Search Results

The idea that relationships of citizenship may extend beyond state borders even in the absence of transnational political institutions is implicit in the idea that duties of ecological citizenship are owed to those in the developing world who bear the brunt of climate change as a result of unsustainable practices in industrialized countries. It is also implicit in the contention that duties of global citizenship are owed to those who live in grinding poverty in other countries. But even if these duties are properly regarded as duties of justice, it is not clear that they can legitimately be described as duties of ecological or global citizenship. This is not simply because citizenship is about the enjoyment of rights as well as the incurring of duties. It is also because it is part of the core concept of citizenship that the duties of citizenship are special duties which fellow citizens owe to each other as part of that relationship.

Here, the analysis moves on to consider what global corporate citizenship (GCC) means, and how it is related to constitutionalization. It looks at what type of companies claim corporate citizenship and from where they emanate. It provides a matrix system for classifying companies in terms of their attitudes towards GCC. It investigates the arenas and institutions that are promoting and monitoring GCC (the UN Global Compact, WEF, the US Chamber of Commerce, etc.). It deals with the current conceptions of GCC and differentiates the approach adopted in the book from these. It then discusses the idea of the persona of the corporate citizen and how this is constructed. This chapter contains empirical detail as well as conceptual clarification.

Chapter 6 addresses global civic education as a focus of higher education. It aims to overcome widely perceived tensions between patriotism and international cooperation and skepticism about the idea of global citizenship and the possibility of global civic friendship. It argues that global civic education is needed both to prepare students for global cooperation in a world of global interdependence, and as a foundation for the legitimacy of the terms of international governance. The formative goal of such education is to prepare global citizens who (1) possess understanding, capabilities, and virtues conducive to living well together as members of a cooperative global community; (2) are engaged in global constitutional activity exhibiting such understanding, capabilities, and virtues; and (3) are connected to one another by bonds of global civic friendship. The chapter envisions these attributes, activities, and bonds as grounded in a liberal arts curriculum and established largely through participation in global service projects. The form of civic education defended is a globalized version of the Progressive Era’s “community civics” model, and the chapter concludes with the proposal that global and community-based problem-focused learning be bridged by regional initiatives that address the problems of rural communities left behind by economic globalization.

This chapter argues that classical American Pragmatism offers a set of tools for fostering global citizenship that are more effective than some of its alternatives. The reason for this is that pragmatism claims to discover a strain of human commonality that trumps the postmodernist emphasis on difference and discontinuity. In addition, its theory of truth is coupled with its moderate version of cultural relativism, while the more skeptical postmodernist version known as "cognitive relativism" is undercut.

This article argues that modern states and modern societies were formed through the construction of citizenship as a pattern of social attachment, membership and legal norm formation. Citizenship originally developed as a principle that removed feudal legal orders from society, and it underpinned the processes of territorial unification, institution building, centralized integration and democratic participation that characterize modern nation states and national societies. However, the article argues that, both at the functional level and at the normative level, the trajectories contained in national citizenship were not fully realized within national societies, defined by national legal orders. It was only as a system of global legal norms emerged outside national societies, shaping inner-societal patterns of and institutional construction and norm formation, that the basic potentials of national citizenship were fully realized.

In the face of the worst refugee crisis since World War II, deepening inequalities and the rise of violent extremism, new forms of global solidarity are required to nurture respect for all and to promote the values of inclusion, dialogue and mutual understanding. This goal stands at the heart of all UNESCO’ work to empower every woman and man with the skills and competences to strengthen a culture of peace. The challenge is twofold: to ensure universal access to learning, especially in conflict-affected countries; and to transform education systems by fostering skills for responsible global citizenship – in short for living together in trust.

It is widely held within liberal arts discourse that pedagogies of civic engagement should prepare students for global citizenship. This chapter seeks to complicate the notion of global citizenship by considering privileges and limitations of mobility, depending on economic and political positioning within a global citizenry. Using three case studies in which students become aware of varying freedom of mobility, the authors explore the power dynamics that create these differentials, in order to raise questions about whether “global citizenship” is an adequately nuanced concept and aspiration. This chapter explores how the academic study of religion may be uniquely positioned to help students interrogate these issues, to challenge unequal power relations within global communities, and to begin to foster equitable relationships across differences of power and privilege.

This essay focuses on the academic “fad” of “global citizenship”—and reflects on the author’s experience teaching Virginia Woolf’s Three Guineas to two cohorts of (largely privileged) seniors in Lehigh University’s Global Citizenship Program. The argument first examines the various academic discussions concerning global citizenship education before turning to an analysis of how Three Guineas productively complicates students’ engagement with communities both local and global. The essay then assesses sympathetic attachment and the political benefits of such good feeling. In the end, the paper shifts, with Woolf’s aid, from a cosmopolitan framework rooted in moral sensibility to a decisively political one, asking urgent questions of higher education and its implication in systemic injustice.

Chapter 2 is split into three main parts. The first part discusses an approach to citizenship that stresses affect, and then moves on to explore some of the vast literature around citizenship and nationalism, focusing on what Conversi refers to as the ‘deliberate cultivation of common [national] allegiances’ (2014 p.28) and the role of universal democratic principles in so doing. I draw attention to the arguments of several commentators that asserting a national identity through commitment to apparently universal liberal democratic principles often obscures the existence of narrower cultural and ethnic understandings of belonging. Second, Chapter 2 considers the role of citizenship education in promoting national and global belonging, and identifies some of the recent developments in the subject. Third, it discusses these recent developments in England and elsewhere, including the entanglement with counter-extremist policies.

This chapter argues that the current global system is structurally oriented to political arrogance. It inappropriately permits states to summarily reject the standing of actors such as the National Campaign on Dalit Human rights to file any actionable rights-based challenges vertically, to global bodies, and the standing of individual “outsiders” or other states to file horizontal challenges. Such rejections are inappropriate because the claims being dismissed are typically based in the very rights that ground states’ sovereign prerogatives to dismiss them. The current system is also shown to be strongly conducive to political vices of apathy and selfishness. The identification of each political vice, it is argued, highlights reasons to support an institutional global citizenship approach, alongside collective-action problems and other reasons offered by institutional cosmopolitan theorists. Some possible individual duties of global citizenship to support global institutional development are then discussed, and some stringent recent objections to such duties are engaged.

This chapter interrogates worldschooling parents’ desire to raise their children as global citizens. The analysis reveals three key insights. First, worldschooling parents use global citizenship as a proxy for the uncertain future their children will inherit. Second, they define global citizenship in almost exclusively emotional terms, associating it with feelings like compassion, resilience, gratitude, and comfort with difference. The chapter argues that this focus on the emotional dimension effectively hollows out any political obligation or collective agency that might be associated with global citizenship, converting it instead into a more affective and personalized form of global selfhood. Finally, worldschoolers tend to see global citizenship not as something children are born with but as something that must be cultivated through international travel, exposure to a world of difference, and emotion work. Attentive parents create the “emotional curriculum” that elicits in children a certain temperament, sense of entitlement, and emotional intelligence about their place in the world. What becomes clear is that by teaching their children how to “feel global,” parents are preparing them to feel at home in a world of difference and equipping them with the emotional competencies they will need to flourish in an uncertain future.

The notion of social exclusion and the need to implement policies and programs that combat marginalization and facilitate social inclusion has gained currency in many parts of the world over the past few decades. Social exclusion is often associated with poverty: In a World Bank survey of what poverty means to people who are poor, the respondents identified that poverty is not just a lack of material goods but extends to lack of power; feelings of dependence and inferiority; injustice, exclusion and lack of opportunities; and receipt of poor quality social services. However, just as poverty might prevent people from fully participating in civil society, so some populations may feel marginalized or excluded by the attitudes and behaviors of neighbors, institutions, and whole political systems. This chapter examines the theoretical origins of the concept of social exclusion, gives some examples of particular policies and programs aimed at addressing social exclusion, and considers how the concept might have global relevance in the context of social workers' concerns with human rights and global citizenship.

Throughout the course of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, women's claims to citizenship in their own right have gradually been recognized in Europe and the US, though some exceptions still remain (as charted in a parallel chronology). Yet citizenship remains tied to broad cultural assumptions about gender and enforces gender norms. The resurgence of nationalism in the twenty-first century suggests and the success of "gay pride" movements may have shifted shame away from sexual orientation and onto national belonging, but the question remains whether the underlying structural ideological isomorphism has shifted.

Chapter 6 concludes the book by summarising its themes and considering the definition and role of critical citizenship education. The chapter argues that, despite limitations, particular critical forms of citizenship education have the potential to offer considerations of liberal democratic values that go beyond the simplistic, assumed consensus of FBV. Finally, I conclude that the FBV is a deeply flawed project. In order to allow for maximum consensus, the values are rarely examined and defined, acting instead as a form of ideological comfort food, an assertion of Britain’s occupation of the moral high ground.

This chapter examines Vico's advocacy of global citizenship, or cosmopolitanism, as it was expressed in the inaugural addresses he delivered to the student body of the University of Naples between 1699 and 1708. In particular, this chapter traces Vico's abandonment of an emotive notion of cosmopolitanism for a commercial one, and explains his idealization of commercial sociability with reference to the conclusions he had drawn about the metropolitan community in his history of the revolt of 1701. Vico arrived at the idea that all human relations are transactional in nature, and therefore forms of commerce, and that both the mutual obligations and actionable rights of humans most appropriately can be conceived in terms of international commercial law. Finally, the chapter contextualizes these seemingly moral philosophical claims about the obligations and rights of humans within the contemporary legal battles of the Kingdom.

This chapter analyzes the lessons learned, and suggests policy guidelines to enhance the strength, numbers, and role of global Good Samaritans in the international human rights regime. People can build a better world by nurturing every element of the international human rights regime. Global institutions, transnational civil society, and state human rights promoters are interdependent and synergistic. They can reinforce each other's efforts and must learn from each other's visions and experiences. People must also provide and renew the normative glue that cements global governance, preaching the cosmopolitan gospels of universalism and interdependence. Every year, millions of lives are saved because some government accepted refugees, sent aid, deployed peacekeepers, sanctioned a dictator, tried a miscreant, monitored an election, trained police, or sheltered a dissident. Global Good Samaritans are not martyrs or messiahs; they are simply generous bystanders who stop to help a stranger.