Global citizenship is the application of the concept of citizenship to a global level; it is strongly connected with globalization and cosmopolitanism. Various ideas about what a global citizen is exist.[1][2] Global citizenship can be defined as a moral and ethical disposition which can guide the understanding of individuals or groups of local and global contexts, and remind them of their relative responsibilities within various communities. According to some articles, in this century children and students are meant to become "global citizens" through their education. This is possible through an integration of the "scientific and technical skills" as well as the "traditional academic disciplines".
According to some accounts, citizenship is motivated by local interests (love of family, communal fairness, self-interest), global interests (a sense of universal equality), and concern for fellow human beings, human rights and human dignity. The key tenets of global citizenship include respect for any and all fellow global citizens, regardless of race, religion or creed and give rise to a universal sympathy beyond the barriers of nationality.
When translated into participatory action, global citizenship entails a responsibility to reduce international inequality (both social and economic), to refrain from action which compromises an individuals' well-being, and avoids contributing to environmental degradation.
World citizenship is a term which can be distinguished from global citizenship, although some may merge the two concepts.[citation needed]
In international relations, global citizenship can refer to states' responsibility to act with the awareness that the world is a global community, by recognizing and fulfilling its obligations towards the global world, as well as the rights of global citizens. For example, states can choose to recognize the right to freedom of movement. Global citizenship is related to the international relations theory of idealism, which holds that states should include a level of moral goodwill in their foreign policy decisions.
Global citizenship is qualitatively different from the national variety, where rights and obligations came (even when fought and protested for) at the behest and generosity of the state. With global citizenship, individuals exercise organizational tools such as the Internet to make themselves global citizens. No government sanctioned this development.[3]
Since January 1, 2000, negotiations amongst World Trade Organization member states regarding the movement of professionals to and from member countries has taken place, under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Article XIX. While this does not signal de facto recognition of trans-national citizens, it may indicate halting steps toward it. This is all the more significant given that around the globe there is greater and easier movement of goods than human beings.[4]
The European Community has taken halting steps to change this: it allows the free movement of its people to live, work, pay taxes and, significantly, to vote in other member states. Habermas[5] notes this as a utilitarian model that may have greater implications than merely for Europeans; it is possible the model may be expanded in other regions of the world, or to the entire world itself. The ability of a Spaniard to pick up and move to Germany and be a “citizen” there indicates that notions of ties a country of origin may weaken. The Spaniard may be quite happy living in Germany and not wish to go back to Spain.[4]
There is also the rising tide of individuals with more than one passport. Where once the U.S. State Department frowned on its citizens carrying more than one passport, the reality is that today it is turning a blind eye. (In war, this may change). Many immigrants to the U.S. in the 1990s, a decade that saw the largest influx of newcomers to the state, came to work but still retained their old passports. While many immigrants permanently stay in the U.S., many others either go back to the old country, or travel back and forth. Such people may be considered global citizens.[6]
Jacobson (1996) noted this fracture of the state as dispenser of citizen rights and obligations, although he sees the decline of overall citizenship as a result. Keck and Sikkink (1998) on the other hand, regard such global activism as a possible new engine of civic engagement. These global activists, or “cosmopolitan community of individuals” (p. 213) as they call them, transcend national borders and skillfully use pressure tactics against both government and private corporations that make them viable actors on the emerging global public sphere.
A striking example of this pressure is the anti-sweatshop campaign against Nike. Literally dozens of websites are devoted to exposing Nike’s labor practices. In 1996, with the aid of Global Exchange, a humanitarian organization that later helped to organize the Battle in Seattle, Nike’s labor practices became the subject of increasing mainstream media attention. In the process, Nike was linked to sweatshop labor, a label it has tried to shed ever since.
The Internet and other technologies such as the cell phone play an instrumental role in the development of global activists, as does cheaper air travel and the wide acceptance of credit cards. But there are other forces at work: decline in civic engagement, rise of lifestyle politics, homogenization of products, conglomeration in media systems and communication tools that let us know more about each other than ever before. Add to the mix the rising concern for universal human rights and for trans-global problems such as environmental degradation and global warming, the result is a landscape that tends to be more global than national.
This is not the first time in the history of our civilization that society has been “internationalized”, but never has it been easier for average citizens to express themselves in this globalized fashion – by the clothes they wear, the soda they drink, the music they listen to (e.g., world music) and the vacation land they visit. It is increasingly obvious that our identities, as Lie and Servaes (2000) and Scammell (2001) suggest, are tied to our roles as citizens. Scammell’s “citizen-consumers” vote with their purchases and are engaged in their communities to the extent they have the freedom to shop.
The term was used by U.S. President Barack Obama in 2008 in a speech in Berlin.[7]
Global citizens may redefine ties between civic engagement and geography. The town hall meetings of New England and other regions of the U.S. seem increasingly supplanted by “electronic spheres” not limited by space and time. This heralds a potentially startling new mechanism in participatory democracy.
Absentee ballots opened up the way for expatriates to vote while living in another country. The Internet may carry this several steps further. Voting is not limited by time or space: you can be anywhere in the world and still make voting decisions back home.
Most of U.S. history has been bound up in equating geography with sovereignty. Thompson (1996), writing in the Stanford Law Review, suggests that we can do away with residency and voting in local elections. Frug (1996) even suggests that alienation in the way we regard our geography already creates a disconnect between it and sovereignty. If we are not entirely “home” at home, do boundaries make any difference anymore? This is not just an academic question, but one rife with rich and disheartening social and political possibilities. Global citizens float within, outside and through these boundaries.
Within the educational system, the concept of global citizenship education (GCE) is beginning to supersede movements such as multicultural education, peace education, human rights education and international education. Additionally, GCE rapidly incorporates references to the aforementioned movements. The concept of global citizenship has been linked with awards offered for helping humanity.[8]
Many elements seem to spawn global citizenship, but one is noteworthy: the continuous tension that globalization has unleashed between local, national and global forces. An interesting paradox of globalization is while the world is being internationalized at the same time it’s also being localized. The world shrinks as the local community (village, town, city) takes on greater and greater importance. Mosco (1999) noted this feature and saw the growing importance of technopoles,[9][10] or highly-technologized city-states that hark back to classical Greece.[11] If this trend is true then it seems global citizens are the glue that may hold these separate entities together. Put another way, global citizens are people that can travel within these various boundaries and somehow still make sense of the world.
Any rights and obligations accorded to the global citizen come from the citizens themselves, growing public favor for “universal rights,” the rise of people migrating around the world, and an increasing tendency to standardize citizenship. Difference may exist on the cultural level, but in bureaucracies, increasing favor is placed on uniformity. Efficiency and utilitarianism lie at the core of capitalism; naturally a world that lives under its aegis replicates these tendencies. Postal agreements, civil air travel and other inter-governmental agreements are but one small example of standardization that is increasingly moving into the arena of citizenship. The concern is raised that global citizenship may be closer to a “consumer” model than a legal one.
Like much social change, changing scopes of modern citizenship tend to be played out in both large and minute spheres. Habermas (1994) tends to place global citizenship in a larger, social context, arguing that nations can be central engines of citizenship but culture can also be powerful. He regards the formation of the “European citizen” as a kind of natural epiphany of governmental conglomeration within the forces of globalization, only remotely alluding to the corporate conglomeration that has been both the recipient and cause of worldwide economic expansion. Others, including Iyer (2000) see globalization and global citizens as direct descendants of global standardization, which he notes, for instance, in the growing homogeneity of airports. Standardization and modernity have worked together for the past few centuries. Ellul (1964), Mumford (1963) and other scholars attack this as a form of oppression, in the same vein that Barber (1996) saw the proliferation of carbon-copy fast-food chains around the globe. Why not a set of basic citizen rights followed the world over?
The lack of a world body puts the initiative upon global citizens themselves to create rights and obligations. Rights and obligations as they arose at the formation of nation-states (e.g. the right to vote and obligation to serve in time of war) are at the verge of being expanded. So new concepts that accord certain “human rights” which arose in the 20th century are increasingly being universalized across nations and governments. This is the result of many factors, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust and growing sentiments towards legitimizing marginalized peoples (e.g., pre-industrialized peoples found in the jungles of Brazil and Borneo). Couple this with growing awareness of our impact on the environment, and there is the rising feeling that citizen rights may extend to include the right to dignity and self-determination. If national citizenship does not foster these new rights, then global citizenship may seem more accessible.
One cannot overestimate the importance of human rights discourse in shaping public opinion. What are the rights and obligations of human beings trapped in conflicts? Or, incarcerated as part of ethnic cleansing? Equally striking, are the pre-industrialized tribes newly discovered by scientists living in the depths of dense jungle? Leary (1999), Heater (1999) and Babcock (1994) tend to equate these rights with the rise of global citizenship as normative associations, indicating a national citizenship model that is more closed and a global citizenship one that is more flexible and inclusive.[12] If true, this places a strain in the relationship between national and global citizenship. Boli (1998) tends to see this strain as mutually beneficial, whereas Leary (1999) and McNeely (1998) regard the rupture between the two systems as merely evolutionary rather than combative.
Global citizenship may be the indirect result of Pax Americana. The 20th century, as well as the 21st, may be a time dominated by the United States. America’s domination of the WTO, IMF, World Bank and other global institutions creates feelings of imperialism among smaller nations. Cross national cooperation to counter American dominance may result in more global citizens. If economic, environmental, political and social factors push towards more global citizenry, we must also within this camp consider the ramifications of the post Cold War world, or realpolitik.
Another interpretation given by several scholars of the changing configurations of citizenship due to globalization is the possibility that citizenship is a possibly changed institution, even if situated within territorial boundaries that are national, if the meaning of the national itself has changed.[13]
Not all interpretations of global citizenship are positive. For example, Parekh advocates what he calls globally oriented citizenship, and states, "If global citizenship means being a citizen of the world, it is neither practicable nor desirable"[14] He argues that global citizenship, defined as an actual membership of a type of worldwide government system, is impractical and dislocated from one's immediate community.[15] He also notes that such a world state would inevitably be "remote, bureaucratic, oppressive, and culturally bland."[14]
Parekh presents his alternate option with the statement: "Since the conditions of life of our fellow human beings in distant parts of the world should be a matter of deep moral and political concern to us, our citizenship has an inescapable global dimension, and we should aim to become what I might call a globally oriented citizen."[14] Parekh's concept of globally oriented citizenship consists of identifying with and strengthening ties towards one's political regional community (whether in its current state or an improved, revised form), while recognizing and acting upon obligations towards others in the rest of the world.[15]
Many other people believe that global citizenship is a racist concept because it aspires to disengage people from their cultural allegiances and prepare the ground for a world government which, having no cultural connection with its people, would be anti-democratic and oppressive. They also think the concept defies a rational view of human nature in which self-interest is the fundamental guiding principle, albeit with the addition of a humane concern for others.
In contrast to questioning definitions, a counter-criticism can be found on the World Alliance of YMCA's website. An online article in YMYCA World emphasizes the importance of fostering global citizenship and global social justice, and states, "Global citizenship might sound like a vague concept for academics but in fact it’s a very practical way of looking at the world which anyone, if given the opportunity, can relate to."[16] The author acknowledges the positive and negative outlooks towards globalization, and states, "In the context of globalisation, thinking and acting as global citizens is immensely important and can bring real benefits, as the YMCA experience shows."[16]
In another example, Michael Byers, a professor in Political Science at the University of British Columbia, questions the assumption that there is one definition of global citizenship, and unpacks aspects of potential definitions. In the introduction to his public lecture, the UBC Internalization website states, "'Global citizenship' remains undefined. What, if anything, does it really mean? Is global citizenship just the latest buzzword?"[17] Byers notes the existence of stateless persons, whom he remarks ought to be the primary candidates for global citizenship, yet continue to live without access to basic freedoms and citizenship rights.[1]
Byers does not oppose the concept of global citizenship, however he criticizes potential implications of the term depending on one's definition of it, such as ones that provide support for the "ruthlessly capitalist economic system that now dominates the planet."[1] Byers states that global citizenship is a "powerful term"[1] because "people that invoke it do so to provoke and justify action,"[1] and encourages the attendees of his lecture to re-appropriate it in order for its meaning to have a positive purpose, based on idealistic values.[1]
- ^ a b c d e f Byers 2005
- ^ Falk 1994
- ^ Lagos 2002, p. 6
- ^ a b Lagos 2002, p. 2
- ^ Habermas, Jurgen, "Citizenship and National Identity" in The Condition of Citizenship, edited by Bart van Steenbergen (1994: Sage Publications, London)
- ^ Lagos 2002, p. 3
- ^ Mike Allen (Jul 24, 2008). "Obama Promises To 'remake The World'". CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/24/politics/politico/main4291110.shtml. Retrieved 2010-06-16. "Addressing tens of thousands of elated Europeans massed in Berlin at twilight, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama promised Thursday that he would work to unite Christians, Muslims and Jews in a safer, more united world. His 27-minute speech at the gold-topped Victory Column was interrupted by applause at least 30 times, with occasional audience chants of “O-ba-MA!” Billed as a speech about Transatlantic relations, it turned out to be a manifesto for the planet, with an appeal to “the burdens of global citizenship.”"
- ^ Jim Luce (June 1, 2010). "Euro-American Women' s Council Global Forum and Awards Set For Athens in July". Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-luce/euro-american-women-s-cou_b_596232.html. Retrieved 2010-06-16. "Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou is a Member of the Hellenic Parliament. She is also on the Executive Global Board of the EAWC. Orphans International Worldwide (OIWW) awarded her its Global Citizenship Award for Leadership in Helping Humanity in New York in February."
- ^ JOEL STRATTE-MCCLURE (October 2, 2000). "A French Exception to the Science Park Rule". Time EUROPE Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/1002/oyot.html. Retrieved 2010-06-16. "The 1,200 companies located in the sprawling development, which gets its name from the Greek words for wisdom and the nearby town of Antibes, are just a 20-minute drive from the Nice-Côte d'Azur airport and the Mediterranean Sea. Nice-based taxi drivers often have trouble — sometimes legitimately, sometimes intentionally — locating both start-ups and multinationals. To be fair, the technopole's confusing layout can present a challenge. The maze of roads — many with slightly pretentious names like Rue Dostoevski and Rue Albert Einstein — crisscross 2,300 hectares of rolling, pine-covered hills."
- ^ JOEL STRATTE-MCCLURE (October 2, 2000). "A French Exception to the Science Park Rule". Time EUROPE Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2000/1002/oyot.html. Retrieved 2010-06-16. "Once in Sophia, it's easy to take a break from mind-numbing high-tech conferences, meetings and PowerPoint presentations. The environs boast scores of well-maintained hiking trails and jogging paths as well as two riding stables and 10 golf courses. You can stroll a well-marked 13-km path along the Brague, a stream that runs between Valbonne and Biot, two villages on the park's periphery. The municipal authorities have put up French-language signs identifying local flora and fauna and the walk features zen-like reflection pools."
- ^ Lee Artz, Yahya R. Kamalipour, editors (2003). "The globalization of corporate media hegemony". State University of New York Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=ir2NTCZvs78C&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=Mosco+1999+technopoles&source=bl&ots=MrnEeHihOS&sig=QGTRjNLepGcyqWaOupK5pKjZZbE&hl=en&ei=PzwZTMvCMMT58AaPu4n-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mosco%201999%20technopoles&f=false. Retrieved 2010-06-16. "see p. 94;"
- ^ Alan C. Cairns, John C. Courtney, Peter MacKinnon, Hans J. Michelmann, David E. Smith (1999). "Citizenship, Diversity, and Pluralism: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives". McGill-Queen's University Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=HIKz0oJxGSgC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=Leary+Citizenship,+Human+Rights,+and+Diversity&source=bl&ots=dMvjfpE9rr&sig=egfTiKcIdjzAX7xckTUXgyWyuY8&hl=en&ei=pkQZTK3DEYH-8Aax2Ny1DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Leary%20Citizenship%2C%20Human%20Rights%2C%20and%20Diversity&f=false. Retrieved 2010-06-16. "see chapter 12 (page 247) Citizenship, Human Rights, and Diversity by Virginia Leary... Since the time of the Greek and Roman civilizations, the concept of citizenship has defined rights and obligations in the Western world.... The concept of citizenship has long acquired the connotation of a bundle of rights -- primarily, political participation in the life of the community, the right to vote, and the right to receive certain protection from the community - as well as obligations."
- ^ Sassen, Saskia (2003). Towards post-national and denationalized citizenship. New York: Sage. pp. 286. http://www.columbia.edu/~sjs2/PDFs/Towards_Post-National_and_Denationalized_Citizenship.pdf.
- ^ a b c Parekh 2003, p. 12
- ^ a b Parekh 2003
- ^ a b Aris June 2007
- ^ UBC March 28, 2008
- Aris, Jenny (June 2007), "Connected to each other", YMCA World, http://www.ymca.int/1001.0.html#4835, retrieved 2009-10-28 [dead link]
- Babcock, Rainer (1994), Transnational Citizenship, Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar
- Blattberg, Charles (2012), "We Are All Compatriots", Rooted Cosmopolitanism, edited by Will Kymlicka and Kathryn Walker, Vancouver: UBC Press, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2034932, retrieved 2012-04-10
- Boli, John, “Rights and Rules: Constituting World Citizens” in Public Rights, Public Rules: Constituting Citizens in the World Polity and National Policy, edited by Connie L McNeely (1998: Garland, New York)
- Byers, Michael (2005), The Meanings of Global Citizenship, UBC Global Citizenship Speaker Series, http://www.internationalization.ubc.ca/gcss.htm#Meanings, retrieved 2009-10-28
- UBC (March 28, 2008), "The Meanings of Global Citizenship - Dr. Michael Byers", Global Citizenship Speaker Series, University of British Columbia, http://www.internationalization.ubc.ca/gcss.htm#Meanings, retrieved 2009-10-28
- Habermas, Jürgen, "Citizenship and National Identity" in The Condition of Citizenship, edited by Bart van Steenbergen (1994: Sage Publications, London)
- Heater, Derek, What is Citizenship? (1999: Polity Press, Cambridge, England)
- Falk, Richard (1994), "The Making of Global Citizenship", in Bart van Steenbergen, The Condition of Citizenship, London: Sage Publications
- Keck, Margaret E. & Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders (1998: Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York)
- Lagos, Taso G. (2002), "Global Citizenship - Towards a Definition", http://depts.washington.edu/gcp/pdf/globalcitizenship.pdf, retrieved 2009-10-27
- Leary, Virginia, “Citizenship, Human Rights, and Diversity,” in Citizenship, Diversity, and Pluralism, edited by Alan C. Cairns, John C. Courtney, Peter MacKinnon, Hans J. Michelmann, & David E. Smith (1999: McGill-Queens’ University Press, Montreal)
- McNeely, Connie L., “Constituting Citizens: Rights and Rules” in Public Rights, Public Rules: Constituting Citizens in the World Polity and National Policy, edited by Connie L. McNeely (1998: Garland, New York)
- Mosco, Vincent, “Citizenship and Technopoles,” from Communication, Citizenship, and Social Policy (1999: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, England)
- Parekh, B (2003), "Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship", Review of International Studies 29: 3-17
- Bauman, Zygmunt, Intimations of Postmodernity (1992: Routledge, London)
- Bellamy, Richard, “Citizenship beyond the nation state: the case of Europe,” from Political Theory in Transition, edited by Noël O’Sullivan (2000: Routledge, London)
- Bennett, W. Lance, News: the Politics of Illusion (1996: Longman, New York)
- Bennett, W. Lance, “Consumerism and Global Citizenship: Lifestyle Politics, Permanent Campaigns, and International Regimes of Democratic Accountability.” Unpublished paper presented at the International Seminar on Political Consumerism, Stockholm University, May 30, 2001.
- Best, Steven & Kellner, Douglas, The Postmodern Turn (1997: Guilford Press, New York)
- Clarke, Paul Berry, Deep Citizenship ( 1996: Pluto Press, London)
- Eriksen, Erik & Weigård, Jarle, “The End of Citizenship: New Roles Challenging the Political Order” in The Demands of CitizenshipI, edited by Catriona McKinnon & Iain Hampsher-Monk (2000: Continuum, London)
- Franck, Thomas M., The Empowered Self: Law and Society in the Age of Individualism (1999: Oxford University Press, Oxford)
- Henderson, Hazel, “Transnational Corporations and Global Citizenship,” American Behavioral Scientist, 43(8), May 2000, 1231-1261.
- Iyer, Pico, The Global Soul (2000: Alfred A. Knopf, New York).
- Jacobson, David, Rights across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship (1996: Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore)
- Lie, Rico & Servaes, Jan, “Globalization: consumption and identity – towards researching nodal points,” in The New Communications Landscape, edited by Georgette Wang, Jan Servaes and Anura Goonasekera (2000: Routledge, London)
- Kaspersen, Lars Bo, “State and Citizenship Under Transformation in Western Europe” in Public Rights, Public Rules: Constituting Citizens in the World Polity and National Policy, edited by Connie L. McNeely (1998: Garland, New York)
- Kennedy, John F., Profiles in Courage (1956: Harper & Brothers, New York)
- Preston, P.W., Political/Cultural Identity: Citizens and Nations in a Global Era (1997: Sage, London)
- Scammell, Margarett, “Internet and civic engagement: Age of the citizen-consumer” found at http://jsis.artsci.washington.edu/programs/cwesuw/scammell.htm
- Steenbergen, Bart van, "The Condition of Citizenship" in The Condition of Citizenship, edited by Bart van Steenbergen (1994: Sage Publications, London)
- Turner, Bryan D., "Postmodern Culture/Modern Citizens" in The Condition of Citizenship, edited by Bart van Steenbergen (1994: Sage Publications, London)
- Weale, Albert, “Citizenship Beyond Borders” in The Frontiers of Citizenship, edited by Ursula Vogel & Michael Moran (1991: St. Martin’s Press, New York)
- Pike, G., & Selby, D. (2000). In the global classroom 2. Toronto: Pippin Publishing.
- Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder & Stoughton
|
|
|
| Proposals |
|
|
|
| Theories |
|
|
| Organisations |
|
|
