Latin America Narrative. Columbia: University of Missoury Press, 148.
12 https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced
13 Torres, Carlos Alberto. (2017). Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of
Critical Global Citizenship Education. New York and London: Routledge.
14 A concern is that growing poverty and inequality exclude large segments
of individuals from active citizenship. Both global and national citizenship
depend on material basics and civic virtues.
15 Problems in the global system that undermine peace and prosperity include
but cannot be restricted to: (1) unabated poverty; (2) growing inequality;
(3) neoliberal globalization that has weakened the systems of organized
solidarity of the democratic nation-state; (4) banking education with
authoritarian and inadequate curriculum in elementary, secondary, and
higher education; and (5) destruction of the planet’s eco-system.
16 Desjardins, Richard, Torres, Carlos Alberto, & Susan Wiksten. Social
Contract Pedagogy: A Dialogical and Deliberative Model for Global Citi-
zenship Education. Background paper for the UNESCO’s Futures of Edu-
cation Commission. Los Angeles: Unpublished.
17 UNESCO. (2020). “What Is Global Citizenship Education?” Retrieved
(https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/definition).
18 Beck, Ulrich. (2006). Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
19 Desjardins, Richard, Torres, Carlos Alberto, & Susan Wiksten. (1998).
Op. Cit, and Carlos Alberto Torres, Democracy, Education, and Mul-
ticulturalism. Dilemmas of Citizenship in the Global World. Lanham:
Maryland.
Introduction
Conversations With Educators
on Global Citizenship Education:
In the Pursuit of Social Justice
Emiliano Bosio
Educators form a cohort whose working life regularly interacts with

a number of different global influences, which means it is imperative
that we develop a better understanding of how complex teaching and
learning has become and how this impacts both the theory and prac-
tice of Global Citizenship Education (GCE) (Bosio & Torres, 2019).
Torres (2017) suggests that GCE is a forward-looking framework that
supports the common good. It requires the individual to look beyond
their own interests and accept moral obligations and respond appro-
priately. Dill (2012, p. 541) adds that “whether real or aspired to, wel-
comed, or opposed, global citizenship education is commonly held to be
a far-reaching paradigm shift” in the ways teaching and learning in the
modern university evolves.
The conversations with educators on GCE offered in this book pro-
vide a global perspective of research, teaching, and learning in higher
education from right across the United States of America, Canada,
Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Israel, and Italy. The central element that the
conversations in this book share is the pursuit of an understanding of the
way in which educators both theoretically and empirically view GCE,
and how these views are essential for a holistic GCE to be introduced
in a society where inequality is increasing, populism and nationalism
is on the rise, supported by post-truth politics, with hatred and fear of
the “other” accompanying it (Torres & Bosio, 2020; Bosio, 2020). Such
considerations mean that the conversations in this book regarding GCE
concern far more than basic thoughts of how it should be delivered.
In this book, GCE is discussed as a way of introducing conscientization
(in Portuguese, “conscientização”) inspired by a desire for social justice
and with its foundations in critical pedagogy (Freire, 2004b). One sig-
nificant part of Freire’s (2004b) concept of critical pedagogy is for edu-
cation to undergo a constant process of engagement and reconstruction
so that it develops students’ political conscience. From this point of view,
using GCE to develop the values and knowledge of students “implies
not only reading the word, but also reading the world” (Goodman,
1992, p. 149) in order to help students in forming critical questions
xx Introduction
to approach the current domination of neoliberal globalization. GCE
pedagogy, as discussed in this book, incorporates culture and politics.
Seen in this light, GCE promotes enhancement of critical, humanistic,
and transformative values incorporating inclusivity ethically, remaining
closely intertwined with the influence education has on students’ values
and practical approaches to life (Young, 2008).
Taking this into consideration, the fundamental question arising from
the educators’ narratives and perspectives of GCE demonstrated in this
book boils down to – Why are we in research, teaching, and learning if
not to be able to help enrich the lives of our students?
This volume gathers together thoughts on this question and others
from senior educators who shared their perspectives in the book. The
aim of the book is then to promote a wider critical awareness of a num-
ber of educational contexts so that we can find synergistic solutions to
the questions of how we can promote GCE in critical and innovative
ways that espouse social justice when the neoliberal globalization narra-
tive is currently so dominant.
Distinctiveness of the Book

The tone of the interviews – which inevitably takes the shape of conver-
sations on GCE – connects the narrative of senior educators and makes
the book distinctive in three different ways. Firstly, while some publi-
cations have had elements focusing on critically analyzing GCE, it is
unusual for senior educators’ “voices” who actually teach GCE to be
represented within a book, and it is not common for specific localized
theory and pedagogy regarding GCE to be closely examined in a form
of conversation. Secondly, this work is unique as a single author pub-
lication that focuses on critically analyzing GCE in terms of conversa-
tion with those educators who have considerable experience in the field.
Thirdly, the intention of this book is to offer a “roadmap” regarding
GCE theoretical approaches and teaching experience. The conversations
offered in this book should be of value to three different audiences:
1 Educators who are seeking to develop their theoretical understand-

ing of GCE into teaching practice;
2 Researchers who are new to GCE and who seek dynamic starting
points for their research;
3 General audience who are interested in learning more about the his-
tory, philosophy, and practice of GCE.
From this point of view, the purpose of the conversations is to offer

clarification as to the thoughts of senior educators in terms of their cho-
sen approaches to GCE within their universities’ study programs and
courses. I endeavored to elicit the thoughts of the educators regardless
Introduction xxi
Table I.1 Example of Interview Questions
Rationales:
• What is your understanding of “educating for global citizenship”?
• How your academic as well as life “journey” has shaped this understanding?
• What are three key elements of educating for global citizenship in higher
education in your opinion?
Operations:
• How can education for global citizenship be made suitable for or attractive
to university students studying in your country?
• Why is or is not education for global citizenship necessary at universities in
your country?
Positions:
• What are the reasons behind positive and negative attitudes of educators
toward global citizenship at universities in your country?
Learning Objectives/Curriculum:
• What competences including knowledge, skills, attitudes/values, and
experiences are university students in your country expected to acquire in
order to become “global citizens” or “global graduates”?
• In your opinion, educating for global citizenship at universities is more
about knowledge, skills, and attitudes/value or some combination of all
three?
• How can university students’ achievements of these competences be
identified?
• What themes should a curriculum for global citizenship include in your
opinion in order to “fit” universities in your country?
of the fact that they were in an “interview situation” and to allow them
to offer a full elaboration of their thinking. A number of questions were
subject to discussion, where appropriate, that had a relationship to the
wider purpose of the book (see Table I.1).
Rationales. To begin with, the first set of questions focused on the
rationales behind the ways in which educators understood GCE.
Specifically, the focus was on eliciting educators’ conceptions of GCE as
informed by a variety of perspectives centered on both their academic
and life experiences. These questions examine both internal influences,
such as personal philosophy and educational ideology, and external
influences. For example, societal expectations, state policy, and specific
academic environments. The examination also looked at the way the
educators’ conceptions of GCE could be shaped by these elements.
Operations. Another set of questions was created to reveal the prac-
tical ways in which educators set up GCE courses to make them useful
and/or interesting to their students. I also tried to elicit why different
educators may have positive or negative attitudes to GCE, remembering
xxii Introduction
the fact that although there is much debate around GCE, with certain
notable exceptions, it is not common to find it holistically implemented
in a cross-disciplinary manner within universities.
Positions. The conclusion chapter third set of questions was created to
investigate the development of GCE within higher education institutions
with reference to the educators’ perspectives. This set of questions was
designed to identify the ways in which educators interpreted and imple-
mented GCE and how enthusiastic they were about the concepts and
objectives of their institutions.
Learning objectives/curriculum. The final set of questions was designed
as part of the investigation into the attributes graduates attained from their
GCE. This set of questions intended to investigate how educators under-
stand learning objectives (which include skills, values, and knowledge) and
citizenship in the context of growing neoliberal globalization. Specifically,
how educators felt the GCE curriculum should incorporate cognitive targets.
Altogether, the rich perspectives offered by the educators via conversa-
tions on GCE in this book present a distinctive description of the ways in
which contemporary GCE is conceptualized and taught. The educators’
perspectives enabled me to conceptualize a proposal for a GCE pedagog-
ical framework aimed at fostering students’ conscientization and social
justice rooted in critical pedagogy — the metacritical GCE — which I
describe in the concluding chapter of this book.
Main Themes and Structure of the Book

This book is divided into three main themes with each theme having a
number of chapters covering different conversations with senior educa-
tors from a range of countries around the world.
The first theme is Critical Views on Global Citizenship Education:
Critical Pedagogy, Otherwise/Postcoloniality, Conviviality, and Planetary
Citizenship. This theme encompasses a number of critical viewpoints
regarding global citizenship and GCE from the Global-north and Global-
south. In Chapter 1, Henry Giroux and Emiliano Bosio discuss the inter-
connection of critical pedagogy and GCE. They contend that there is a
need to promote social justice via a pedagogical and ethical interven-
tion that helps educators and students alike deconstructing ideologies of
oppression. Sharon Stein and Vanessa Andreotti, in Chapter 2, describe
their concept of “GCE/otherwise” in detail. This way of approaching
GCE and global citizenship offers learners the opportunity to become
de/centered, to feel more responsible, and to transform any damaging
aspirations that would prevent them coexisting harmoniously with
the planet and its inhabitants. Lynette Shultz, in Chapter 3, outlines a
concept of conviviality as being the ethical underpinning for GCE and
global citizenship. Conviviality centers on the concept that teaching and
learning should be done in ways that place an emphasis on harmonious
Introduction xxiii
coexistence and wellbeing, encompassing sustainability for sharing the
planet, protecting planetary diversity, living well, and coexisting peace-
fully. Silvia Elisabeth Moraes, Eduardo Moraes Arraut, and Josefina
Moraes Arraut, in Chapter 4, provide a critical perspective from the
Global-South, from Brazil. They examine the concept of planetary
citizenship instead of global citizenship in offering a novel inter/trans-
disciplinary introduction into the Brazilian university curriculum of
planetary citizenship and their self-described “Ecology of Knowledges”.
Lastly, in Chapter 5, Yusef Waghid proposes a defense of GCE along
the lines of democratic actions guided by an opposition to human rights
violations and the unequal treatment of all humans in South Africa. To
him, GCE in a university setting is related to rebuilding an African phi-
losophy of education in the context of cosmopolitan justice
The second theme is Global Skills for Social Justice, Critical Semiotics
and the Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and
Global Citizenship Education. Douglas Bourn, in Chapter 6, proposes
the necessity of moving away from narrow approaches to GCE skills
that equip students solely to operate in the job-market and toward social
justice, where skills are located within the globalization context and the
particular requirements of different societies, communities, and cultures.
Massimiliano Tarozzi, in Chapter 7, looks at a “social justice GCE” cen-
tered on postcolonial critical perspectives, with a stress on the ability of
this form of GCE to encapsulate and offer a response to new contempo-
rary educational demands, especially within Europe. Maureen Ellis, in
Chapter 8, looks at GCE in terms of critical global semiotics, promoting
the need for comprehensive consistent global approaches to the compre-
hension of cultural similarities and differences that ignore the borders of
both space and time. She highlights the advantages of the methodologies
and methods of critical global semiotics which offer a way of systemati-
cally addressing questions from the kindergarten upwards. In Chapter 9,
Miri Yemini suggests that although neoliberals have sometimes attacked
and sometimes exploited GCE and internationalization, educators could
find ways of interacting with these processes if they find ways of present-
ing their students with viable alternatives. These alternatives must be
created jointly between students and faculty to shape a holistic system
in which GCE is theoretically underpinned and informed by current dis-
courses regarding the implications and methodology of GCE.
The third and last theme is Flourishing, Awareness, Responsibility,
Participation, and Humanism as the Foundation for Global Citizenship
Education. In Chapter 10, William Gaudelli illustrates the way in which
notions of GCE and “human flourishing” are connected, proposing that
the connection is a way in which value can be created by both teach-
ers and learners giving them an objective and a way to aspire to greater
human development. Chapter 11 comprises a review by Hans Schattle of
the twenty years he has spent in the study of the ways in which “global
xxiv Introduction
citizenship” concepts are shared globally and their interpretation; addi-
tionally, he reflects on the university political science courses he has taught
with a focus on global citizenship. He explains that there have been three
central elements uppermost in his mind regarding GCE – the ways in which
he can help students participate more, be more responsible, and have greater
awareness. This trio of elements is a reminder that GCE encompasses
modes of thought and life in a multiplicity of interlinked communities. In
Chapter 12, Maria Guajardo uses humanistic perspectives to encourage a
broader comprehension of GCE and its contribution to empowering stu-
dents to “fuller humanity”: Having an awareness of personal humanity
and also welcoming to the humanity of all the world’s people.
Finally, in Chapter 13, the editor of the book, Emiliano Bosio, offers
some final reflections of the work as a whole and advances a proposal for
a metacritical pedagogical framework for GCE.
References
Bosio, E. (2020). Towards an ethical global citizenship education curriculum
framework in the modern university. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Bloomsbury handbook
for global education and learning, 187–206. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational
theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy
Futures in Education, 17(6), 745–760.
Dill, J. S. (2012). The moral education of global citizens. Society, 49(6), 541–546.
Freire, P. (2004b). Pedagogia da tolerância. [Pedagogy of Tolerance]. São Paulo:
UNESP.
Goodman, J. (1992). Elementary schooling for critical democracy. Albany: SUNY
Press.
Torres, C. A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global cit-
izenship education. Abingdon. UK: Taylor & Francis.
Torres, E., & Bosio, (2020). Global Citizenship Education at the crossroads:
Globalization, global commons, common good and critical consciousness pros-
pects. Comparative Journal of Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-019-09458-w
Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curric-
ulum. Review of research in education, 32(1), 1–28.
Part I
Critical Views in Global

Critical Pedagogy, Otherwise/
Postcoloniality, Conviviality,
and Planetary Citizenship
1 Critical Pedagogy and Global
Henry A. Giroux and Emiliano Bosio
1.1 Introduction
We live in problematic times. This is especially true for critical pedagogues
who are faced with the task of advancing global citizenship education
(GCE) in a time of rising right-wing populist governments, growing rac-
ism, and police brutality tragically exemplified by the killing of George
Floyd in the United States. For the last 40 years, neoliberalism has waged
a significant attack on the structure and role of public education. Under
such circumstances, social bonds are being loosened, public goods are
under siege and matters of collective responsibility are under attack by the
market-driven forces of marketization and selfish individualism (Bosio &
Torres, 2019; Giroux, 2020). Given the ongoing attack on democracy, the
social contact and the welfare state, critical pedagogy can play an impor-
tant role in reclaiming the public good and producing civic education,
literacy, and GCE (Bosio, 2017; Bosio, 2019; Torres & Bosio, 2020a/b).
With the subsequent dialogue, we contemplate how GCE can progress
and connect matters of theory and critique to pedagogical practices
informed by critical pedagogy by making the most of civic valor as an
approach to political challenges, allowing hope and politics to occupy
a space defined by morals, values, and public actions that tackle the
motion of everyday experience and the woes of social ills with the might
of individual and collective opposition. We believe that drawing upon
this philosophy can relaunch critical pedagogy and GCE as one uni-
fied force. This is a ‘re/vitalized’ pedagogical approach oriented towards
social justice which aims to resist the oppressive neoliberalism that is
taking over higher education environments (Bosio, 2020; Giroux, 2020).
1.2 Dialogue with Henry A. Giroux

EMILIANO BOSIO: What is the nexus between citizenship and global
citizenship?
HENRY A. GIROUX: Citizenship invokes a notion of the social in which
individuals have duties and responsibilities to others. A globalized
4 Henry A. Giroux, Emiliano Bosio
notion of citizenship extends the concept of the social contract beyond
the boundaries of the nation-state, invoking a broader notion of
democracy in which the global becomes the space for reaffirming and
exercising civic courage, social responsibility, politics, and compassion
for the plight of others. Clearly, citizens’ obligations to the environ-
ment cannot be seen as merely a national problem. At the same time,
there is a globalized notion of citizenship not just as a political issue of
rights and entitlements but also as an ethical challenge to narrow the
gap between the promise and the reality of a global democracy. It is
also important to recognize that the idea of citizenship cannot be sep-
arated from the spaces in which citizenship is developed and nurtured.
This suggests that any struggle over a globalized and meaningful
notion of citizenship that encourages debate and social responsibil-
ity must include fostering and developing democratic public spheres,
such as schools, media, and other institutions in which critical civic
pedagogies can be developed. The space of the pedagogical can-
not be enacted fully without the civic institutions that support its
ideas and practices. The notion of global citizenship suggests that
politics must catch up with power, which today has removed itself
from local and state control. New political structures, global insti-
tutions, and social movements that can reach and control the flows
of uncontrolled power, particularly economic power, must develop.
Real citizenship in the global sense means enabling people to have
a say in the shaping of international laws governing trade, the envi-
ronment, labor, criminal justice, and social protections. Citizenship
as the essence of politics has to catch up with new social formations
that the current political and social institutions of the nation-state
cannot influence, contain, or control.
BOSIO: What are the attributes of the global citizen in your opinion?
GIROUX: Citizens for a global democracy need to be aware of the inter-
related nature of all aspects of physical, spiritual, and cultural life as
part of a broader political and moral project. First, this means hav-
ing a deep-rooted understanding of the relational nature of global
dependencies, whether we are talking about the ecosphere or the cir-
cuits of capital. Second, citizens need to be multiliterate in ways that
not only allow them access to new information and media-based
technologies but also enable them to be border-crossers capable of
engaging, learning from, understanding, and being tolerant of and
responsible to matters of difference and otherness. This suggests
reclaiming, as central to any viable notion of citizenship, the values
of mutual worth, dignity, and ethical responsibility.
At stake here is the recognition that there is a certain civic vir-
tue and ethical value in extending our exposure to difference and
otherness. Citizens need to cultivate loyalties that extend beyond
the nation-state, beyond a theoretical distinction in which the
Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship 5
division between friend and enemy is mediated exclusively by
national boundaries. Clearly, citizenship as a form of empower-
ment means acquiring the skills that enable one to critically exam-
ine the history and to resuscitate those dangerous memories in
which knowledge expands the possibilities for self-knowledge and
critical and social agency. Knowledge need not be only Indigenous
to be empowering. Individuals must also have some distance from
the knowledge of their birth, origins, and specificity of place.
This suggests appropriating that knowledge that emerges through
dispersal, travel, border-crossings, diaspora, and through global
communications.
A cosmopolitan notion of citizenship must recognize the impor-
tance of a culture of questioning to any global concept of democ-
racy. The global public sphere must be a place where authority can
be questioned, power held accountable and dissent seen as having a
positive value. There is a growing authoritarianism in many parts
of the world, particularly the United States. In facing this threat
to democracy around the globe, it is crucial for educators, parents,
young people, workers, and others to fight the collapse of citizenship
into forms of jingoistic nationalism. This means educators and oth-
ers will have to reinvigorate democracy by assuming the pedagogical
project of prioritizing debate, deliberation, dissent, dialogue, and
public spaces as central to any viable notion of global citizenship. In
addition, if citizenship is to be global, it must develop a sense of rad-
ical humanism that comprehends social and environmental justice
beyond national boundaries. Human suffering does not stop at the
borders of nation-states.
BOSIO: What is the role of educators in the context of globalization and
how this can be framed in our discussion on critical pedagogy and
GCE?
GIROUX: I have always argued that educators must be treated as a critical
public resource, essential not only to the importance of an empower-
ing educational experience for students but also to the formation of a
democratic society. At the institutional level, this means giving edu-
cators an opportunity to exercise power over the conditions of their
work, particularly when it comes to educating the critical “global
citizen”. In this view, we cannot separate what educators do from
the economic and political conditions that shape their work, that
is, their academic labor. This means they should have both the time
and the power to institute structural conditions that allow them to
produce curricula, collaborate with parents, conduct research, and
work with communities.
Moreover, it can be suggested that for a critical GCE to be effec-
tive, university buildings must be limited in size to permit educa-
tors and others to construct, maintain, and enhance a democratic
community for themselves and their students. We are talking not
only about the issue of class size but also about how space is insti-
tutionally constructed as part of a political project compatible with
the formation of lived, democratic communities. In addition, par-
ticularly when it comes to implementing notions, such as “global
citizenship”, educators should be given the freedom to shape the
university curricula, engage in shared research with other educators
and with others outside of the university, and play a central role in
the governance of the school and their labor. Educational empow-
erment for educators cannot be separated from issues of power and
governance. Educators should be valued as public intellectuals who
connect critical ideas, traditions, disciplines, and values to the pub-
lic realm of everyday life.
But at the same time, educators must assume the responsibility
for connecting their work to larger social issues, particularly if they
educate for critical global citizenship while raising questions about
what it means to provide students with the values they need to write
policy papers, be resilient against defeat, analyze social problems,
and learn the tools of democracy and how to make a difference in
one’s life as a social agent.
BOSIO: What should be the purpose of a GCE when informed by critical
pedagogy?
GIROUX: A GCE informed by critical pedagogy must take seriously the
connections between theory and practice, reflection and action. All
too often, theory in academia slides into a form of “theoreticism”
in which it either becomes an end in itself, relegated to the heights
of an arcane, excessive and utterly ethereal existence or degener-
ates into a form of careerism, offering the fastest track to academic
rewards and promotions. But theory is hardly a luxury connected
to the fantasy of intellectual power. On the contrary, the theory is a
resource that enables us to both define and respond to problems as
they emerge in particular contexts. Its transformative power resides
in the possibility of enabling forms of agency, not in its ability to
solve problems. Its politics is linked to the ability to imagine the
world differently and then to act differently and this is its offering
to any viable notion of citizenship education. At stake here is not
the question of whether theory matters, which should be as obvious
as asking whether critical thought matters but the issue of what the
political and public responsibilities of theory might be, particularly
in theorizing global politics for the twenty-first century. Theory is
not just about contemplation or paving a way to academic stardom;
it is foremost about intervention in the world, raising ideas to the
worldly space of public life, social responsibility, and collective inter-
vention. If learning is a fundamental part of social change, then the
theory is a crucial resource for studying the full range of everyday
practices that circulate throughout diverse social formations and for
finding better forms of knowledge and modes of intervention in the
face of the challenge of either a growing authoritarianism or a man-
ufactured cynicism.
Moreover, I think a GCE informed by critical pedagogy begins
with the assumption that knowledge and power should always be
subject to debate, held accountable, and critically engaged. Central
to the very definition of critical pedagogy is a common concern for
reforming universities and developing modes of pedagogical practice
in which educators and students become critical agents actively ques-
tioning and negotiating the relationships between theory and practice,
critical analysis and common sense, and learning and social change.
This is hardly a prescription for propaganda. I think critical pedagogy
is often seen as dangerous because it is built around a project that goes
to the very heart of what education is about and is framed around a
series of important and often ignored questions, such as: Why do we,
as educators, do what we do the way we do it? Whose interest does
schooling serve? How might it be possible to understand and engage
the diverse contexts in which education takes place? Critical peda-
gogy at its essence is about the struggle over power, agency, authority,
desire, and what it means to prepare people for learning how to govern
rather than be governed. It is not a method per se but a theoretically
informed set of assumptions about the centrality of education to pol-
itics and envisioning a world in which justice and economic equality
become a thread informing and connecting a larger global universe.
Critical pedagogy must inform GCE in a way that is not simply
concerned with offering students new ways to think critically and
act with authority as agents in the classroom; in this sense, GCE, if
informed by critical pedagogy, must also be concerned with provid-
ing educators and students with the knowledge and values to expand
their capacities both to question deep-seated assumptions and myths
that legitimate the most archaic and disempowering social practices
that structure every aspect of society and to take responsibility for
intervening in the world. In other words, critical pedagogy forges a
GCE which, ideally, supports students’ agency through a language
of skepticism and possibility.
BOSIO: Do you think there is a “crisis of values” in the modern univer-
sity, particularly in the humanities? If so, how does this connect
with concepts of GCE, critical pedagogy and the role of educators
in your opinion?
GIROUX: The humanities traditionally has offered both a refuge and
a possibility for thinking about these issues, though under histor-
ical conditions which bear little resemblance to the present. This is
particularly evident as the conditions for the production of knowl-
edge, national identity, and citizenship have changed in a rapidly
globalizing, post-9/11 world order marked by the expansion of new
electronic technologies; the consolidation of global media; Western
deindustrialization, deregulation, and downsizing; the privatization
of public goods and services; and the marketization of all aspects of
social life. The “crisis of values” in the humanities reflects a crisis
within the larger society about the meaning and viability of insti-
tutions that define themselves as serving a public rather than a pri-
vate good. The “crisis of values” is often an argument that leaves
behind how modes of governance, faculty power, and the redefining
of students as consumers is being shaped by the neoliberalization of
higher education. This, of course, leads to a crisis of values, but it
also needs to be understood as a crisis of power.
The ongoing “vocationalization” of higher education, the commod-
ification of the curriculum, the increasing role the university plays as
part of the national security state and the transformation of students
into consumers have undermined the humanities in its efforts to offer
students the knowledge and skills they need for learning how to govern
as well as develop the capacities necessary for deliberation, reasoned
arguments, and social action. The incursion of corporate and military
culture into university life undermines the university’s responsibility
to provide students with an education that allows them to recognize
the dream and promise of a substantive democracy. While it is true
that the humanities must keep up with developments in the sciences,
the new media, technology, and other fields, its first responsibility is
treating these issues not merely pragmatically as ideas and skills to
be learned but as sites of political and ethical intervention, deeply
connected to the question of what it means to create students who can
imagine a democratic future for all people.
In its best moments, this era of crisis, fear, and insecurity has
reinvigorated the debate over the role that the humanities and the
university more generally might play in creating a pluralized pub-
lic culture essential for animating the basic precepts of democratic
public life. Matters of history, global relations, ethical concerns,
creativity, and the development of new literacies and modes of com-
munication should be central to any humanities education and the
conversation it enables. But at the same time, such conversations
have for the most part failed to consider more fundamental issues
about the need to revitalize the language of civic education as part
of a broader discourse of political agency and critical citizenship in a
globalized society. More specifically, a better understanding of why
the humanities has avoided the challenge of those critical discourses
capable of interrogating how society represents itself and how and
why individuals fail to critically engage such representations is cru-
cial if educators are to intervene in the oppressive social relation-
ships they often legitimate.
Given these contexts, educators in the humanities must ask new
kinds of questions, beginning with: How do educators respond to val-
ue-based questions regarding the “usefulness” of the humanities and
the range of purposes it should serve? What knowledge(s) are of most
worth? What does it mean to claim authority in a world where borders
are constantly shifting? What role does the humanities have in a world
in which the “immaterial production” of knowledge becomes the most
important form of capital? How might pedagogy be understood as
a political and moral practice rather than a technical strategy in the
service of corporate culture? And what relation should the humanities
have to young people as they develop a sense of agency, particularly in
relation to the obligations of critical global citizenship and public life
in a radically transformed cultural and global landscape?
As citizenship becomes increasingly privatized and youth are
increasingly educated to become consuming subjects rather than
critical social subjects, it becomes all the more imperative for educa-
tors working within the humanities to rethink the space of the social
and to develop a critical language in which notions of the public
good, public issues, and public life become central to overcoming
the privatizing and depoliticizing language of the market. Central
to this issue for me is the role that higher education might play as a
democratic public sphere.
BOSIO: In one of your well-known books you refer to the notion of
“teachers as intellectuals” (Giroux, Freire & McLaren, 1988)– why
this notion is relevant in contemporary societies and how this con-
nects with critical pedagogy and GCE?
GIROUX: I have always believed that the notion of the intellectual carries
with it a number of important political, cultural, and social reg-
isters. In contrast to the notion that intellectuals are a specialized
group of experts, I have argued that everybody is an intellectual in
that we all have the capacity to think, produce ideas, be self-critical,
and connect knowledge (wherever it comes from) to forms of self-
and social development. At the same time, those intellectuals who
have the luxury of defining their social function through the produc-
tion of intellectual ideas have a special responsibility to address how
power works through institutions, individuals, social formations,
and everyday life so as to enable or close down democratic values,
identities, and relations. More specifically, I believe that the most
important obligation that intellectuals have to knowledge is only
fulfilled through understanding their relationship to power not as
a complementary relation but as one of opposition. This suggests
not only understanding how power works but also how to struggle
for it, over it and use it in the service of justice and individual and
social empowerment. I also think as Jacques Derrida suggested that
courage is a special quality demanded of intellectuals and since the
1980s, it seems to be in short supply as the forces of repression have
grown more intense both in the United States and abroad.
I think intellectuals, whether in or outside of the academy, must con-
nect ideas to the world and engage their skills, knowledge, and values
as part of a larger struggle over democracy and justice. Intellectuals
have a responsibility not only to make truth prevail in the world and
fight injustice wherever it appears but also to organize their collective
passions to prevent human suffering, genocide, and diverse forms of
unfreedom linked to domination and exploitation. In this context,
a GCE informed by critical pedagogy has a role to play. Herewith,
intellectuals have a responsibility to analyze how language, informa-
tion, and meaning work to organize, legitimate, and circulate values,
structure reality, and offer up particular notions of agency and iden-
tity. For public intellectuals, the latter challenge demands a new kind
of literacy and critical understanding with respect to the emergence of
the new media and electronic technologies and the new and powerful
role they play as instruments of public pedagogy. Critical reflection
is an essential dimension of justice and it can be central to GCE, and
it is precisely with respect to keeping justice and democracy alive in
the public domain that intellectuals have a responsibility to the global
world. Today, the concept of the intellectual, as Pierre Bourdieu
reminds us, has become synonymous with public relations experts,
sycophantic apologists, and fast-talking media types. Educators as
public intellectuals need a new vocabulary for linking hope, social
citizenship, and education to the demands of a substantive democracy.
This can be a possible understanding of GCE.
I am suggesting that educators, particularly those involved with
teaching GCE, need a new vocabulary for connecting not only how
we read critically but also how we engage in movements for social
change. I also believe that simply invoking the relationships between
theory and practice, critique and social action will not do. Any
attempt to give new life to a substantive democratic politics must
address both how people learn to be political agents and what kind
of educational work is necessary within many kinds of public spaces.
People need to use their full intellectual resources to provide a pro-
found critique of existing institutions and to struggle toward fulfill-
ing the promise of a radical global democracy. As public intellectuals,
educators, and other cultural workers need to understand more fully
why the tools we used in the past feel awkward in the present, often
failing to respond to problems now facing the United States and other
parts of the globe. More specifically, we face the challenge posed by
the failure of existing critical discourses to bridge the gap between
how society represents itself and how and why individuals fail to
understand and critically engage such representations in order to
intervene in the oppressive social relationships they often legitimate.
It is also crucial for educators as public intellectuals to take seri-
ously what it means to provide the tools for both students and others
outside the academy to function as intellectuals. This means making
clear to others the necessity as Stuart Hall once put it of being at
the forefront of intellectual work and transmitting those ideas not
just within the academy but to a broader public. Intellectuals have
to be alive to the high stakes pedagogical value of persuasion, rheto-
ric, providing a discourse in which others can recognize themselves
while merging intellectual complexity with clarity and accessibility.
I refuse to accept the notion that arcane, leaden writing signals some
kind of blessed and incisive intelligence. I also think that intellectu-
als have a responsibility to both reach across academic specialties
and connect them at the same time. All public intellectuals should
be border-crossers. Moreover, I think intellectuals can never lose
sight of the need to keep matters of politics and power connected to
global issues of distributive justice.
By combining the mutually interdependent roles of critic and
active citizen, intellectual work at its best can exercise civic courage
as a political practice, a practice that begins when one’s life can
no longer be taken for granted. Such a stance not only connects
intellectual work to making dominant power accountable but also
makes concrete the possibility for transforming hope and politics
into an ethical space and public act that confront the flow of every-
day experience and the weight of social suffering with the force
of individual and collective resistance and the unending project
of democratic social transformation. The road to authoritarian-
ism begins when societies stop questioning themselves and when
such questioning stops, it is often because intellectuals either have
become complicit with such silence or actively produce it. Clearly,
critical intellectuals have a responsibility to oppose this deafen-
ing quiet in the face of an emerging global barbarism, evidence of
which can be seen in a number of growing religious, political, and
economic fundamentalisms.
BOSIO: Henry, your writings have undoubtedly inspired educators
worldwide who seek to provide a critically oriented education to
their students. Do you have any specific message for them?
GIROUX: Yes, these are very difficult times but the stakes are very high and
if we value democracy and have any hope whatsoever for the future,
we must continue the struggle for connecting education to democracy,
learning to social change, and excellence to equity. The only other
option is either cynicism or complicity and no educator deserves that.
I also think it is important to recognize that these struggles are going
on all over the world and that we are not alone and should not be
alone in taking on these crucial battles – battles that will determine
the fate of global democracy in the twenty-first century.
1.3 Conclusion
As we suggested in the introduction, these are challenging times for
critical pedagogues and citizenship educators. Neoliberal forces have
engaged in an ongoing assault on the edifice of public education and
the democratic values of solidarity and collectivism are gradually being
questioned or even superseded by notions of competition and individual-
ism. Critical pedagogy can help inform GCE in a way that helps neutral-
ize the forces of neoliberalism. We believe that GCE can be advanced,
even strengthened via critical pedagogy by drawing on civic courage as
a political practice which transforms hope and politics into an ethical
space and public act that confront the flow of everyday experience and
the weight of social suffering with the force of individual and collective
resistance. The application of these principles can reinvigorate critical
pedagogy and GCE simultaneously. This reinvigorated approach can
find space to operate and even challenge the dominant neoliberalism
present in university environments.
References
Bosio, E. (2017). Educating for global citizenship and fostering a nonkilling
attitude. In J. Evans Pim & S. Herrero Rico (Eds.), Nonkilling education
(pp. 59–70). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling.
Bosio, E. (2019). The need for a values-based university curriculum.
University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?
story=2019092415204357.
Bosio, E. (2020). Towards an ethical global citizenship education curriculum
framework in the modern university. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Bloomsbury hand-
book for global education and learning (pp. 187–206). London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An edu-
cational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos
Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education, 17(6), 745–760. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1478210319825517
Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Giroux, H. A., Freire, P., & McLaren, P. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward
a critical pedagogy of learning. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020a). Global citizenship education at the crossroads:
Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness.
Prospects, 48, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-019-09458-w
Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020b). Critical Reflections on the Notion of Global
Citizenship Education. A dialogue with Carlos Alberto Torres in relation to
higher education in the United States. Encyclopaideia, 24(56), 107–117. https://
doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/10742
Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship Education
Bosio, E. (2017). Educating for global citizenship and fostering a nonkilling attitude. In J.
Evans Pim & S. Herrero Rico (Eds.), Nonkilling education (pp. 5970). Honolulu: Center for
Global Nonkilling.
Bosio, E. (2019). The need for a values-based university curriculum. University World News.
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2019092415204357.
Bosio, E. (2020). Towards an ethical global citizenship education curriculum framework in the
modern university. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Bloomsbury handbook for global education and learning
(pp. 187206). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the
common good? A conversation with Carlos AlbertoTorres. Policy Futures in Education, 17(6),
745760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210319825517
Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Giroux, H. A., Freire, P., & McLaren, P. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical
pedagogy of learning. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. Prospects, 48,
99113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-019-09458-w
Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020b). Critical Reflections on the Notion of Global Citizenship
Education. A dialogue with Carlos AlbertoTorres in relation to higher education in the United
States. Encyclopaideia, 24(56), 107117. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/10742
Global Citizenship Otherwise

Ahenakew, C. (2016). Grafting Indigenous ways of knowing onto non-Indigenous ways of
being: The (underestimated) challenges of a decolonial imagination. International Review of
Qualitative Research, 9(3), 323340.
Andreotti, V. (2011). Actionable postcolonial theory in education. Springer.
Andreotti, V. (2012). Editor's preface: HEADS UP. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices,
6(1), 13.
Andreotti, V., Biesta, G., & Ahenakew, C. (2015). Between the nation and the globe:
Education for global mindedness in Finland. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(2),
246259.
Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of
decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education &
Society, 4(1), 2140.
Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Sutherland, A., Pashby, K., Susa, R., & Amsler, S. (2018). Mobilising
different conversations about global justice in education: Toward alternative futures in
uncertain times. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 26, 941.
Bauman, Z. (2001). Education: Under, for and in spite of postmodernity. The individualised
society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Byrd, J. A. (2011). The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Coulthard, G. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Beyond the colonial politics of recognition.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Donald, D. (2019). Homo economicus and forgetful curriculum. In H. Tomlins-Jahnke, S.
Styres, S. Lilley & D. Zinga (Eds.), Indigenous education: New directions in theory and
practice (pp. 103125). Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.
Jefferess, D. (2012). The Me to We social enterprise: Global education as lifestyle brand.
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 6(1), 1830.
Kapoor, I. (2004). Hyper-self-reflexive development? Spivak on representing the third world
Other. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 627647.
36Kapoor, I. (2014). Psychoanalysis and development: Contributions, examples, limits. Third
World Quarterly, 35(7), 11201143.
Kuokkanen, R. (2008). What is hospitality in the academy? Epistemic ignorance and the
(im)possible gift. The review of education, pedagogy, and cultural studies, 30(1), 6082.
Mills, C. (2007). White ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies
of ignorance (pp. 1338). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Pashby, K., Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global
citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144164.
Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Santos, B. S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges.
Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 4589.
Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Shotwell, A. (2016). Against purity: Living ethically in compromised times. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Silva, D. F. D. (2014). Toward a Black feminist poethics: The quest(ion) of blackness toward
the end of the world. The Black Scholar, 44(2), 8197.
Silva, D. F. D. (2016). On difference without separability. Retrieved from:
https://issuu.com/amilcarpacker/docs/denise_ferreira_da_silva
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism
and the interpretation of culture (pp. 2428). University of Illinois Press.
Spivak, G. C. (2004). Righting wrongs. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 103(2), 523581.
Stein, S. (2015). Mapping global citizenship. Journal of College and Character, 16(4),
242252.
Stein, S. (2019). Beyond higher education as we know it: Gesturing towards decolonial
horizons of possibility. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(2), 143161.
Stein, S., Hunt, D., Sua, R., & Andreotti, V. (2017). The educational challenge of unraveling
the fantasies of ontological security. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 11(2),
6979.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1).
Vimalassery, M., Pegues, J. H., & Goldstein, A. (2016). Introduction: On colonial unknowing.
Theory & Event, 19(4).
Walia, H. (2013). Undoing border imperialism. AK Press.
Global Citizenship Education as a Counter Colonial Project

Albrecht, G. (2007). Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. Australasian
Psychiatry. 15: S95S98.
Borrows, J., Chartrand, L., Fitzgerald, O., & Schwartz, R. (Eds.). (2018). Braiding legal
orders: Implementing UNDRIP. Waterloo, ONT: Centre for International Governance
Innovation.
Burdon, P. (Ed). (2011). Exploring wild law: The philosophy of earth jurisprudence. Kent
Town, AUS: Wakefield Press.
Clarke, A., & Haraway, D. (2018). Making kin not population. Chicago, IL: Paradigm Press.
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene.
Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Max Neef, M. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53, 516.
Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages
to ways of thinking and practices within the disciplines. Occasional Report 4. Edinburgh: ETL
Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and Durham.
Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2):
Epistemological and conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education,
49(3), 373388.
Mignolo, W. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial opons.
Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Odora Hoppers, C., & Richards, H. (2012). Rethinking thinking: Modernity's other and the
transformation of the university. Pretoria, SA: University of South Africa Press.
Santos, B. S. (2007). Cognitive justice in a global world: Prudent knowledges for a decent life.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Santos, B. S. (2014). Epistemologies of the south: Justice against epistemicide. London:
Routledge.
Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248258.
Shultz, L., & Abdi, A. (2017). Decolonizing information ethics for the liberation of knowledge.
In T. Samek, & L. Shultz (Eds.). Essays on information ethics, globalization, and citizenship:
Ideas to praxis. New York: McFarlane.
44Shultz, L., & Elfert, M. (2018). Global citizenship education in ASPnet schools: An ethical
framework for action. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO's Idea Lab, October 2018.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. 2nd
Edition. London: Zed Books.
Yukawa, J. (2015). Preparing for complexity and wicked problems through transformational
learning approaches. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 56(2),
158168.
From Global to Planetary Citizenship

Arraut, E. M., & Marmontel, M. (2016). Amazonian manatee threatened with extinction by
massive dam-building plan in the Amazon. Science, 351(6269): 128129 (eletter).
Arraut, E. M., & Vielliard, J. M. E. (2004). The song of the Brazilian population of humpback
whale Megaptera novaeangliae, in the year 2000: Individual song variations and possible
implications. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Cincias, 76(2), 373380.
Arraut, E. M., Arraut, J. L., Marmontel, M., Mantovani, J. E., & Novo, E. M. L. M. (2017).
Bottlenecks in the migration routes of Amazonian manatees and the threat of hydroelectric
dams. Acta Amazonica, 47(1), 718.
Arraut, E. M., Loveridge, A., Chamaille, S., Fox, H. V., & Macdonald, D. W. (2018). The 2013-
2014 vegetation structure map of Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe, produced using free
satellite images and software. Koedoe: Journal of African Protected Area Science and
Conservation, 60, A1497.
60Arraut, E. M., Marmontel, M., Mantovani, J. E., Novo, E. M. L. M., Macdonald, D. W., &
Kenward, R. E. (2010). The lesser of two evils: Seasonal migrations of Amazonian manatees
in the Western Amazon. Journal of Zoology, 280(3), 247256.
Arraut, J. M., & Barbosa, H. M. J. (2009). Large scale features associated with strong
frontogenesis in equivalent potential temperature in the South American subtropics east of
the Andes. Advances in Geosciences, 22, 7378.
Arraut, J. M., & Satyamurty, P. (2009). Precipitation and water vapor transport in the southern
hemisphere with emphasis on the South American region. Journal of Applied Meteorology
and Climatology (Online), 48, 19021912.
Arraut, J. M., Lu, J., Hodges, K. I., Manganello, J., & Straus, D. (2018). Storm Tracks and
Climate Change in the Southern Hemisphere in Two Different Model Resolutions. Submitted
to: Geophysical Research Letters.
Arraut, J. M., Nobre, C., Barbosa, H. M. J., Obregon, G., & Orsini, J. M. (2011). Amazonia's
Aerial Rivers and Lakes: Investigating Large Scale Moisture Transport, its Relation to
Amazonia and Subtropical Rainfall in South America, Ecosystem Services for Poverty
Alleviation in Amazonia. (Available at:
https://www.globalcanopy.org/sites/default/files/documents/resources/ESPA%20final%20repo
rt%20v2%20Edinburgh%20GCP%20et%20al_0.pdf)
Arraut, J. M., Nobre, C., Barbosa, H. M. J., Obregon, G., & Marengo, J. A. (2012). Aerial
Rivers and Lakes: Looking at large-scale moisture transport and its relation to Amazonia and
to subtropical rainfall in South America. Journal of Climate, 25, 543556.
Barbosa, H. M. J., & Arraut, J. M. (2009). A quantitative evaluation of the role of the
Argentinean col and the Low Pressure Tongue East of the Andes for frontogenesis in the
South American subtropics. Advances in Geosciences, 22, 6772.
Capra, F. (1982) O Ponto de Mutao (the turning point). So Paulo: Cultrix.
Capra, F. (1997). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York,
USA: Anchor Books.
Dogar, M. M., Kucharski, F., Sato, T., Mehmood, S., Ali, S., Gong, Z. Arraut, J. M. (2018)
Towards understanding the global and regional climatic impacts of Modoki magnitude. Global
and Planetary Change, 172, 223241.
Gutierrez, F. & Prado, C. (2013) Ecopedagogia e Cidadania planetria. Traduo de Sandra
Trabuco Valenzuela. 3a ed. So Paulo: Cortez.
Krenak, A. (2019). Ideias para adiar o fim do mundo. Rio de Janeiro: Companhia das Letras.
Matias, A. P. (2019). A formao do cidado planetrio em uma escola de educao profissional:
eventos de letramento da disciplina de Artes. Dissertao de mestrado. Faculdade de Educao,
Universidade Federal do Cear.
Mihaliuc, K. M. (2019). Cidadania planetria como tema transdisciplinar no currculo de formao
do Bacharel em Direito. PhD Thesis. Faculty of education, Federal University of Cear.
Moraes, S. E. (1995). O currculo do dilogo. Tese de doutorado, Unicamp, SP
http://www.sbu.unicamp.br/sbu/
Moraes, S. E. (1997). A construo dialtica de um currculo no ensino mdio internacional.
Cadernos de Pesquisa (Fundao Carlos Chagas), So Paulo, 102, 134156.
61Moraes, S. E. (1998). Normative universalism as vision in Brazilian international schools.
Journal of Curriculum Studies (Print), USA, 30(5), 577592.
Moraes, S. E. (2004). Pesquisa de currculo e metforas. Revista de Letras (Fortaleza),
UFC/Fortaleza, 1/2(26), 3543.
Moraes, S. E. (2005). Interdisciplinaridade e transversalidade atravs de projetos temticos.
Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedaggicos (RBEP), 86, 213214.
Moraes, S. E. (2014). Global citizenship as a floating signifier: Lessons from UK universities,
in International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 6(2), Autumn,
2742(16).
Moraes, S. E. (2015). Cidadania global como tema interdisciplinar em universidades
inglesas. In: Arlindo Philippi Jr; Valdir Fernandes (Org.). A prtica da interdisciplinaridade na
pesquisa e no ensino de ps-graduao - prmio jabuti 2015. 1 ed. Barueri. SP: Manole, 551597.
Moraes, S. E., & Freire, L. A. (2016). The university curriculum and the ecology of
knowledges: Building a planetary citizenship, Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1).
Moraes, S. E., & Freire, L. A. (2017). Planetary citizenship and the ecology of knowledges in
Brazilian university. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning,
8(3), March, 2542(18).
Morin, E. & Kern, A.B. (19932011) Terra Ptria. Traduo Paulo Neves da Silva. 6a ed. Porto
Alegre: Sulina
Parmetros Curriculares Nacionais (PCN). Ministrio de Educao e Cultura (MEC), 1998
http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/livro01.pdf
Revista Fapesp (2019). Escolas e universidades no estimulam a criatividade dos alunos
http://agencia.fapesp.br/escolas-e-universidades-nao-estimulam-a-criatividade-dos-alunos-
diz-pesquisadora/32054/
Santos, S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges.
Review, XXX(1), 4589.
Sousa, G. L. (2019). Cidadania Planetria e Tecnologias Digitais de Informao e Comunicao
(TDIC) na Educao: estudo de caso de uma escola municipal de Maracana, CE. Dissertao de
mestrado. Faculdade de Educao, Universidade Federal do Cear.
Vieira, A. L. (2017). Criar em atividade: estudo de caso de uma escola premiada pelo
programa Criatividade e inovao na Educao bsica/MEC em Fortaleza, Cear. Dissertao de
mestrado. Faculdade de Educao, Universidade Federal do Cear.
Cultivating Global Citizenship Education and Its Implications for

Education in South Africa
Arthur, J., Davies, I., & Hahn, C. (Eds.) (2008). The SAGE handbook of education for
citizenship and democracy. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Derrida, J. (2004). In J. Plug (Ed.), J. Plug. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
71Derrida, J. (2005). The future of the profession or the unconditional university (thanks to
the humanities, what could take place tomorrow). In P. P. Trifonas, & M. A. Peters (Eds.),
Deconstructing Derrida: Tasks for the new humanities. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan,
1124.
DoE (Department of Education) (2001). Manifesto on values, education and democracy.
Cape Town: Cape Argus Teacher Fund.
Peters, M. A., Britton, A., & Blee, H. (Eds.) (2008). Global citizenship education: Philosophy,
theory and pedagogy. Rotterdam/Boston/Tapei: Sense Publishers.
Rancire, J. (2010). Chronicles of consensual times(S. Corcoran, Trans.). London: Continuum.
Schlumberger, O. (Ed.) (2007). Debating Arab authoritarianism: Dynamics and durability in
nondemocratic regimes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Waghid, Y., & Davids, N. (2013). Citizenship education and violence in schools: On disrupted
potentialities and becoming. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Waghid, Y., Waghid, F., & Waghid, Z. (2018). Rupturing African philosophy on teaching and
learning: Ubuntu justice and education. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Wallace Brown, G., & Held, D. (2010). The cosmopolitan reader. Cambridge: Polity Press.72
Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education

Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship. Policy and Practice: A
Development Education Review, 3, 4051.
Asia Society and OECD (2018). Teaching for global competence in a rapidly changing world.
Paris and New York: OECD/Asia Society.
Bamber, P. (2016). Transformative education through international service-learning.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Bentall, C., Blum, N., & Bourn, D. (2010). Learning and skills for a global economy. Coventry:
Learning and Skills Improvement Service.
Bourn, D. (2008). Global skills. London: Centre for Excellence in Leadership.
Bourn, D. (2009). Students as global citizens in Jones, E. (ed.). Internationalisation: The
student voice. Abingdon: Routledge, 1829.
Bourn, D. (2011). Global skills: From economic competitiveness to cultural understanding and
critical pedagogy. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 6(1), 320.
Bourn, D. (2015). The theory and practice of development education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bourn, D. (2018). Understanding global skills for 21st century professions. London: Palgrave.
Chong, E. K. M. (2015). Global citizenship education and Hong Kong's secondary school
curriculum guidelines: From learning about rights and understanding responsibility to
challenging inequality. Asian Education and Development Studies, 4 (2), 221247.
Davies, I., Ho, L.-C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C., Peterson, A., Sant, E., & Waghid, Y. (eds.). (2018).
The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave.
Department for Education and Skills (DFES). (2005). Developing the global dimension for the
school curriculum. London: DFES/DFID.
Dill, J. (2013). The longings and limits of global citizenship education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education. New York: Routledge.
Ho, L.-C. (2018). Conceptions of global citizenship education in East and South-East Asia in
Davies, I., Ho, L.-C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C., Peterson, A., Sant, E., & Waghid, Y. (eds.). The
Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education. London: Palgrave, 8395.
88Hunt, F., & Cara, O. (2015). Global learning in England, baseline analysis of the global
learning programme whole school audit 20132014, DERC research papers 15, London: UCL-
IOE.
Jooste, N., & Heleta, S. (2016). Global citizenship versus globally competent graduates: A
critical view from the South, Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(1), 3951.
Kraska, M., Blum, N., & Bourn, D. (2018). From internationalisation to global citizenship:
Dialogues in international higher education in Davies, J. & Pachler, N. (eds.). Teaching and
learning in Higher education: Perspectives from UCL. London: UCL Press, 8598.
Kukita, S. (2019). Connecting the Local and Global: Japanese secondary school students'
perceptions and attributes towards the world, unpublished PhD thesis. London: UCL.
Moraes, S. (2014). Global citizenship as a floating signifier: Lessons from UK universities,
International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 6(2), 2742.
Nayak, A. (2003). Race, place, and globalisation, Oxford: Berg.
Oxfam (2016). Education for global citizenship education, Oxford: Oxfam.
Peck, C., & Pashby, K. (2018). Global citizenship education in North America in Davies, I.,
Ho, L.-C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C. Peterson, A., Sant, E., & Waghid, Y. (eds.). The Palgrave
handbook of global citizenship and education, London: Palgrave, 5164.
Reimers, F., Chopra, V., Chung, C., Higdon, J., & O'Donnell, E. (2016). Empowering global
citizens: A world course, North Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace Independent
Publishing Platform.
Sant, E., Davies, I., Pashby, K., & Shultz, L. (2018). Global citizenship education: A critical
introduction to key concepts and debates, London: Bloomsbury.
Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship, Lanham: MD; Rowman and Littlefield.
Sharma, N. (2018). Value-creating global citizenship engaging Gandhi, Makiguchi and Ikeda
as examples, London: Palgrave.
Stein, S. (2017). Internationalisation for an uncertain future: Tensions, paradoxes and
possibilities, The Review of Higher Education, 41(1), 332.
Tarozzi, M., & Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: A
comparative study in four European countries, London Review of Education, 17(2), 112125.
Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. (2016). Global citizenship education and the crisis of
multiculturalism, London: Bloomsbury.
Temple, G., & Laycock, A. L. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Towards a clearer
agenda for change, in Bourn, D. (ed.). Development education: Debates and dialogues,
London: Bedford Way Papers, 99109.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times, San
Francisco: Josey-Bass.
UNESCO (2014). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the
21st century, Paris: UNESCO.
Educating for Global Citizenship in Diverse and Unequal Societies

Abdi, A. A., Shultz, L., & Pillay, T. (2015). Decolonizing global citizenship education.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A
Development Education Review, 3, 4051.
Andreotti, V. (2010). Postcolonial and post-critical global citizenship education. In G. Elliott,
C. Fourali, & S. Issler (Eds.). Education and social change. London: Continuum, 223245.
Andreotti, V. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(34), 381397.
Andreotti, V., & de Souza, L. M. T. M. (Eds.) (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global
citizenship education. New York and London: Routledge.
Bourn, D. (2015). The theory and practice of development education: A pedagogy for global
social justice. London-New York: Routledge.
Bourn, D. (2018). Understanding global skills for 21st century professions. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (2000). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives.
New York: Routledge.
Cho, H. S., & Mosselson, J. (2017). Neoliberal practices amidst social justice orientations:
Global citizenship education in South Korea. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 48(6), 861878
Cohen, J. L. (1999). Changing paradigms of citizenship and the exclusiveness of demos.
International Sociology, 14(3), 245268.
Council of Europe (CoE) North South Centre (1997). The Global Education Charter.
Retrieved 18-11-2017 at https://rm.coe.int/global-education-charter-by-dakmara-georgescu-
institute-for-educationa/168070f05d
Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational
review, 58(1), 525.
Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Forghani-Arani, N., Hartmeyer, H., O'Loughlin, E., & Wegimont, L. (2013). Global education
in Europe: Policy, practice and theoretical challenges. Mnster: Waxmann Verlag.
Francesconi, D., & Tarozzi, M. (January 01, 2012). Embodied education: A convergence of
phenomenological pedagogy and embodiment. Studia Phaenomenologica, 12, 263288.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley, MS:
Bergin & Garvey.
101Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2016). International elite, or global citizens? Equity, distinction
and power: The International baccalaureate and The rise of The South. Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 14(1), 129.
Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum
enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1), 6885.
Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. Global
citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. New York London: Routledge.
GENE (2018). The state of global education in Europe 2018. Retrieved on 15-09-2019 from
https://gene.eu/wp-content/uploads/State-of-Global-Education-2018-with-cover.pdf
Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Citizenship education redefined A systematic review of
empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational
Research, 82, 170183.
Hartung, C. (2017). Global citizenship incorporated: Competing responsibilities in the
education of global citizens. Discourse, 38(1), 1629.
Heater, D. (2002). World citizenship: Cosmopolitan thinking and its opponents. London:
Continuum.
Jefferess, D. (2008). Unsettling cosmopolitanism: Global citizenship and the cultural politics
of benevolence. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 2(1), 2735.
Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy.
British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237257.
Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in
Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 122.
Joppke, C. (2010). Citizenship and immigration. London: Polity Press.
Joppke, C. (2017). Is multiculturalism dead? Crisis and persistence in the constitutional State.
Malden, Mass: Polity Books.
Kymlicka, K. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and
accommodation in diverse societies. In S. Vertovec, & S. Wessendorf (Eds.), The
multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices, 3249. London:
Routledge.
Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education
and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalisation, Societies and
Education, 9(34), 443456.
Morin, E. (1999). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing (Or. Ed. Les sept savoirs ncessaires a L'ducation du futur) Retrieved on 15-09-
2019 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001177/117740eo.pdf
Nixon, J. (2011). Higher education and the public good: Imagining the university. London:
Continuum.
Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple
conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301325.
Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of
global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144164.
Peters, M. A., Britton, A., & Blee, H. (Eds.). (2008). Global citizenship education: Philosophy,
theory and pedagogy. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
102Reimers, F.M., Chopra, V., Chung, C.K., Higdon, J. & O'Donnell, E.B. (2016)
Empowering Global Citizens: A world course. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform.
Schattle, H. (2009). Global citizenship in theory and practice. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The
handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for
global citizenship, 320. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for global citizenship: Conflicting agendas and understandings.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 24858.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stein, S. (2015). Mapping Global Citizenship. Journal of College and Character, 16(4),
242252.
Tambini, D. (2001). Post-national citizenship. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(2), 195217.
Tarozzi, M. (2005). Cittadinanza interculturale. Esperienza educativa come agire politico.
Intercultural Citizenship. Educative experience as political acting. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Tarozzi, M. (2015). Dall'intercultura alla giustizia sociale. Per un progetto pedagogico e
politico di cittadinanza globale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. A. (2016). Global citizenship education and the crises of
multiculturalism. London: Bloomsbury.
Tarozzi, M. & Mallon, B. (2019). Educating teachers towards global citizenship: A
comparative study in four European countries. London Review of Education. 17(2), 112125.
Tawil, S. (2013). Education for global citizenship: A framework for discussion. Paris:
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight. [ERF Working Papers Series, No 7.]
Torres, C. A. (2015). Global Citizenship and Global Universities. The Age of Global
Interdependence and Cosmopolitanism. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 262279.
Torres, C. A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship
education. New York: Routledge.
UNESCO (2014). Global citizenship education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the
21st century. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris:
UNESCO.
Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (Eds.). (2010). The multiculturalism backlash: European
discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge.
Veugelers, W. (2011). The moral and the political in global citizenship: Appreciating
differences in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(34), 473485.
Wang, C., & Hoffman, D. M. (2016). Are WE the world? A critical reflection on selfhood and
global citizenship education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(56), 118.
Wieviorka, M. (2014). A critique of integration. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and
Power, 21(6), 633641.
Zoletto, D. (2012). Dall'intercultura ai contesti eterogenei: Presupposti teorici e ambiti di
ricerca pedagogica. Franco Angeli: Milano.
Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics

Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds.). (1998). Critical realism:
Essential readings. London: Routledge.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1991). Dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (Trans. C.
Emerson and M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (2nd edn; Trans. R. Gregor-Smith). Edinburgh: Clark.
Burbules, N., & Torres, C. A. (eds). (2009). Globalisation and education: Critical perspectives
(2nd edn). London: Routledge.
Chang, H. (2010). 23 things they don't tell you about capitalism. London: Penguin.
Ellis, M. P. (2016). The critical global educator: Global citizenship education as sustainable
development. London and New York: Routledge.
Ellis, M. P. (2019). Critical global semiotics: Understanding sustainable transformational
citizenship. London and New York: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
Greimas, A.J. (1976) On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. Trans. Perron, P.J.
and Collins, F.H. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Volume I: Reason and the
rationalization of society and volume II: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist
reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press (originally published 1981).
121Harre, R. (2002). Public sources of the personal mind: Social constructionism in context.
Theory Psychology, 12, 611623.
Jaffe, A. (1979). C. J. Jung word and image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jewitt, C. (ed.). (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.
John 1:14, Holy Bible: King James Version.
Jung, C. J. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Kant, I. (1781) (2000). Critique of pure reason (trans. Norman Kemp-Smith). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kirtchuk, P. (2008). LUIT: Language, a Unified and Integrative Theory. Available at:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00545240v6/document (accessed 17 June 2019).
Klein, N. (1999). No logo. New York: Random House.
Klein, N. (1999, 2008). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. London: Penguin.
Krause, J. (2010). European development education monitoring report: DE Watch. Brussels:
DEEEP.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Langley, C., Parkinson, S., & Webber, P. (2008). Behind closed doors: Military influence,
commercial pressures and the compromised university. Available online at
www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/BehindClosedDoors_jun08.pdf (accessed 25 February 2020)
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York: Peter Lang.
Available online at www.academia.edu/293039/A_New_Literacies_Sampler (accessed 25
February 2019).
Lvi-Strauss, C. (1972). Structural anthropology (trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest
Schoepf). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lvi-Strauss, C. (1978). Myth and meaning. London and New York: Routledge. Available at:
http://historiaocharkeologi.com/kanada/myth_and_meaning.pdf (accessed 10 December
2020)
Peirce, C. S. (19311958). The Collected Papers (vols. IVI, eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul
Weiss). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 19311935 (vols. VIIVIII, ed. Arthur W.
Burks) (same publisher, 1958).
Read, H., Fordham, M., & Adler, G. (1973). Collected works of C.G. Jung: The first completed
English edition. Princeton: Bollingen Series.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.
Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Shaxson, N. (2012). Treasure islands: Tax havens and the men who stole the world. London:
Vintage.
Shiva, V. (2014, 15 December). Seeds of truth: Vandana Shiva and the New Yorker,
Independent Science News. Available online at
www.independentsciencenews.org/unsustainable-farming/seeds-of-truth-vandana-shiva-new-
yorker/(accessed 25 February 2015).
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1965). Hymn of the universe. New York: Harper & Row.
122Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
UNESCO. (2014). Shaping the Future We Want: UN DESD final report. Available online at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002301/230171e.pdf
Weber, L. E., & Duderstadt, J. J. (2012). Global sustainability and the responsibilities of
universities. Paris: Economica.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922/2010). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Logisch-philosophische
Abhandlung. London: Keegan Paul. (Side-by-side-by-side edn, Version 0.21, published 2010,
containing original German, alongside both the OgdenRamsey, and PearsMcGuinness
English translations).
Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global

Andreotti, V. D. O. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship
education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(34), 381397.
Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2019). Science by streetlight and the OECD's measure of global
competence: A new yardstick for internationalisation? Policy Futures in Education, 17(6),
677698.
Bamberger, A., Morris, P., & Yemini, M. (2019). Neoliberalism, internationalisation and higher
education: Connections, contradictions and alternatives. Discourse: Studies in the cultural
politics of education, 114.
Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2015). The hidden internationalism of elite English schools.
Sociology, 49(2), 212228.
Dvir, N., Aloni, N., & Harari, D. (2015). The dialectics of assimilation and multiculturalism: The
case of children of refugees and migrant workers in The Bialik-Rogozin School, Tel Aviv.
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(4), 568588.
Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2016). Global citizenship education in context: Teacher perceptions
at an international school and a local Israeli school. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 46(5), 832853.
Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017a). Global citizenship education redefined A systematic review
of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International Journal of Educational
Research, 82, 170183.
Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017b). The global citizenship education gap: Teacher perceptions
of the relationship between global citizenship education and students' socio-economic status.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 922.
Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2018). Obstacles and opportunities for global citizenship education
under intractable conflict: The case of Israel. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 48(3), 397413.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 531.
Larsen, M. A. (2016). Internationalization of higher education: An analysis through spatial,
network, and mobilities theories. London: Springer.
Maxwell, C., & Yemini, M. (2019). Modalities of cosmopolitanism and mobility: Parental
education strategies of global, immigrant and local middle-class Israelis. Discourse: Studies
in the cultural politics of education, 117.
Myers, J. P. (2016). Charting a democratic course for global citizenship education: Research
directions and current challenges. Education policy analysis archives, 24(5559), 116.
Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple
conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301325.
Pashby, K. (2011). Cultivating global citizens: Planting new seeds or pruning the perennials?
Looking for the citizen-subject in global citizenship education theory. Globalisation, Societies
and Education, 9(34), 427442.
Pevzner, M., Rakhkochkine, A., Shirin, A., & Shaydorova, N. (2019). Internationalization of
schools in Russia. Policy futures in education, 17(6), 715731.
Rowe, E., Lubienski, C., Skourdoumbis, A., Gerrard, J., & Hursh, D. (2019). Exploring
alternatives to the neoliberalism critique: New language for contemporary global reform
Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 40(2),147149.
Veugelers, W. (2011). The moral and the political in global citizenship: Appreciating
differences in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(34), 473485.
Yemini, M. (2015). Internationalisation discourse hits the tipping point: A new definition is
needed. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19(1), 1922.
Yemini, M. (2017). Internationalization under intractable conflict: The influence of national
conflict on Israeli higher education institutions' internationalization efforts. European
Education, 49(4), 293303.
Yemini, M., & Gordon, N. (2017). Media representations of national and international
standardized testing in the Israeli education system. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 38(2), 262276.
Yemini, M., Tibbitts, F., & Goren, H. (2019). Trends and caveats: Review of literature on
global citizenship education in teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77,
7789.134
Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of
Minnesota Press.
Bacon, D. (2015). Report: US policy in Honduras causes migration. International Union
Rights, 22, 25. https://doi.org/10.14213/inteuniorigh.22.1.0025
Bennhold, K. (2019, May 22). What is Europe? Freedom, slavery, austerity or nothing at all.
New York Times.
Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. https://doi.org/10.1037/14633-000
Fischer, K. (2019, March 28). How International Education's Golden age lost its sheen. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
Gaudelli, W., & Laverty (2015). What Is a global experience? Education and Culture, 31, 13.
https://doi.org/10.5703/educationculture.31.2.13
Nathan Corbitt, J. (1998). Global awareness profile. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
152Nevins, J. (2018, October 25). How US policy in Honduras set the stage for today's
migration. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from The Conversation website:
http://theconversation.com/how-us-policy-in-honduras-set-the-stage-for-todays-migration-
65935
Newburger, E. (2019, September 3). A signal of climate change: Hurricane Dorian stalls over
Bahamas, causing massive destruction. Retrieved from CNBC on December 24, 2020 from
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/03/hurricane-dorian-stalls-in-bahamas-signaling-a-climate-
change-impact.html
Pogge, T. (2012). World poverty and human rights. Political Philosophy in the Twenty-First
Century, 253260. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429498190-20
World Bank. (2020, October 7). Global action urgently needed to halt historic threats to
poverty reduction. Retrieved on November 28, 2020 from
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/10/07/global-action-urgently-needed-to-halt-
historic-threats-to-poverty-reduction
Zetter, R. (2015). Protection in Crisis: Forced Migration and Protection in a Global Era.
Retrieved from Migration Policy Institute on December 24, 2020 at
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/protection-crisis-forced-migration-and-protection-
global-era
Global Citizenship Education as Awareness, Responsibility, and

Participation
Brooks, T. (2011). Rethinking remedial responsibilities. Ethics & Global Politics, 4(3), 195202.
Fischer, M. (2007). A pragmatist cosmopolitan moment: Reconfiguring Nussbaum's
cosmopolitan concentric circles. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 21(3), 151165.
Grimley, N. (2016, April 28). Identity 2016: Global citizenship rising, poll suggests. BBC World
Service. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-36139904
Heater, D. (2004). World citizenship: Cosmopolitan thinking and its opponents (revised
edition). London: Continuum.
Miller, D. (2008). National responsibility and global justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal
education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rivoli, P. (2005). The travels of a T-shirt in the global economy: An economist examines the
markets, power, and politics of world trade. New York: Wiley.
Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Schattle, H. (2015). Global citizenship as a national project: The evolution of segye shimin in
South Korean public discourse. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 5368.
Schattle, H., & Plate, T. (2019). Fostering a global public sphere in real time: Transpacific
skype seminars as a teaching strategy with implications for citizenship and identity.
Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 15(1), 6474.
Steger, M. B., & James, P. (2019). Globalization matters: Engaging the global in unsettled
times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York:
Penguin Press.
Global Citizenship Education and Humanism

183Araujo Freire, A. M. (2015). Forward: The understanding of Paulo Freire's education:
Ethics, hope, and human rights. In M. A. Peters, & T. Besley (Eds.), Paulo Freire: The global
legacy (pp. xiiixxiii). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Bajaj, M., & Vlad, I. (2018). Dialogue and agency. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.), Peacebuilding
through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict resolution (pp. 7183).
Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Falkenberg, T. (2015). Introduction: Philosophical perspectives on education for well-being.
Paideusis, 22(2), 17.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: The Seabury Press.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. New York, NY:
Bergen & Garvey.
Freire, P. (1992). The Purpose of Education. Extract from The 40th Anniversary of the
UNESCO Institute for Education, UIE Reports No. 6, 1992. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/FREIRE.PDF
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard
Educational Review, 65(3), 377402.
Gebert, A. & Monte, J. (2007). Value Creation as the Aim of Education: Tsunesaburo
Makiguchi and Soka Education. In D. Hansen (Ed.), Ethical Visions of Education:
Philosophies in Practice (pp. 6582). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 6582.
Global Forum. (2019). Human resource development for the future of Japan Preparing Our
Workforce of Tomorrow in Japan. Retrieved from https://www.globalci.org/globalforum
Goulah, J. (2018). The presence and role of dialogue in Soka education. In P. N. Stearns
(Ed.), Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict
Resolution (pp. 5570). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Guajardo, M., & Reiser, M. (2016). Humanism as the foundation for global citizenship
education. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 20(3), 241252.
Harding, V., & Ikeda, D. (2013). America will Be! Conversations on Hope, freedom, and
democracy. Cambridge, MA: Dialogue Path Press.
Ifejika, N. (2006). What does ubuntu really mean? The Guardian, September 29. Retrieved
from https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/sep/29features11.g2
Ikeda, D. (1996). A new humanism: The university addresses of Daisaku Ikeda. New York,
NY: Weatherhill.
Ikeda, D. (2001). For the sake of peace. Santa Monica, CA: Middleway Press.
Ikeda, D. (2019). 2019 Peace Proposal: Toward a New Era of Peace and Disarmament: A
People-Centered Approach. Retrieved from https://www.sgi.org/about-us/president-ikedas-
proposals/peace-proposal-2019/index.html
McDowell, C. L. (2018). Dialogue and demographic complexity. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.),
Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict resolution
(pp. 215236). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
184Nanda, V., & Ikeda, D. (2015). Our world to make: Hinduism, Buddhism, and the rise of
global civil society. Cambridge, MA: Dialogue Path Press.
Noddings, N. (2005). Global citizenship: Promises and problems. In N. Noddings (Ed.),
Educating citizens for global awareness (pp. 121). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rugut, E.J., & Osman, A. A. (2013). Reflection on Paulo Freire and Classroom Relevance.
American International Journal of Social Science, 2(2), 2328. Retrieved from
https://www.aijssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_2_March_2013/3.pdf.
Seidl-de-Moura, M. L., & Fernandes Mendes, D. (2012). Human development: The role of
biology and culture. Open access peer-reviewed chapter. doi: 10.5772/36474.
Siegel, B., & Gaudelli, W. (2018). Listening and dialogue in educators' reflective practice. In
S. P. N. (Ed.), Peacebuilding through dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict
resolution (pp. 3954). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Torres, C. A. (2008). Paulo Freire and social justice education. In C. A. Torres, & P. Noguera
(Eds.), Social justice education for teachers: Paulo Freire and the possible dream (pp. 211).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Torres, C. A. (2013). The secret adventures of order: Globalization, education and
transformative social justice learning. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedaggicos, Braslia,
94(238), 661676. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2176-66812013000300002
Urbain, O. (2018). Bringing Out the Best in oneself and others: The role of dialogue in
Daisaku Ikeda's peacebuilding practice. In P. N. Stearns (Ed.), Peacebuilding through
dialogue: Education, human transformation, and conflict Resolution (pp. 105120). Fairfax,
VA: George Mason University Press.
Yokota, M. (2007). The Healing Power of Dialogue, Retrieved from ikedacenter.org/thinkers-
themes/dialogue/yokota-on-dialogue.
Yokota, M. & Douglass, C. (2019). How to Develop True Care: Three Interviews with Nel
Noddings. Encounters in Theory and History of Education. 20(Fall), 102123. Retrieved from
https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/encounters/issue/view/861
Global Citizenship Education as a Metacritical Pedagogy
Bosio, E. (2017a). Educating for global citizenship and fostering a nonkilling attitude. In J.
Evans Pim, & S. H. Rico (Eds.), Nonkilling education (pp. 5970). Honolulu: Center for Global
Nonkilling.
Bosio, E. (2017b). How do we create transformative global citizens? University World News,
December 1. Accessed July 4 2020:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20171129082744388
Bosio, E. (2019). The need for a values-based university curriculum. University World News,
September 28. Accessed July 4 2020:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2019092415204357
Bosio, E. (2020). Towards an ethical global citizenship education curriculum framework in the
modern university. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Bloomsbury handbook for global education and learning
(pp. 187206). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bosio, E., & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the
common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education,
17(6), 745760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210319825517
Globalization, global commons, common good and critical consciousness. Prospects.
Comparative Journal of Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-019-09458-w
Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020b). Critical reflections on the notion of global citizenship
education. A dialogue with Carlos AlbertoTorres in relation to higher education in the United
States. Encyclopaideia, 24(56), 107117. doi: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/10742

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conversations on Global

This volume offers a remarkable collection of theoretically and practi-

Emiliano Bosio is a Senior Lecturer at Tokyo Woman’s Christian Univer-

1 Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global

2 Educating the Global Environmental Citizen

3 The Struggle for Citizenship Education in Egypt

4 Teacher Education for Sustainable Development and Global

5 Exploring the Complexities in Global Citizenship Education

6 Conversations on Global Citizenship Education

Edited by Emiliano Bosio

ISBN: 978-0-367-36544-8 (hbk)

List of Figures and Tablesvii

1 Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship Education3

2 Global Citizenship Otherwise13

3 Global Citizenship Education as a Counter Colonial

4 From Global to Planetary Citizenship: A Proposal

5 Cultivating Global Citizenship Education and Its

6 Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education 75

7 Educating for Global Citizenship in Diverse

8 Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics 103

9 Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization,

10 Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education 137

11 Global Citizenship Education as Awareness,

12 Global Citizenship Education and Humanism:

13 Global Citizenship Education as a Metacritical

Vanessa Andreotti is a Full Professor and Canada Research Chair in Race,

“When evening comes, I return home and go into my study. On the

In this book of conversations, Professor Emiliano Bosio raises several

“The moral qualities of dialogue or deliberation account for yet

“While the World may be increasingly interconnected, human rights

Dialogical practices are central to address how education (and, particularly,

Carlos Alberto Torres

Educators form a cohort whose working life regularly interacts with

Distinctiveness of the Book

1 Educators who are seeking to develop their theoretical understand-

From this point of view, the purpose of the conversations is to offer

Main Themes and Structure of the Book

Critical Views in Global

1.2 Dialogue with Henry A. Giroux

Global Citizenship Otherwise

Global Citizenship Education as a Counter Colonial Project

From Global to Planetary Citizenship

Cultivating Global Citizenship Education and Its Implications for

Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education

Educating for Global Citizenship in Diverse and Unequal Societies

Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics

Intersections of Neoliberalism, Internationalization, and Global

Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education

Global Citizenship Education as Awareness, Responsibility, and

Global Citizenship Education and Humanism

You might also like

List of Figures and Tablesvii

1 Critical Pedagogy and Global Citizenship Education3

2 Global Citizenship Otherwise13

6 Global Skills and Global Citizenship Education 75

8 Global Citizenship Education as Critical Global Semiotics 103

10 Flourishing and Global Citizenship Education 137