Global Citizen Formation Global Citizenship Educat... - (1 Introduction The Complexity of Global Citizenship)

Chapter 1
Introduction: The Complexity of Global

Citizenship
1.1 Social Movements, Citizenship, and Globalization
Citizenship addresses the significance of individual rights, obligations, and legal

status as national citizens. This chapter clarifies how nations and societies adapt
and transform the statements of citizenship in a changing social context. Individuals
are not only passively included by national form or social context, but also actively
expanding their potential space against national regimes and authorities. Deliberative
negotiation is extremely significant to assure that the development of citizenship will
not be limited to moral and legal regulations and thus lose its validity in this uncertain
period.
Differences in systems and values among British, American, and European soci-
eties emphasize the diverse perceptions about citizenship across these different social
contexts. In Britain, citizenship is based on a strong socialist tradition and emphasizes
reducing social stratification, class conflict, poverty, and unemployment. It focuses
on those issues to increase the cultivation of individual citizenship and decrease class
inequality in traditional society. America is a nation with multiple races that focuses
on minority civil rights, feminist citizenship, civic moral, and cultural rights. It seeks
Copyright © 2021. Springer Singapore Pte. Limited. All rights reserved.
to cultivate citizen knowledge, attitudes, and competences to promote the consoli-

dation of different groups in a multicultural society. The European Union aims at
creating citizenship on a large scale as a legal reality to develop a common concept
of citizenship based on a variety of national traditions and understandings. The Euro-
pean Union aims for peace, well-being, freedom, security, justice, and sustainable
development, and fights against social exclusion and discrimination.
In the 1980s, scholars in England and the United States, e.g., Marshall (1950),
MacIntyre (1990), Taylor (1989), Sandel (1982), and Walzer (1983), became dissat-
isfied with the new conservative policies of the American President Reagan and the
British government of Thatcher. Moreover, they rejected the social and political poli-
cies of classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and liberal egalitarianism. These scholars
recognized citizens’ responsibilities and obligations within a nation and advocated
building a political system that would benefit from civic participation and pursue
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 1

A. S. Chen, Global Citizen Formation, Governance and Citizenship in Asia,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1959-5_1
Chen, Amy Shumin. Global Citizen Formation : Global Citizenship Education in Higher Education, Springer Singapore Pte. Limited,
2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=6679435.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2023-02-05 22:45:05.
2 1 Introduction: The Complexity of Global Citizenship
the civic virtue of Republicanism. They believed that the spiritual character and core
values of citizens’ lives are the fundamental constituents of democracy and freedom
in national development. Furthermore, they viewed voting as one of the approaches
in political participation, and scholars conceded that the traditional virtues and values
of the community played key roles in the quality of citizenship. Therefore, individ-
uals interested in the progress of and alternatives to citizenship should consider the
reality of their social environment to create concepts of individual citizenship that
corresponds to social change.
Many sociological scholars have focused on exploring how the transformation
of society has positively influenced political participation and individual life. These
scholars have developed numerous terms to describe the features and structures of
postmodern society, such as postindustrial society, bourgeois society, super-industrial
society, postcapitalist society, and postmodern society.
For example, in the view of famed sociologist Anthony Giddens (1990, 1991),
modernity is the abbreviation of modern society or industrial civilization in its
simplest form traditional society is rapidly changing into modern society, but the
social context does not separate its forms from modernity. We obviously acknowl-
edge the existence of capitalism, science and technology, and democracy in many
countries. Furthermore, ordinary life, which is governed by cultural, economic, and
political systems, continues to operate according to the rules of modernization.
Modernization can be viewed as a progressive process that includes the development
of social change and social evolution, accompanied by knowledge, democratization,
technology, international trade, and globalization. Consequently, while we define our
social reality as postmodern, the term shows its limitations in explaining real life.
Postmodern society is a stage that occurs after modern society. The society opens
diverse possibilities for the individual to challenge and change traditional society,
but also entails uncertainty and causes everyone to live in fragile circumstances.
Searching for self-identity in ordinary life and for collective groups to find belonging
drives individuals to engage in self-actualization and self-realization in their everyday
contexts. The interconnection between personal self-identity and macro social move-
ment in the contemporary state highlights the basic rhythm of everyday life. It is
common for a social movement to cause every person to need to adapt and reflect
themselves through self-expression in public life and career planning in personal life.
Thus, the defining characteristics of society must incorporate personal life tracks.
Therefore, this research defines the social context in terms of high modernity, which
Giddens describes as a “radicalization of modernity” (1990, 1991). The concept
of high modernity attempts to improve social systems via risk management, envi-
ronmental protection, closing the gap between the rich and the poor, and finding
coherence between different social changes (Misiaszek, 2018). High modernity thus
enhances our attention to each individual’s ordinary life as well as the public good.
Private life and public roles interact and may even contradict one another. For
instance, individuals who practice citizenship and participate in community events,
and do things for the common well may have no gender consciousness. They them-
selves may not feel discriminated over gender issues and may have never been crit-
icized for their sexual preferences in public. When the rationale and principles of
1.1 Social Movements, Citizenship, and Globalization 3
private and public life are inconsistent in society, those who have been discriminated
are frustrated living together.
However, a progressive society with gender consciousness and equality should be
the goal in both the personal and public sphere. Another example of how the public
and private interact, sometimes negatively, is the information and technology policy
adopted by the Taiwan government to collect citizens’ fingerprints. The government
announced that citizens had to cooperate with this policy. The government saw itself
as making laws to manage society, but at the same time, the rights of and respect
for citizens were destroyed. The program was discontinued after a public protest.
The above two cases show how citizenship not only refers to personal resources and
privileges in the public sphere, but also what citizens own in the private sphere.
The traditional basis of the nation-state puts emphasis on citizens’ public respon-
sibilities and obligations, but citizenship under the social context of high modernity
is based on a different concept. The formulation of membership in this kind of social
transformation gives one power and rights in various issues for making decisions
based on deep consideration.
The individual life of self, diversity, and differences in the context of high moder-
nity strong emphasizes the emergence of political life. The strongly political issues
of citizenship emerge from the struggle for an ordinary life with political choices
based on the dialectic of love, intimate relationships, and choices in one’s personal
life decisions. Giddens (1991), Beck (1992), and Lash (1994) put forward a theory of
reflexive modernization that describes the principles by which citizens maintain the
multiple dimensions of their life experiences. Given these circumstances, it is critical
to re-evaluate private and public life using personal reflexive decisions and solutions
when one encounters social changes. Giddens (1991), Beck (1992), and Lash (1994)
are famous for their theory on the social movement into a post-traditional culture in
which individuals understand their self-identity as a reflexive life project. The high
risk and uncertain consequences of globalization address challenges toward human
beings, and people are forced to reflect, and construct their biographical narratives as
they go through life. In order to live in these transformations, people need to be able
to recognize forces of socialization and alter their position in the social structures. An
individual shaping his or her own norms, tastes, politics, desires, and so on, would
define a high level of social reflexivity. People in the late-modernity society people
have to treat their identities as a continuous project.
In Giddens and Lash’s viewpoints, citizens embrace the cognitive, aesthetic, and
hermeneutic aspects of individual life as reflexive approaches and expand the right
to have autonomy in their choice of lifestyle. Reflexivity can be viewed as a strategy
for coping with the late modern society and further examined as an approach to
discover the transformation in society. Reflexivity is also as a methodological issue
that includes both a subjective process of self-consciousness inquiry and the study of
social behavior with reference to theories about social relationships. Therefore, the
potential to deepen and develop the concepts and practices of citizenship within the
social context of high modernity can be fulfilled by illustrating new structures for
citizenship and transforming the development of citizenship with a comprehensive
viewpoint. With this in mind, the research objectives of this study are discussed
below.
1.2 Transformation in Citizenship
This book outlines the theoretical discourses, previous studies, empirical findings,
and practical approaches of the universities and colleges making progress in global
citizenship education. Each chapter illustrates the influential structures and critical
issues of global citizen formation and applies multiple research methods to discover
the opinions of respondents and students regarding their ability and educational
environments. The author’s aim is to explore the relationship between theory and
practice as well as applying various educational research topics and methods to
provide an understanding of global citizenship education from a comprehensive and
systematic perspective.
No doubt, in this new century, dramatic changes in information, communication
and transportation are synergistically enhanced by the interconnectedness of tech-
nology, opening a new space for citizens to develop opportunities that offer better life
choices and experiences. However, society encounters problems ranging from natural
disasters to human alienation caused by technology, which move ahead as quickly
as engineers and artificial intelligence can take them. In order to cultivate and equip
human beings with better alternatives, the educational system has to overcome the
disadvantages of individualism as it seeks to establish an awareness of community,
a concern for humanity and the common good, and the ability to peacefully coexist
with others. As the complexity and struggles of global issues spreads through our
modern world, the educational system entails a duty to open the minds of learners’
to think and act with alternative viewpoints on behalf of the future of our planet.
Although global level issues are always entangled with unsolved critical threats,
the solution has to be initiated and constructed from the grassroots up by individuals
themselves as political members who belong to the global society. That is why, in
this book, the author attempts to illustrate the possibilities of higher education’s
advancement through engaging with teachers and students to reflection our era of
globalization, both locally and globally.
Political members belonging to the global society perceive the limitations of
national citizenship. Equally significant is the rise of normative claims based on
international law that are binding the state and recognize that the rights and duties
of individuals no longer begin and end with the authority of the state (Falk, 2002a).
Global issues cut across national boundaries and break down the baseline of internal
and external affairs in a country. We can view the example of environmental protection
in macro-perspective. When a national policy aims at environmental protection and
sustainability, it does not merely maintain a limited area to support its long-term
development, but must also deal with the catastrophic devastation caused by natural
disease and climate change. Each nation has to respond to such disturbances with a
solution that can deal with threats and effects beyond its borders.
Besides our interaction with the natural environment, conflicts and contentions
among groups, religions, ethnicities, and self-interests erupt into hostility and demand
global solutions (Falk, 2002b). A profound trend in communication and transporta-
tion is increasing human migration, but it is hampered by the violent struggles
1.2 Transformation in Citizenship 5
that continue to occur around the world. The value of multiculturalism is doubt-
less appealing as protection against inequity and injustice. The basis for interactions
among differentiated groups is to encourage the diversity of cultures and interac-
tion among those of differing identities wherever people meet on the global stage.
Therefore, developing individuals who have the values and competency of global
citizenship becomes a useful and critical approach in a global society. Educational
institutions play a key role in, conveying and leading learners to realize their role in
the future and the world.
1.3 Multiple Dimensions of Citizenship
Global and multicultural citizenship are two sides of the same coin: one internally
focused and the other externally focused. Cultural and ethnic communities need to
be respected and legitimized because not only do they provide safe spaces for ethnic,
cultural, and language groups on the margins of society, but they also serve as a
conscience for the nation-state. The aspects of citizenship in the global society face
multiple structural changes concerning how individuals cope with the uncertain risks
in life.
1.3.1 Liberalism as a Foundation of Citizenship
Liberalism proposes that freedom, democracy, and equality are the principles which
each country should establish a constitution, and administration to operate a mature
political system with citizen participation. The theory of liberalism assumes a
rational, autonomous citizen operating within a certain kind of consensual liberal
democracy. Liberalism is discussed in a limited way. Friedman (2006) further expli-
cation of liberalism as a movement emanating from the Age of the Enlightenment
and its historical development over time from classical liberalism, to social liberalism
and also economic (or neoliberal) forms of liberalism. Citizenship education aims to
represent a modernist conception of enlightened learners as social actors with agency
for pursuing life. As Giroux indicates, without an understanding of the political and
economic context of inequalities, we cannot attain the pursuit of liberalism, which
emphasizes democracy,
Liberalism is often little more than a simple-minded celebration of individualism and citi-
zenship, taking for granted the ability of the capitalist state and its attendant market logic to
address the suffering of subordinated and marginalized groups. (Giroux, 1989, p. 55)
Citizenship in this view is characterized by strong individualism that results in

a weak social bond, especially with people from other cultures. Since the world
is going through a process of interaction and migration, this conception of global
citizens indicates the need for approaches that will cultivate citizens with values
that respect diverse others. To understand the global community as a whole society
means one cannot ignore ethical challenges such as how to evaluate and balance
between freedom and the common good, economic growth and social justice, and
social welfare and fair competition (Kymlicka & Norman, 2000). Neoliberal ideas of
citizenship have been widely criticized from a holistic perspective by Young (1990)
and Nussbaum (2002) for their market-oriented influence on education policies. This
has led to arguments on how liberal and/or republican citizenship cannot meet the
needs of an increasingly diverse society.
Nussbaum (1996) advocates world citizenship rather than state or national citi-
zenship as the appropriate central focus in civic education. This is because education
for world citizenship helps promote individual and collective self-awareness as well
as a spirit of cooperation in solving global problems, acknowledging the moral obli-
gations from the wealthier and privileged nations to the rest of the world. In her
view, cosmopolitanism in the present day often emerges as a global extrapolation of
classical liberal principles such as liberty, equality, and justice.
Nussbaum (1996) indicates that,
If we really do believe that all human beings are created equal and endowed with certain
inalienable rights, we are morally required to think about what that conception requires us
to do with and for the rest of the world. (Nussbaum, 1996, p. 14)
Citizenship rights are formally given to all citizens, but in practice are unattainable
to specific groups due to cultural differences. From a pragmatic perspective, citizen-
ship implies a degree of equality. Rights that are conferred to citizens on equal terms
will not be realized unless the cultural differences that comprise the whole of the
citizenry are taken into account. Inequality will persist if cultural differences are
not considered in the formal narrative. Liberal thinking on minority rights has too
often been guilty of ethnocentric assumptions, or overgeneralization from particular
cases, or conflating political expedience with moral principle. If liberalism is to have
any chance to take root in newly emerging democracies, it must explicitly address
the needs and aspirations of the ethnic and national minorities. For states to address
the cultural differences that define contemporary multicultural societies, a pragmatic
solution that formally considers the relevant differences that have created certain
categories of people is needed.

Consensus is a key element of a well-functioning society (Carabain et al., 2012).
One of the most important identities for a community is its beliefs of belonging to
each other. Community thus goes against the individualism preached by liberals.
The basic principle of community is that people are by nature part of a socio-cultural
formation. What matters is that the central focus is not on individual goals, but rather
on common goals. Loyalty to the community is an essential value for living together.
A typology of the different sorts of minority rights that ethnic and national groups
may demand is critical. People tend to distinguish various forms of cultural pluralism,
which can sometimes be conflated under the label of “multiculturalism,” especially
between “multination” states that have national minorities and “poly-ethnic” states
that have ethnic groups.
1.3 Multiple Dimensions of Citizenship 7
In particular, there are three types of groups differentiated via collective rights: rights of
self-government (involving the delegation of powers of government, often within a federal
structure), poly-ethnic rights (involving financial support and legal protection for certain
practices associate with particular ethnic or religious groups), and special representation
rights (guaranteeing representation of minority groups within the central institutions of the
larger state).
Identity and community conclude with examples of each type from various coun-
tries and explore some key differences among them regarding their institutional
embodiment and constitutional protection.
More than ever before, the competences of multicultural perspectives, the emer-
gence of global issues, and an open, respectful, compassionate attitude to difference
have become vital to education systems and policies. From the multicultural view,
citizenship denotes active participation in a multicultural society and respect for
its similarities and differences. People from different groups without mutual under-
standing and respect will engage in conflict with each other. For example, institution-
alized racial segregation and discrimination dominated South African society until
the early 1990s. The resulting racial stratification caused internal conflicts among
the different races that persist to this day.
The conflicts and struggles for the development of citizen virtues in this new era
of rapid interaction and transformation force people to building a better community
whether it is on the local or global scale. To cultivate global citizens, education
must foster the cognitions, attributes, and behaviors that define the global citizen as
someone who understands how the world works, respects diversity, acts to make the
world a more equitable and sustainable place, and takes responsibility for his or her
actions.
1.3.2 The Citizen’s Individual and Collective Social Roles
The formation of a modern global citizenship defines a citizen as one that belongs to
a particular country as well as to a modern state offering “civil” citizenship in a global
context. The meanings of “global” contain complex conceptions and related theories
range from extreme individualism to extreme communism, and all points in between.
This framework views global citizenship as core competitiveness of personal ability
and development involving global mobility. Concretely, it means a youth with the
freedom, power, and mobility in the world to pursue a successful and wealthy life.
We can trace back to Kant’s promotion of a “cosmopolitan theory”that regards beings
as members in a single moral community of the world where citizens share common
moral laws of equality, freedom, and independence.
Tully (2008) indicates that the definition of global citizenship contains two
contested meanings which are “modern” and “diverse” ways of thinking. Examples of
dichotomous pairs of these ideas include global citizenship from above versus global
citizenship from below, low intensity versus high-intensity global citizenship, repre-
sentative versus direct, hegemonic versus counter-hegemonic, and cosmopolitan
versus place-based. “Global” and “globalization” in the diverse citizenship tradi-

tion refer to the global networking of local practices of civic citizenship, in contrast
to the use of “global” and “globalization” in modern/cosmopolitan citizenship.
“Diverse” global citizenship in crossing territorial boundaries pursues commit-
ments for the public good and participation in the larger community. Mason (2014)
discussed these two approaches to global citizenship and proposed a comprehensive
conception of a “justice account” to modify Tully’s (2008) ideas of global citizenship.
Mason (2014) argued that the “justice account” of citizenship can extend to disagree
with either the moral or legal dimensions of global citizenship and generates a funda-
mental principle for practicing global citizenship in a real society in which citizens
are interdependent and interact with others with good manners for the public good
(Mason, 2014).
The “diverse” tradition recognizes a multiplicity of different practices rather than
a single set of standards. Traditional political thinkers have argued that while global
citizenship is formulated in both real and ideal societies, it struggles to equitably
arrange individual benefits and accomplishments with collective advancement and
the common good. In addition to the spectrum of issues encountered when trying
to achieve consensus across individualism and altruism, alternatives can explain the
different approaches to the features of global citizenship. For example, James Tully’s
(2008) analysis marks a refreshing change from the familiar contrast between liberal
and republican approaches. His main distinction is between what he calls modern and
diverse traditions. The modern tradition possesses a particular set of rights and duties
and their corresponding institutional preconditions, for instance, of the government,
schools, and legislatures, which provide standards and allocate resources to civil
action.
The abstract individualism of the liberal tradition tends to view the individual and
community as being in opposition and in part, this explains their ambivalence toward
responsibilities, democracy, and social rights. In particular, the emphasis placed on
individual autonomy makes liberals suspicious of notions of community. A series
of dualisms echoes this fundamental opposition and can be traced through liberal
theory (Falk, 2000). The spectrum of global citizenship reveals the complexity of
approaches to understanding citizen identity in society and in the global age.

Dual and more controversial conceptions of global citizenship are also employed
by Falk (2000), who identifies “ten dualisms of liberal citizenship” (Table 1.1):
Citizenship is closely related to personal and social identity. People develop a
sense of identity from their experiences and backgrounds, which may involve race,
gender, ethnicity, location, faith, family, sexuality, employment, or some combination
of these factors. They may also define themselves as citizens of a particular country,
with varying degrees of allegiance to that country’s traditions and values. The overall
effect is to create diversity, uncertainty, and tension—a potentially explosive mix.
With an increasing population of immigrants bringing more diversity into the mix,
each citizen builds and forms his or her own identity by developing new, long-term
personal and family ties. These changes mirror developments in the scale and scope
of globalization and global society.
Table 1.1: Ten dualisms of

Individual Community
liberal citizenship
Agency Structure
Private sphere Public sphere
Men as citizens Women as caretakers
Freedom through the market Equality through politics
Market rights Social rights
Active citizens Passive citizens
Rights Responsibilities
Sovereignty Human rights
Science Nature
Source Citizenship, Keith Falk (2000). London: Routledge, p. 57
Citizenship has become a sensitive political issue with the growth of international
conflicts (Humes, 2008). Therefore, the definition and explanation of global citizen-
ship show that policy and theory must investigate the fundamental framework and
values of global citizenship to generate a baseline of individual rights in modern
society. Kymlicka (2003) emphasizes that political conflict among multiple groups
should be solved with the principles of justice and freedom. The multicultural view
of the rights and obligations of citizens represents a critique of the discourse of liber-
alism for its extreme emphasis on freedom, equality, and political power. The theory
thus leads to a lack of relationship between public responsibility and civic common
good, which is an urgent issue in light of the conflicts and risks of our era.
1.3.3 The Citizen’s National Identity in Global Era
National identity is a very complicated and multidimensional matter. National iden-

tity is an abstract concept in which a citizen recognizes that he or she belongs to a
specific location and political entity. This term suggests that citizens empower their
own political influence by participating and changing the legislation and constitutions
within a specific boundary.
Moreover, the recent political arena suffers under contradictory trends in which
minority groups search for alliances with others left out of cooperations because
of their “differences.” This political connection and cooperation among groups are
driven by the emergence of globalization and interaction among different groups. The
union of different groups conveys the ideal discourse in which individuals and their
willing cooperation are respected in their decision-making. Therefore, the difference
represents a potential baseline for cooperation.
However, identity is a “relational concept” which draws distinctions “between us
and them” and fulfills emotional functions (Brown, 2000; Welsh, 1993). Identities
are generally complementary, but in changing circumstances certain identities may

become more prevalent (Okamura, 1981; Osaghae, 1994).
We can now say that national identity is constructed and dependent on time
and space. The concept of identity is introduced both as a notion of continuity
and of change without making them contradictory. Nonetheless, continuity, in so
far as it concerns the “self” in its relation with the “other,” is meaningless without
transformation.
The solution to linking individuals and collectives in the context of national-
belonging and global citizenry is the core agenda of cosmopolitanism. This is
primarily regarded as a specific idea or behavioral pattern. Cosmopolitan individuals
are those who consider themselves unfettered by the boundaries of existing political
communities and their loyalty is not only toward any particular political community,
but also the community of all human beings.
Contemporary cosmopolitanism is typically presented as mere detachment from
the political systems of nation-states, but it actually posits a notion of openness to
the world. It is beginning to be seen as a legal and political framework, as an ethical
ideal and vision of justice, and as a type of identity choice made by individuals.
The formation of a global society urges people to seek their local, ethnic, religious,
and national identities. Global society then grows because the global networks that
evolve out of the intertwining local networks are necessary to its survival.
1.3.4 The Citizen’s Awareness of Consumption Society
Globalization is the rapid spread of the capitalist market and capitalism privileges
the global economy. It espouses competition in global markets and widens the gap
between the rich and poor to produce inequality on a global scale. The world’s
economic and political systems are undergoing their most dramatic transformation
since the emergence of the international economy in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. After the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reality
of a stagnant yet enormously rich Japan, the reunification of Germany and its conse-
quent return as the dominant power in Western Europe, and the rise of China and
Pacific Asia have impacted every aspect of international affairs. Changes and devel-
opments include the technological revolution associated with the computer and the
information economy, and the redistribution of economic power from the industrial-
ized West to the rapidly industrializing and crisis-driven economies of Pacific Asia
have become more prominent. Colonialism and imperialism have driven the growth
of global interaction, communication, and transportation for several centuries, and
the expansion of capitalism has increased inequalities in social status and classes
in every society. However, this rather pessimistic position declares that the clash
between communism and capitalism has been replaced by conflicts among rival
forms of capitalism and social systems represented in regional economic blocs. The
growth of a global civil society is intertwined with the history of colonialism and
imperialism because economic development has been a key incentive for nations to
increase their influence on the global stage.
World system theory refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor,
which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and periphery
countries. Core countries focus on higher skilled, capital-intensive production while
the rest of the world focuses on low-skilled, labor-intensive production and the extrac-
tion of raw materials. The structure of the world system constantly reinforces how
the dominant core countries fabricate a world economy rooted in capitalist economic
practices.
Although social justice suffers from exploitation by the force of capitalism, the
concept of global citizenship should not only establish the prosperity of capitalism
and global markets, but also emphasize the importance in realizing of public good and
a civil society in which citizens strengthen their bonds with the human community
and contribute to social inclusion, cohesion, and justice. A variety of international
organizations with global concerns work for modern workers Obviously, the idea
of global citizenship supposes citizens are equipped with the ability to compete in
global social and economic trends as well as mechanisms that support fair and just
interactions in a global civil society.
Scholars have considered and clarified strategies for developing global citizen-
ship, and rules that lead citizens to be active in public life. Held (1995) has linked
his understanding of global citizenship to a proposed model of cosmopolitan democ-
racy that would include an elected worldwide assembly, an international judiciary,
military force, economic policy institutions, and transnational and nongovernmental
organizations. Held argues that states should no longer be regarded as the exclusive
power centers within their borders but should be “relocated” within an umbrella of
cosmopolitan democratic law, and the sovereign authority of states is situated within
an overarching global legal framework. Held(1995)promotes a conceptual enlarge-
ment of citizenship in order to account for multiple ties to different spheres. People
sustain through access to global governing institutions and informal networks within
transnational civil society (such as Greenpeace institutions, international religious
foundations, Youth Chamber of Commerce, and Amnesty International) through
engagement. “Citizen” in this framework is both a role and a member, one who
cannot only adhere to national level rights, duties, and obligations but who also
intends to be aware and present in global problems.
As Gaventa (2001: 278) has written,
…global citizenship is the exercise of the right to participate in decision-making in social,
economic, cultural and political life, within and across the local, national, and global arenas.
This is true especially at the global level: Where the institutions and authority of global
governance are not so clear, the rights of citizenship are made real not only through legal
instruments but through the process of citizen action, or human agency, itself.
The campaign of global citizenship and the outcomes of education, which include
the dimensions of pedagogy and curriculum, give schools and communities a
profound conception of how learners are impacted by capitalism in the global age. A
prime task for showing citizen competence and the responsibility of global citizens
is to create citizen awareness of the oppression and exploitation caused by capitalism

in a broad sphere which encompasses the changes regarding information and tech-
nology in the global market. When citizens are able to identify the influences of
a market-oriented society and take the initiative to build an equal and fair society,
the quality and well-being of society can advance. If citizens maintain their public
duty of environmental protection and sustainability, they will not only evaluate their
consumption habits, but also critique their own waste of resources.
1.4 East Asian and Taiwanese Higher Education Responds

to Globalization
The overwhelming adoption of neoliberal, free-market economic policies in the

1980s and the subsequent deregulation of education have had an impact on many
systems in Europe, North and South America, and Asia (including New Zealand and
Australia) (Olssen & Peters, 2005). As the world becomes more globalized, student
populations in university settings continue to diversify in Asia–Pacific, where Taiwan
is located. Many countries in these regions have restructured their systems of public
education systems in an attempt to give higher education institutes relative autonomy
and enable them to assume responsibility as independent institutions.
As a result of deregulation and liberalization, individual institutions have become
more competitive and accountable through the creation of an overall market mecha-
nism within the education system (Giroux, 2002). Multiculturalism is vibrant, while
nationalistic fervor is often stoked to destructive ends. To ensure that students develop
the cultural competence to adapt to new environments, universities and colleges must
develop policies and programs to aid in cultural acceptance and understanding. The
young generation of Asia–Pacific learners faces an increasingly interconnected but
highly fragmented world in the global epoch. Urgent action to address the complex
issues of today can ensure a sustainable and peaceful tomorrow.
Promoting global citizenship education in the Asian–Pacific movements, the
UNESCO in Bangkok is actively involved in advancing global citizenship compe-

tency in education systems throughout Asia–Pacific. The development of each
country and region presents various experiences in the global citizenship educa-
tion in higher education. I address the Taiwanese experience and development of
global citizenship and illustrate some countries of Asia–Pacific in the issues.
Singapore and Hong Kong have adopted depoliticized forms of citizenship as a
means of inoculation against global ills. In practice, although critical, transnational,
and other emergent civic perspectives are apparent in both cities, they yielded little
evidence of curricular opportunities for students to become exposed to alternative
discourses and discursive contradictions (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016). However,
these types of citizenship are not only more nationalistic than global in nature, but
more moral rather than political, focusing mainly on utilitarian goals to produce
adaptable workers to support national economic projects in the global economy.
1.4 East Asian and Taiwanese Higher Education Responds … 13
These countries emphasize the development and achievement of national power for
economic ranking in the world, and global citizenship education aims to cultivate a
citizen with comparativeness in economic attainment and participation in the world
economic systems.
While we scrutinize developed Japan’s progress in citizenship education, Japanese
development education has enthusiastically absorbed the fundamental principles of
world studies, global education, and development education, which include critical
thinking, global dimensions in education, and participatory and learner-centered
methods that all revolve around social justice and human rights. Those principles are
shared broadly within the field of development education in Japan and are considered
indispensable for cultivating global citizenship in the social context and cultural
diversity of schools and universities. But, most Japanese schoolteachers hesitate to
practice education based on critical, participatory, open-ended, and learner-centered
principles. Teachers are even reluctant to take up politically controversial issues in
their classes. Although the law of “Basic Act on Education of Japan” of Article 14
promotes that political education has “the political literacy necessary for sensible
citizenship shall be valued in education,” the majority of schools and teachers in
Japan emphasize Section 2 of Article 14, which states that “schools prescribed by
law shall refrain from political education or other political activities for or against
any specific political party” (Basic Act on Education of Japan, Act No. 120 of 2006,
art. 14,). Therefore, teachers tend to avoid discussing politics in their classrooms,
citing political neutrality as their reason for doing so. This limitation according
to the Basic Act on Education of Japan produces barriers in the development of
citizenship education as well as global citizenship education for teachers to teach
undergraduates’ awareness as global citizens.
In the 1980s, the Taiwan government focused on producing capital and
technology-intensive goods for export and became a society that was dominated
by the service industry. Concurrently, Taiwanese higher education systems had
also reached a stage where universities started to recruit international students after
many decades of primarily sending their own students abroad. Alongside Taiwan’s
economy advancement and political process, the governance over higher education
moved toward democratization in the late 1980s, and universities began to pursue
academic freedom and autonomy inspired by their American counterparts.
Higher education in Taiwan underwent a dramatic transformation after 1987, with
the end of an authoritarian regime that had lasted four decades and the beginning of
increased interactions between China and Taiwan. Educational advocates demanded
greater social change through abolishing media censorship, granting more freedom
to the banking establishment, and producing more competent college students to
accommodate Taiwan’s emerging high technology industry. Governments in Taiwan
have to reform to keep up with the worldwide trend of globalization and neoliberalism
along with the processes of political democratization and economic transformation
from the 1980s (Chou, 2008).
In fact, there was a period when the establishment of private universities was
strictly controlled and banned before the mid-1980s. In 1998, there were only 84
universities and colleges, comprising 410,000 students and 841 graduate institutes,
while in 2003 the numbers reached 142 universities with 830,000 students and 2215
graduate institutes (Cheng & Wu, 2004). Governments asserted for neoliberal market
ideology regarding political liberalism and economic deregulation; therefore higher
education systems in Taiwan have expanded more than expected. The expansion
of higher education coupled with neoliberalism’s influence has caused multiple
consequences. Overall, policy-makers were convinced that adopting market-oriented
mechanisms would encourage universities to decrease the financial burden of higher
education. The evaluation of cost-effective behavior and increased efficiency as well
as educational quality in the universities and colleges became the most important
criteria for governance and management. The government’s role shifted from initi-
ating rules and regulations toward specifying funding standards for universities and
colleges and promoted accountability, performance, competition, and deregulation
in the governance of higher education.
The development of higher education in Taiwan in these past decades represents
a transition from a highly centralized administration to government-regulated and
market-driven management. The impact of foreign influences and local heritage on
the current system as well as the uniqueness of a system that combines Japanese,
American, Chinese, and local features that enforces Taiwan to pursue localization
and globalization in higher education (MOE, 2016).
According to the trends of globalization, the main aim of international education
is to cross boundaries between countries to ensure promotion and mobility of human
resources. In order to promote international education exchange programs and to
integrate cross-strait educational affairs, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan has
reconstructed its former Bureau of International Cultural and Educational Relations.
Along with the Mainland Affairs Division and the Commission of Overseas Chinese
Education Affair in 2013, it became the new Department of International and Cross-
strait Education for policy-making and enhancement.
The integration between the Department of International and Cross-strait Educa-
tion provides students’ international engagement and learning programs through
international cooperation, such as the interaction between Cross-Taiwan Strait
students, overseas Taiwanese schools, and Mandarin Chinese education, protocol
affairs about exchanges students and scholars, and overseas Chinese Students and
international students’ service.
Since there is a particular political relationship between Taiwan and Mainland
China, Taiwan was disqualified from the United Nations. Nevertheless, the Taiwan
government has figured out various strategies to contribute to the political, cultural,
and economic growth worldwide. Another landmark in overseas cooperation and
connection with higher education institutions is the new policy Southbound Talent
Development Program. Launched by President Ying wen Tsai in 2016, this program
integrates several goals. First, the Taiwan government offers quality education and
professional training for domestic, ASEAN and Southeast Asian youths. Second,
the Ministry of Education in Taiwan encourages universities to expand the bilateral
exchange of young scholars and students. Third, higher education institutes focus on
building a platform for bilateral educational cooperation. These goals are attained
through multiple missions and responsibilities operated in higher education, such
1.4 East Asian and Taiwanese Higher Education Responds … 15
as: offering credit courses and programs on industries and regional studies geared
toward the New Southbound Policy, providing subsidies to university students to
train in overseas Taiwanese businesses or multinational corporations, and offering
funding to university professors and students for overseas research in ASEAN and
South Asian nations. This program implemented in Taiwan is a critical policy that
benefits Taiwan’s international education with other countries.
Not only does the Ministry of Education recruit international students to study
in Taiwan’s universities, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also started a Taiwan
Scholarship Program in 2004, continuing to encourage outstanding students to pursue
academic degrees in Taiwan and deepening their understanding of Taiwan’s academic
environment. Scholarship from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is, in principle,
granted to students from countries that have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Taiwan’s current and future vision of international growth includes cross-strait
cooperation and exchange, recruitment of outstanding students from Mainland China,
Hong Kong, and Macau, and cultivation and sharing of talents with the interna-
tional community, including the promotion of Taiwan’s Mandarin Chinese education
performance.
Due to the above critical factors which were influenced by educational manage-
ment and policies, the educational expansion in universities and colleges, and
missions undertaken by the administrations, we can tell that undergraduates have
increased opportunities in global mobility as well as diverse interaction with class-
mates from different cultural backgrounds. In this trend, the cultivation of youth
competency in global citizenship has become the essential agenda for higher educa-
tion institutions. Because of international trends and events, young people broaden
their international outlook and improve global mobility in Taiwan and other countries
through expanding international cooperation on youth affairs and advancing youth
international exchange.
1.5 Global Citizenship Education and the Vision

for the Future
According to the UN, global citizenship education provides the knowledge, skills,
and values students need to resolve the interconnected challenges of the twenty-first
century, including climate change, conflict, poverty, hunger, and issues of equity and
sustainability. These same educational outcomes prepare students to be successful
in the workplace of the twenty-first century as well.
It has been true for decades that the United States stands as an international police
officer in charge of the global order, although its influence and the consequences
may not satisfy all the countries involved. The progression of constitutional systems,
democracy, freedom, and equity prevail worldwide has become the universal norms
in politics that touch on human rights and the common good. The international polit-
ical systems push for more international laws and politics via the state mechanism
and their foreign policies, which in the face of pressing global challenges. However,
behind the achievements of the international order and values, world peace remains
unstable and uncertain. Despite anticipation for long-term peace, people still lack
confidence. We can see that Trump’s “American First” policy really changes the rules
in international cooperation and competition, and the reform of China’s Consti-
tutional Law on the national president’s term length immediately evoked interna-
tional concern. International nonprofit organizations worry about how these events
impact the balance among international powers. The consequences of this imbalance
endanger multicultural values and the assurance of global peace.
Education systems play a key role in improving society and cultivating citizens
alongside the new trends addressed in learning and teaching missions. In facing the
transformation and challenges of globalization, education must now be measured
against the standards of decency and human survival. On the one hand, individuals
should acquire the capacity to make decisions and act effectively in accordance with
social problems. Because the practice of teaching and learning needs information and
communication technologies to form sophisticated achievements, thus challenges
and changes occur in educational innovation. In a sense, higher education not only
serves as an approach to learn about cognitive intelligence but also a goal to create
perfect citizenry.
A global citizen is a bearer of the rights and values founded on respect for others,
and global citizenship is about our equal moral status, which should be acknowledged
wherever we live. A global citizen is also someone who commits to a certain view
based on their awareness of how they ought to be treated and their behavior toward
others. A global citizen embraces the world or what would be good for the world
in terms of what should be done to protect the environment, maintain peace, make
technology responsive to human ends, and pursue liberal immigration policies.
Coming back to the original question of how we can convert people’s way of
thinking in globalization and how we can achieve higher learning in foreign language
education, perfectionist education would give us hope—the hope of awakening
oneself and others by trusting the unlimited resourcefulness of language. We need
to tap into new human resources for the global citizen—for the individual who will
live in uncertain circumstances. This I shall conclude to be the fundamental sense of

liberal education.
Therefore, the educational system plays a key role in preparing and cultivating
learners with a worldview that reaches beyond national boundaries. The goals to
educate global citizens include a series of arrangements based on formal, non-formal,
and informal education which constitute the programs, pedagogies, curricula, and
activities for learners on and off campus as well as at local and global levels. The
outcomes of global citizenship in ordinary civil life contribute to the grassroots
community and social networks with a prospective competency in the global and
universal issues that concern collective interests encompassing all diversity living
on this planet. After all, the way citizenship is discussed and deployed actually
evokes the daily life we lead and the way we interact, not only with our social,
economic, and political connections, but as well as our physical environment and
other extra-anthropocentric realities.
1.5 Global Citizenship Education and the Vision for the Future 17
Global citizenship education is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector

program running from 2014 to 2021, which, for 7 years, will build on the work of
Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to make learners advance the values that
support responsible global citizenship: innovation and commitment to peace, human
rights, and sustainable development. UNESCO (2015) engaged in this field, which
is guided by the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target
4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4 on Education). These goals calls
on countries to “ensure that all learners are provided with the knowledge and skills
to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for
sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality,
promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation
of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.”
Connected within Target 4.7, Global Citizenship Education Development (GCED)
and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) are recognized as mutually rein-
forcing approaches with commonalities and specificities. Both prioritize the rele-
vance of education in order to ensure that education helps build a peaceful and
sustainable world. Both also emphasize the need to foster the competences that
allow individuals to make informed decisions and assume active roles on a local,
national, and global scale.
Additional information is that parts of the content in some chapters of this book
have been published in various journals in Madarin, but all the articles have been thor-
oughly revised and rewritten in terms of the framework or the analysis. I appreciate
all the opportunities to convey my perspective, analysis, and reflection on the issues
of global citizenship for academic communities, policy makers, and educational
practitioners.
References
Alviar-Martin, T., & Baildon, M. (2016). Context and curriculum in two global cities: A study
of discourses of citizenship in Hong Kong and Singapore. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
24(58), 1–31.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). Sage.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.
Carabain, C., Keulemans, S., Gent M., & Spitz, G. (2012). Global citizenship: From public support
to active participation. National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable
Development.
Cheng, G. G., & Wu, Y. M. (2004). The new challenge of the unbalanced development of grad-
uate education in Taiwan. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-thePacific/
Taiwan.html#ixzz2r33HHWdV.
Chou, C. (2008). The impact of neo-liberalism on Taiwanese higher education. International
Perspectives on Education and Society, 9, 297–311.
Falk, R. (2000). Human rights horizons: The pursuit of justice in a globalizing world. Routledge.
Falk, R. (2002a). Reframing the international: Law, culture, politics. Routledge.
Falk, R. (2002b). The great terror war. Interlink Publishing Group.
Friedman, J. (2006). Preface. In E. Rata & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Public policy and ethnicity: The
politics of ethnic boundary making (pp. xi–xxv). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gaventa, J. (2001). Global citizen action: Lessons and challenges. In M. Edwards & J. Gaventa
(Eds.), Global citizen action (p. 278). Earthscan.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modernity age. Polity.
Giroux, H. A. (1989). Schooling for democracy: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The
University as a democratic public space. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–463.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order. Polity.
Humes, W. (2008). The discourse of global citizenship. In M. A. Peters, A. Britton, & H. Blee
(Eds.), Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy. Sense Publications.
Kymlicka, W. (2003). Contemporary political philosophy. Clarendon Press.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (2000). Citizenship in diverse societies. Oxford University Press.
Lash, S. (1994). Reflexivity, and its doubles: Structure, aesthetics, community. In U. Beck, A.
Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization (pp. 110–173). Sage.
MacIntyre, A. (1990). Three rival versions of moral enquiry: Encyclopaedia, genealogy, and
tradition. University of Notre Dame Press.
Marshall, T. H. (1950).Citizenship and social class: And other essays. Cambridge University Press.
Mason, A. (2014). Modern versus diverse citizenship: Historical and ideal theory perspectives.
In J. Tully (Ed.), On global citizenship: James Tully in dialogue (pp. 229–246). Bloomsbury
Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472544827.ch-007.
Ministry of Education. (2016). Promoting global mobility for the young generation. Ministry of
Education.
Misiaszek, G. W. (2018). Educating the global environmental citizen: Understanding ecopedagogy
in local and global contexts. Routledge.
Nussbaum, M. C., et al. (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In M. C. Nussbaum (Ed.), For
love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism (p. 14). Beacon Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2002). Women and law of peoples. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 1,
283–306.
Okamura, J. (1981). Situational ethnicity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4(4), 452–465.
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy:
From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 313–345.
Osaghae, E. H. (1994). Ethnicity in Africa or African identity: The search for contextual under-
standing. In U. Himmelstrand et al. (Eds.), African perspectives on development. St. Martin’s
Press.
Sandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge University
Press.
Tully, J. (2008). Two meanings of global citizenship: Modern and diverse. In M. A. Peters, H.
Blee, & A. Britton (Eds.), Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy. Sense
Publications.
UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and objectives. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Blackwell.
Welsh, D. (1993). Domestic politics and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35(1), 63–80.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.

Global Citizen Formation Global Citizenship Educat... - (1 Introduction The Complexity of Global Citizenship)

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

Global Citizen Formation Global Citizenship Educat... - (1 Introduction The Complexity of Global Citizenship)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Introduction: The Complexity of Global

1.1 Social Movements, Citizenship, and Globalization

Citizenship addresses the significance of individual rights, obligations, and legal

to cultivate citizen knowledge, attitudes, and competences to promote the consoli-

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 1

1.2 Transformation in Citizenship

1.3 Multiple Dimensions of Citizenship

1.3.1 Liberalism as a Foundation of Citizenship

Citizenship in this view is characterized by strong individualism that results in

categories of people is needed.

1.3.2 The Citizen’s Individual and Collective Social Roles

versus place-based. “Global” and “globalization” in the diverse citizenship tradi-

approaches to understanding citizen identity in society and in the global age.

Table 1.1: Ten dualisms of

1.3.3 The Citizen’s National Identity in Global Era

National identity is a very complicated and multidimensional matter. National iden-

are generally complementary, but in changing circumstances certain identities may

1.3.4 The Citizen’s Awareness of Consumption Society

is to create citizen awareness of the oppression and exploitation caused by capitalism

1.4 East Asian and Taiwanese Higher Education Responds

The overwhelming adoption of neoliberal, free-market economic policies in the

UNESCO in Bangkok is actively involved in advancing global citizenship compe-

1.5 Global Citizenship Education and the Vision

live in uncertain circumstances. This I shall conclude to be the fundamental sense of

Global citizenship education is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector

You might also like