Engagement and Global Citizenship: Local Roots and Global Reach

Engagement and Global Citizenship: Local Roots and Global Reach

Theme: Global Citizenship

Authors:

Name:
Leon Richards
Title:
Chancellor
Institution:
Kapi’olani Community College, HI
Constituent Group:
Presidents

Name:
Robert Franco
Title:
Professor of Anthropology, Director of Planning
Institution:
Kapi’olani Community College, HI
Constituent Group:
Presidents

Sustaining Institutional Focus

In 1988, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) published a report

entitled, Building Community which identified new imperatives, including the
accelerated development of international education, for America’s two-year colleges. The
report provided a powerful, sustainable definition of “community as both a region to be
served and a climate to be created.” In 1990, AACC received substantial funding from the
Kellogg Foundation to support “Beacon Colleges” which would lead multi-campus
consortia in advancing the identified imperatives.

Kapi’olani was selected as a Beacon College in international education, collaborated with

nine other 2-year colleges in Wisconsin, Michigan, California, Hawai’i, and the Northern
Marianas, and produced a four volume series entitled, Beyond the Classrom: International
Education and the Community College (Franco and Shimabukuro:1992). The four
volumes focused on the integration of intercultural and international content into the
curriculum and campus environment, international institutional partnerships, and
international business in continuing education programs. These volumes served a major
bridge-building function for the College. Of the 500 sets of volumes produced, half of
were disseminated nationally and half were shared with Asian and Pacific international
institutional partners.

In spring 1995, the College initiated its Service-Learning program with funding from the
Corporation for National Service, AACC, and the Campus Compact National Center for
Community Colleges. In that summer, a two-week Service-Learning faculty institute
attracted many of the same College faculty who were advancing intercultural and
international learning on the campus. We debated what would make Service-Learning
distinctive at Kapi’olani and agreed that we should use Service-Learning to understand
and celebrate the diverse traditions of service represented in our community, and in the
ancestral Hawaiian, Pacific, and Asian cultures of our students and faculty. Thirty key
faculty reached consensus that Service-Learning should enhance students’ understanding
of their social and civic responsibilities, while at the same time enhancing skills valued in
the local workplace, skills such as reliability, willingness to learn, communication in all
forms, sensitivity to diverse clients, and teamwork.

A decade of innovation, program assessment, evaluation, commitment to improvement,

and tactical budgeting, has resulted in the institutionalization of both International
Education and Service-Learning as cross-curricular Emphases at the College. Each
Emphasis engages dozens of faculty across the Liberal Arts and Careers curriculum, and
many faculty are engaged in both Emphases.
National Recognition and Enhancement of Engagement

In the 2001-2005 period, the College was selected to participate in the Association of
American Colleges and Universities’ Greater Expectations initiative which featured our
Service-Learning Emphasis, and the American Council on Education’s (ACE) Promising
Practices initiative which featured our institutionalizing of international education.
Participation in both initiatives inspired greater campus attention to the focal question of
“what do we want our students to be and become”? Our response was that we wanted our
students to be socially responsible and economically productive members of their
communities, locally, nationally, and globally.” Service-Learning, Community
Engagement and Integrated International Education are now woven to produce these
kinds of students for our local community, nation, and world.
Strategic Planning, 2003-2010

The College engaged in institutional strategic planning from fall 2001 to spring 2003.
The College’s Vision which is inspired by the legacy of Queen Julia Kapi’olani and
drives both mission and strategic plan goals states that Kapi’olani Community College
“prepares students for lives of critical inquiry, active participation and leadership in
careers which strengthen the health, well-being, and vitality of

the individuals, families, and communities that support all of us

the cultural traditions that shape and guide all of us
the land and sea that sustains all of us.

The peunultimate draft of this Vision statement was reviewed by Dr. Edgar Beckham, a
leading expert on cultural diversity learning, at an AAC&U Greater Expectations Summer
Institute. He and others who reviewed this draft strongly urged the inclusion of the two
words “all of” in the final draft, which we did. These two words result in an assertion of
absolute inclusion, and though subtle, set the foundation for further development of
global citizenship as a learning outcome, not just an abstraction.

Two mission statements also drive Global Engagement strategic plan goals. The first
mission statement asserts that the College “prepares students for lives of ethical,
responsible community involvement by offering opportunities for increased civic
engagement.” This mission statement directly aligns with regional accreditation
requirements for general education. The second mission statement emphasizes that the
College will continue to “lead locally, nationally, and globally in the development of
integrated international education through global collaborations.”
Goal 4 of the strategic plan is “To Champion Diversity in Local, Regional, and Global
Learning” and is unique within the ten-campus University of Hawaii system. The goal
has three objectives which result in an integrated approach to indigenous, intercultural,
and international learning. The first objective recognizes the College’s responsibility to
honor and strengthen Hawaiian language, culture and community. The second objective
serves and respects the diverse peoples and cultures of our communities. Under this
objective, Service-Learning is identified as a central strategy to promote intercultural and
intergenerational learning in these communities. The third objective strengthens the
College’s role as a bridge between “Asia, the Pacific, the Americas, and the world.” With
the completion of the strategic plan that the College began to reframe its focus around
“island roots” and “global reach.” Island roots are celebrated and implemented through
Goal 4, objectives one and two, and “Global reach” is celebrated and implemented
through Goal 4, objective 3.
National Work and Enhancement of Global Engagement

While institutional strategic planning was underway, the world of higher education was
continuing to spin in the direction of greater accountability to student learning and
stronger campus-community engagement. In 2004, the College was recognized as an
Exemplar of Civic Engagement in the Campus Compact publication, The Community’s
College: Indicators of Engagement at Two-Year Institutions. The College also
participated in a yearlong AAC&U Greater Expectations working group focused on
“Civic Engagement in a Diverse Democracy.”

At the College, major new work is underway in collaboration with an ACE-FIPSE funded
consortium focusing on international learning outcomes assessment. In the earlier ACE
project on institutionalizing international education, ACE external reviewers were
impressed with the College’s competency-based curriculum, and specific learning
outcomes delineated in our General Education program as well as in our Asian Studies
and Hawaiian-Pacific Islands Studies Certificates. In the General Education program,
Standard Six is entitled, “Understanding Self and Community” and states that the College
“emphasizes an understanding of one’s self and one’s relationship to the community, the
region, and the world” and has a specific learning outcome “to demonstrate an
understanding of ethical, civic and social issues relevant to Hawaii and the world” (KCC
General Education Standards are available at www.compact.org, Senior Faculty Fellow).

ACE gathered the intercultural and international learning outcomes from documents at
the six colleges and universities participating in the FIPSE consortium, categorized them
into knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and sent them to 60 international subject matter
experts for priority ranking. Fifteen Kapi’olani faculty were identified as international
subject matter experts and their priority rankings exactly matched the rankings of the
larger sample of 60.

ACE collaborating faculty then developed a comprehensive and detailed set of

intercultural and international learning outcomes. These outcomes represent the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of “the globally competent student.” The ACE
collaborating faculty also developed an assessment rubric, a rubric rater training
handbook, and eportfolio instructions to students. Participating campuses are now
piloting these outcomes and products.

A large number of these outcomes can be achieved through service-learning pedagogy

and civic engagement commitment. Selected outcomes are listed below:
Knowledge Outcomes

Demonstrates knowledge of global issues, processes, trends and systems

Basic concepts (e.g., political events, major world organizations, major trends
such as globalization, the role of non-governmental organizations.)
Demonstrates knowledge of other cultures
Cultural practices (e.g., religious, secular, political, governmental, educational,
family structures.)
Understands his/her culture in a global and comparative context
Self in cultural context (e.g., aware of one’s own origins, history, ethnic identity,
communities, etc.).
The history of his or her own culture.
The history of his or her own culture in relation to the history of other cultures.
Understands his/her historical space and place in a global and comparative
context (e.g., geography, migration, diasporas, exploration, regional identity, etc.).

Skill Outcomes

Uses knowledge, diverse cultural frames of reference, and alternate perspectives to

think critically and solve problems.
 Recognizing the importance and validity of others’ perspectives
Providing culturally-grounded evidence to make points (e.g., recognizes the
cultural underpinning of evidence, opinion, and arguments).
Identifying solutions to social issues and/or global challenges that take cultural
considerations into account.
Uses foreign language skills and/or knowledge of other cultures to extend his/her
access to information, experiences, and understanding.
Using foreign language skills to locate and use resources (e.g., foreign language
texts) in various disciplines.
Using foreign language and cultural knowledge gathered from a fluent/native
speaker.
Using foreign language skills and knowledge of other cultures in experiential
learning (e.g., service-learning, internships, study abroad).

Attitude Outcomes

Demonstrates a willingness to seek out international or intercultural opportunities.

his or her experiences with individuals from different cultures.
the desire to participate in international or intercultural experiences in the
future.
the ways in which his or her thinking has changed as a result of exposure to
different cultures.
feelings or emotions that he or she experienced as a result of an international
and/or intercultural learning experience(s).
Appreciates different cultures (e.g., language, art, music, religion, political structures,
philosophy, and material culture).
the language(s) and/or literature(s) of the culture(s).
the arts and performing arts of the culture(s).
the systems or structures (e.g., political, social, economic, etc.) of the culture(s).
Accepts cultural differences and tolerates cultural ambiguity.
the similarities and/or differences among cultures.
the nuance and complexity evident among various cultural perspectives.
 the potential legitimacy of both majority culture and minority culture beliefs
and values.
the importance of providing comprehensive and balanced support for his or her
conclusions regarding cultural differences and similarities.
the importance of interpreting cultural events and experiences “through the eyes
of” individuals from different cultures.
cultural experiences that are different from what could be experienced in one’s
“home” culture.
the process of reflecting upon his or her own thoughts and feelings toward
different cultures.
the specific ways in which he or she has been changed and/or transformed as a
result of cross-cultural experiences.
his or her own biases, prejudices, or stereotypes in relation to a different
culture.

The Bridge Ahead: Island and Global Solutions

As the College pilots the ACE outcomes and products, we are focusing attention on our
Freeman Scholars, a group of 30 UH community college students who, with complete
financial support from the Freeman Foundation, have completed a semester of intensive
language learning in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, and then studied and service-learned
for a semester in one of these East Asian countries. Some of these students are completing
eportfolios of their intensive learning experience and then continuing to take international
studies courses. We will be tracking six student cohorts in the ACE FIPSE project.

A second and more difficult assessment task is to follow students who are taking
international courses integrated into the General Education program. We are intending to
use the international Service-Learning pathway to help identify these students and
encourage them to create eportfolios which will include their Service-Learning reflections
and other learning artifacts for assessment.

Currently International Students can take Japanese, Chinese, or Korean 298 to meet their
second language requirement. Dozens of these “298” students serve in our International
Cafe helping local students learn East Asian languages, while local students help East
Asian students learn English as well as adapt to Hawaii and American culture.
With new Corporation for National and Community Service funding, Hawaii-Pacific
Islands Campus Compact (HIPICC) , which support Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, is moving to a new emphasis on
intergenerational solutions in island societies. Annually, an “Island Solutions” project and
conference will bring one faculty member and two students from each of the
Hawaii-Pacific institutions to Honolulu where they will complete service-learning
projects on a shared civic issue (egs, environmental sustainability, literacy, health) and
then discuss this issue in its global context.

HIPICC is also taking the lead in developing a national initiative to enhance

Service-Learning in indigenous communities, locally, regionally, and nationally. Also, in
spring 2006, the Hawaii legislature provided more than $215,000 for the development of
a new Long-Term Care Resource Initiative at Kapi’olani that will, in part, engage older
Hawaii residents in active aging, service-learning collaborations. Project RESPECT
(Respected Elders Serving in Partnerships for Educational and Community
Transformation) is integral to our new CNCS-funded program, and will enable our
respected elders to share their traditions of service with our students, creating an
intergenerational bridge for intercultural learning, and improving the quality of life for
all.

With an ACE mini-grant, the College helped establish a small consortium of colleges and
universities to initiate a “Global Solutions” project in Honolulu in May, 2006. For seven
days, five institutions, Park University (MO), St. Mary’s University (TX), the University
of Kansas, the University of Hawaii, and Kapiolani Community College, each had one
faculty and two students working on service-learning projects in health, education, and
bridging the digital divide in Palolo Valley, a low income, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual
valley near both UHM and KCC. After this week of service-learning, and collaboration
with community partners and experts, the students, faculty, and community partners
participated in a three day “Global Solutions” conference at Tokai University’s Honolulu
campus. At the conference students unveiled a Healthy Community website that provides
important preventive health information and educational materials for children, teens,
adults, and the elderly. Students also were led through guided reflection sessions to help
them make explicit links between the problems and solutions in Palolo Valley and in
developing countries around the world. Global Solutions students made future
commitments to maintaining the website and to writing grants that would support a
community health center in Palolo Valley public housing.

Our objective was and is, as we intend to sustain and grow the consortium, to use local
problems as a link to global solutions that address the 8 UN Millenium Development
Goals which are to:

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Achieve universal primary education
Promote gender equality and empower women
Reduce child mortality
Improve maternal health
Combat HIV/AIDS malaria and other diseases
Ensure environmental sustainability
Develop a global partnership for development

Conclusion

Simply stated, hundreds of American communities are confronting one or more of the
issues that also severely impact a community or nation in the developing world. American
college students who service-learn on a local problem can reduce the severity of that
problem and reflect upon it as a local, national, and global concern. Local solutions, such
as web-based environmental and health information, can simultaneously contribute to
reducing the severity of the problem locally, nationally and globally. Students from
developing countries on our campuses can be engaged to translate web content into their
native languages, languages spoken in the home country and in a community, like Palolo
Valley, only miles away. Integrating solutions-focused local and global service-learning
can bring new intentionality to study abroad and its learning outcomes.

Preparing students for citizenship in a globalizing age requires a significant

transformation in how we answer the question, “what do we want our students to be and
become?” Surely we still want them to be socially responsible and economically
productive members of their communities, locally, nationally and globally.

But the way ahead is filled with risk and danger and one senses a growing despair in
America’s youth. We need to talk of American college students who are better prepared to
act and think, learn and lead locally, nationally, and globally. It is simply not enough to
produce problem solvers always responding to some new escalating threat. Our colleges
and universities, locally and globally, must produce students and citizens that can assess
the pluses and minuses of this globalizing age, and engage other citizens in productive
action on the pluses and halting actions on the minuses. A new generation of “problem
avoiders” must create a global community that is inspiring and meeting the hopes and
dreams of all in a new millennium. Colleges and universities around the world can
collaborate to create this global community, while at the same time playing a greater role
in creating stronger civil sectors in their own nations and local communities.

What is global citizenship?

It is a way of living that recognises our world is an increasingly complex web of
connections and interdependencies. One in which our choices and actions may have
repercussions for people and communities locally, nationally or internationally.

Global citizenship nurtures personal respect and respect for others, wherever they live. It
encourages individuals to think deeply and critically about what is equitable and just, and
what will minimise harm to our planet. Exploring global citizenship themes help learners
grow more confident in standing up for their beliefs, and more skilled in evaluating the
ethics and impact of their decisions.

What is a global citizen?

"An ethic of care for the world." Hannah Arendt

There is a great deal of debate and discussion around this question, as there is around the
whole concept of globalisation. A useful working definition, however, is offered by
Oxfam:

A Global Citizen is someone who:

 is aware of the wider world and has a sense of their own role as a world citizen
 respects and values diversity
 has an understanding of how the world works
 is outraged by social injustice
 participates in the community at a range of levels, from the local to the global
 is willing to act to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place
  takes responsibility for their actions.

To be effective Global Citizens, young people need to be flexible, creative and proactive.
They need to be able to solve problems, make decisions, think critically, communicate
ideas effectively and work well within teams and groups. These skills and attributes are
increasingly recognised as being essential to succeed in other areas of 21st century life
too, including many workplaces. These skills and qualities cannot be developed without
the use of active learning methods through which pupils learn by doing and by
collaborating with others.

Why is global citizenship education needed?

"Education must be not only a transmission of culture but also a provider
of alternative views of the world and a strengthener of skills to explore
them" Jerome S Bruner

With the interconnected and interdependent nature of our world, the global is not ‘out
there’; it is part of our everyday lives, as we are linked to others on every continent:

 socially and culturally through the media and telecommunications, and through
travel and migration
 economically through trade
 environmentally through sharing one planet
 politically through international relations and systems of regulation.

The opportunities our fast-changing ‘globalised’ world offers young people are enormous.
But so too are the challenges. Young people are entitled to an education that equips them
with the knowledge, skills and values they need in order to embrace the opportunities and
challenges they encounter, and to create the kind of world that they want to live in. An
education that supports their development as Global Citizens.

The active, participatory methods of Education for Global Citizenship and Sustainable
Development help young people to learn how decisions made by people in other parts of
the world affect our lives, just as our decisions affect the lives of others. Education for
Global Citizenship and Sustainable Development also promotes pupil participation in the
learning process and in decision-making for the following reasons:

 Everything done in school sends out messages, so we need to exemplify the

values we wish to promote. If we wish to affirm beliefs about the equality of all
human beings and the importance of treating everyone fairly and with respect, we
need to ensure that learning processes, and relationships between pupils and
teachers, reflect and reinforce these values.
  Research shows that in more democratic schools pupils feel more in control of
their learning, and the quality of teaching, learning and behaviour is better.
 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms the right of children to
have their opinions taken into account on matters that affect them.

What does it look like in the classroom?

"Education is not a preparation for life, it is life itself." John Dewey

Education for global citizenship deals with issues of global interdependence, diversity of
identities and cultures, sustainable development, peace & conflict and inequities of power,
resources & respect.

These issues are addressed in the classroom through a wide and evolving variety of
participatory teaching and learning methodologies, including structured discussion and
debate, role-play, ranking exercises, and communities of enquiry. Such active methods
are now established as good practice in education, and are not unique to global
citizenship. Curriculum for Excellence has at its core a commitment to improved student
participation in order to develop the four capacities: successful learners, confident
individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors.

It is crucial to be aware that, far from promoting one set of answers or values or attitudes,
education for global citizenship encourages children and young people to explore,
develop and express their own values and opinions. (Always requiring too that they listen
to and respect other people's points of view.) This is an important step towards children
and young people making informed choices as to how they exercise their own rights and
their responsibilities to others.

It is also vital that teachers at all levels do not approach education for global citizenship
with the feeling that they must have all the answers – impossible anyway in such a fast
changing world. The role of the teacher is to enable pupils to find out about their world
for themselves and to support them as they learn to assess evidence, negotiate and work
with others, solve problems and make informed decisions.

http://www.ideas-forum.org.uk/about-us/global-citizenship

Global citizenship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Globalization
 Cultural
 Economic
 Political
 History of

 Outline
 Portal
 Studies
 Project

 Category
 Commons

 v
 t
 e

In broad usage, the term global citizenship or world citizenship typically defines a
person who places their identity with a "global community" above their identity as a
citizen of a particular nation or place. The idea is that one’s identity transcends geography
or political borders and that the planetary human community is interdependent and whole;
humankind is essentially one. The term has been used in education and political
philosophy and has enjoyed popular use in social movements such as the "World Citizen"
movement and the Mondialisation movement.

Contents
  1 Definition
 2 Usage

o 2.1 Education
 2.1.1 Global citizenship education
o 2.2 Philosophy
o 2.3 Psychological Studies

 3 Aspects

o 3.1 Geography, sovereignty, and citizenship

o 3.2 Tension among local, national, and global forces
o 3.3 Human rights
 3.3.1 UN General Assembly
 3.3.2 US Declaration of Independence
o 3.4 Support for global government

 4 Social movements

o 4.1 World citizen

o 4.2 Mundialization
o 4.3 Earth Anthem

 5 Criticisms
 6 See also
 7 References
 8 Bibliography
 9 Further reading
 10 External links

Definition
The term "citizenship" refers to an identity between a person and a city, state or nation
and their right to work, live and participate politically in a particular geographic area.
When combined with the term "global", it typically defines a person who places their
identity with a "global community" above their identity as a citizen of a particular nation
or place. The idea is that one’s identity transcends geography or political borders and that
responsibilities or rights are or can be derived from membership in a broader class:
"humanity". This does not mean that such a person denounces or waives their nationality
or other, more local identities, but such identities are given "second place" to their
membership in a global community.[1] Extended, the idea leads to questions about the
state of global society in the age of globalization.[2]
In general usage, the term may have much the same meaning as "World Citizen" or
Cosmopolitan, but it also has additional, specialized meanings in differing contexts.

Usage
Education

In education, the term is most often used to describe a worldview or a set of values
toward which education is oriented (see, for example, the priorities of the Global
Education First Initiative led by the Secretary-General of the United Nations).[3] The
term "global society" is sometimes used to indicate a global studies set of learning
objectives for students to prepare them for global citizenship (see, for example, the
"Humanities for a Global Society" honors program at the University of Florida).[4]

Global citizenship education

Main article: Global Citizenship Education

Within the educational system, the concept of global citizenship education (GCE) is
beginning to supersede or overarch movements such as multicultural education, peace
education, human rights education, Education for Sustainable Development and
international education.[5] Additionally, GCE rapidly incorporates references to the
aforementioned movements. The concept of global citizenship has been linked with
awards offered for helping humanity.[6] Teachers are being given the responsibility of
being social change agents.[7] Audrey Osler, director of the Centre for Citizenship and
Human Rights Education, the University of Leeds, affirms that "Education for living
together in an interdependent world is not an optional extra, but an essential
foundation".[8]

Noteworthy, Global Education Magazine is a digital journal supported by UNESCO and

UNHCR, inspired in the universal values of the Declaration of Emerging Human Rights
that aims to contribute to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by GCE
consciousness.[9] An initiative launched by the teaching team that formulated the
proposal most voted in the group “Sustainable Development for the Eradication of
Poverty in Rio+20”.[10]

With GCE gaining attention, scholars are investigating the field and developing
perspectives. The following are a few of the more common perspectives:

 Critical and transformative perspective. Citizenship is defined by being a member

with rights and responsibilities. Therefore, GCE must encourage active
involvement. GCE can be taught from a critical and transformative perspective,
 whereby students are thinking, feeling, and doing. In this approach, GCE requires
students to be politically critical and personally transformative. Teachers provide
social issues in a neutral and grade-appropriate way for students to understand,
grapple with, and do something about.[11]
 Worldmindedness. Graham Pike and David Selby view GCE as having two
strands. Worldmindedness, the first strand, refers to understanding the world as
one unified system and a responsibility to view the interests of individual nations
with the overall needs of the planet in mind. The second strand,
Child-centeredness, is a pedagogical approach that encourages students to explore
and discover on their own and addresses each learner as an individual with
inimitable beliefs, experiences, and talents.[12]
 Holistic Understanding. The Holistic Understanding perspective was founded by
Merry Merryfield, focusing on understanding the self in relation to a global
community. This perspective follows a curriculum that attends to human values
and beliefs, global systems, issues, history, cross-cultural understandings, and the
development of analytical and evaluative skills.[7]

Philosophy

Global citizenship, in some contexts, may refer to a brand of ethics or political

philosophy in which it is proposed that the core social, political, economic and
environmental realities of the world today should be addressed at all levels—by
individuals, civil society organizations, communities and nation states—through a global
lens. It refers to a broad, culturally- and environmentally-inclusive worldview that
accepts the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. Political, geographic borders
become irrelevant and solutions to today's challenges are seen to be beyond the narrow
vision of national interests. Proponents of this philosophy often point to Diogenes of
Sinope (c. 412 B.C.) as an example, given his reported declaration that "I am a citizen of
the world (κοσμοπολίτης, cosmopolites)" in response to a question about his place of
origin.[13] A Sanskrit term, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, has the meaning of "the world is
one family".[14] The earliest reference to this phrase is found in the Hitopadesha, a
collection of parables. In the Mahopanishad VI.71-73, ślokas describe how one finds the
Brahman (the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the
phenomenal universe). The statement is not just about peace and harmony among the
societies in the world, but also about a truth that somehow the whole world has to live
together like a family.[14]

Psychological Studies

Recently, global pollsters and psychologists have studied individual differences in the
sense of global citizenship. Beginning in 2005, the World Values Survey, administered
across almost 100 countries, included the statement, “I see myself as a world citizen.” For
smaller studies, several multi-item scales have been developed, including Sam McFarland
and colleagues’ Identification with All Humanity scale (e.g., “How much do you identify
with (that is, feel a part of, feel love toward, have concern for) . . . all humans
everywhere?”),[15] Anna Malsch and Alan Omoto’s Psychological Sense of Global
Community (e.g., “I feel a sense of connection to people all over the world, even if I
don’t know them personally”),[16] Gerhard Reese and colleagues’ Global Social Identity
scale (e.g. “I feel strongly connected to the world community as a whole.”),[17] and
Stephen Reysen and Katzarska-Miller's global citizenship identification scale (e.g., “I
strongly identify with global citizens.”).[18] These measures are strongly related to one
another, but they are not fully identical.[19]

Studies of the psychological roots of global citizenship have found that persons high in
global citizenship are also high on the personality traits of openness to experience and
agreeableness from the Big Five personality traits and high in empathy and caring.
Oppositely, the authoritarian personality, the social dominance orientation and
psychopathy are all associated with less global human identification. Some of these traits
are influenced by heredity as well as by early experiences, which, in turn, likely influence
individuals' receptiveness to global human identification.[15]

Not surprisingly, those who are high in global human identification are less prejudiced
toward many groups, care more about international human rights, worldwide inequality,
global poverty and human suffering. They attend more actively to global concerns, value
the lives of all human beings more equally, and give more in time and money to
international humanitarian causes. They tend to be more politically liberal on both
domestic and international issues.[15] They want their countries to do more to alleviate
global suffering.[18]

Following a social identity approach, Reysen and Katzarska-Miller tested a model

showing the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification (i.e., degree of
psychological connection with global citizens).[18] Individuals’ normative environment
(the cultural environment in which one is embedded contains people, artifacts, cultural
patterns that promote viewing the self as a global citizen) and global awareness
(perceiving oneself as aware, knowledgeable, and connected to others in the world)
predict global citizenship identification. Global citizenship identification then predicts six
broad categories of prosocial behaviors and values, including: intergroup empathy,
valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a
felt responsibility to act.[20] Subsequent research has examined variables that influence
the model such as: participation in a college course with global components,[21]
perception of one’s global knowledge,[22] college professors' attitudes toward global
citizenship,[23] belief in an intentional worlds view of culture,[24] participation in a fan
group that promotes the identity,[25] use of global citizen related words when describing
one's values,[26] possible self as a global citizen,[27] religiosity and religious
orientation,[28] threat to one’s nation,[29] interdependent self-construal prime,[30]
perception of the university environment,[31] and social media usage.[32]
Aspects
Geography, sovereignty, and citizenship

At the same time that globalization is reducing the importance of nation-states,[33] the
idea of global citizenship may require a redefinition of ties between civic engagement and
geography. Face-to-face town hall meetings seem increasingly supplanted by electronic
"town halls" not limited by space and time. Absentee ballots opened the way for
expatriates to vote while living in another country; the Internet may carry this several
steps further. Another interpretation given by several scholars of the changing
configurations of citizenship due to globalization is the possibility that citizenship
becomes a changed institution; even if situated within territorial boundaries that are
national, if the meaning of the national itself has changed, then the meaning of being a
citizen of that nation changes.[34]

Tension among local, national, and global forces

An interesting feature of globalization is that, while the world is being internationalized,

it’s also being localized at the same time.[35] The world shrinks as the local community
(village, town, city) takes on greater and greater importance. This is reflected in the term
glocalization, a portmanteau of the words "global" and "local". Mosco (1999) noted this
feature and saw the growing importance of technopoles.[36] If this trend is true, it seems
global citizens may be the glue that holds these separate entities together. Put another
way, global citizens are people who can travel within these various boundaries and
somehow still make sense of the world through a global lens.

Human rights

The lack of a universally recognized world body can put 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 being expanded. Thus, 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? These rights can be
equated 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.[37] If true, this places a strain in the relationship between national and
global citizenship.

UN General Assembly

On 10 December 1948, the UN General Assembly Adopted Resolution 217A (III), also
known as "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights."[38]

Article 1 states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood." [39]

Article 2 states that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or
international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be
independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."[40]

Article 13(2) states that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own,
and to return to his country." [41]

As evidence in today's modern world, events such as the Trial of Saddam Hussein have
proven what British jurist A. V. Dicey said in 1885, when he popularized the phrase "rule
of law" in 1885.[42] Dicey emphasized three aspects of the rule of law :[43]

1. No one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an
ordinary court.
2. No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social,
economic, or political status.
3. The rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of
private persons.

US Declaration of Independence

The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas

Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[44]

"Global citizenship in the United States" was a term used by U.S. President Barack
Obama in 2008 in a speech in Berlin.[45]

Support for global government

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 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."[46] 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."[46]

Social movements
World citizen

World Citizen flag by Garry Davis

World Citizen badge

In general, a World Citizen is a person who places global citizenship above any
nationalistic or local identities and relationships. An early expression of this value is
found in Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412 B.C.; mentioned above), the founding father of the
Cynic movement in Ancient Greece. Of Diogenes it is said: "Asked where he came from,
he answered: 'I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)'".[47] This was a
ground-breaking concept because the broadest basis of social identity in Greece at that
time was either the individual city-state or the Greeks (Hellenes) as a group. The Tamil
poet Kaniyan Poongundran wrote in Purananuru, "To us all towns are one, all men our
kin." In later years, political philosopher Thomas Paine would declare, "my country is the
world, and my religion is to do good."[48] Today, the increase in worldwide globalization
has led to the formation of a "world citizen" social movement under a proposed world
government.[49] In a non-political definition, it has been suggested that a world citizen
may provide value to society by using knowledge acquired across cultural contexts.[50]

Albert Einstein described himself as a world citizen and supported the idea throughout his
life,[51] famously saying "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of
mankind."[52] World citizenship has been promoted by distinguished people including
Garry Davis, who lived for 60 years as a citizen of no nation, only the world. Davis
founded the World Service Authority in Washington, DC, which issues the World
Passport (sometimes not considered a valid passport) to world citizens.[53] In 1956 Hugh
J. Schonfield founded the Commonwealth of World Citizens, later known by its
Esperanto name "Mondcivitan Republic", which also issued a world passport; it declined
after the 1980s.

The Bahá'í faith promotes the concept through its founder's proclamation (in the late 19th
century) that "The Earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."[54] As a term
defined by the Bahá'í International Community in a concept paper shared at the 1st
session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, New York,
U.S.A. on 14–25 June 1993.[55] "World citizenship begins with an acceptance of the
oneness of the human family and the interconnectedness of the nations of 'the earth, our
home.' While it encourages a sane and legitimate patriotism, it also insists upon a wider
loyalty, a love of humanity as a whole. It does not, however, imply abandonment of
legitimate loyalties, the suppression of cultural diversity, the abolition of national
autonomy, nor the imposition of uniformity. Its hallmark is 'unity in diversity.' World
citizenship encompasses the principles of social and economic justice, both within and
between nations; non-adversarial decision making at all levels of society; equality of the
sexes; racial, ethnic, national and religious harmony; and the willingness to sacrifice for
the common good. Other facets of world citizenship—including the promotion of human
honour and dignity, understanding, amity, co-operation, trustworthiness, compassion and
the desire to serve—can be deduced from those already mentioned."[55]

Mundialization

Philosophically, mundialization (French, mondialisation) is seen as a response to

globalization’s "dehumanisation through [despatialised] planetarisation" (Teilhard de
Chardin quoted in Capdepuy 2011).[56] An early use of mondialisation was to refer to
the act of a city or a local authority declaring itself a "world citizen" city, by voting a
charter stating its awareness of global problems and its sense of shared responsibility. The
concept was promoted by the self-declared World Citizen Garry Davis in 1949, as a
logical extension of the idea of individuals declaring themselves world citizens, and
promoted by Robert Sarrazac, a former leader of the French Resistance who created the
Human Front of World Citizens in 1945. The first city to be officially mundialised was
the small French city of Cahors (only 20,000 in 2006), the capital city of the Département
of Lot in central France, on 20 July 1949. Hundreds of cities mundialised themselves over
a few years, most of them in France, and then it spread internationally, including to many
German cities and to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In less than a year, 10 General Councils
(the elected councils of the French "Départements"), and hundreds of cities in France
covering 3.4 million inhabitants voted mundialisation charters. One of the goals was to
elect one delegate per million inhabitants to a People's World Constitutional Convention
given the already then historical failure of the United Nations in creating a global
institution able to negotiate a final world peace. To date, more than 1000 cities and towns
have declared themselves World cities, including Beverly Hills, Los Angeles,
Minneapolis, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Toronto, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Nivelles, and
Königswinter.[57]

As a social movement, mundialization expresses the solidarity of populations of the globe

and aims to establish institutions and supranational laws of a federative structure common
to them, while respecting the diversity of cultures and peoples. The movement advocates
for a new political organization governing all humanity, involving the transfer of certain
parts of national sovereignty to a Federal World Authority, Federal World Government
and Federal World Court. Basing its authority on the will of the people, and developing
new systems to draw the highest and best wisdom of all humanity into the task of
governing our world, the collaborative governing system would be capable of solving the
problems which call into question the future of man, such as hunger, water, war,
peace-keeping, pollution and energy. The mundialization movement includes the
declaration of specified territory - a city, town, or state, for example - as world territory,
with responsibilities and rights on a world scale. Currently the nation-state system and the
United Nations offer no way for the people of the world to vote for world officials or
participate in governing our world. International treaties or agreements lack the force of
law. Mundialization seeks to address this lack by presenting a way to build, one city at a
time, such a system of true World Law based upon the sovereignty of the whole.

Earth Anthem

Author Shashi Tharoor feels that an Earth Anthem sung by people across the world can
inspire planetary consciousness and global citizenship among people.[58]

Criticisms
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."[59] 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.[59] He also notes that
such a world state would inevitably be "remote, bureaucratic, oppressive, and culturally
bland."[59]

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."[59] 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.[59]

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?"[60] 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.[60]
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."[60]
Byers states that global citizenship is a "powerful term"[60] because "people that invoke
it do so to provoke and justify action,"[60] 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.[60]

Neither is criticism of global citizenship anything new. Gouverneur Morris, a delegate to

the Constitutional Convention (United States), criticized "citizens of the world" while he
was on the floor of the convention; August 9, 1787. "As to those philosophical gentlemen,
those Citizens of the World as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any
of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off
their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are
the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, Admit a Frenchman into your
Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, and he will
feel an equal biass in favor of that of England."[61]

See also
 Global Education Magazine
 Cosmopolitanism
 Earth Anthem
 Garry Davis, creator of the "World Passport" and founder of the World Service
Authority
 Global civics
 Global Citizens Movement
 Global democracy
 Global justice
 Globality
 Netizen
 Planetary Consciousness
 Postnationalism
 Subsidiarity
 Think globally, act locally
 Transnationalism
 United Nations and United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
 World Federalist Movement

References
1.
 Israel, Ronald C. (Spring|Summer 2012). "What Does it Mean to be a Global
Citizen?" Kosmos.
  Shaw, Martin (2000). Global Society and International Relations: Sociological
Concepts and Political Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  "Priority #3: Foster Global Citizenship." Global Education First Initiative,
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
  "Humanities for a Global Society". University of Florida. Retrieved 6 July 2013.

  Australian Government (2008). Global Perspectives: A framework for global

education in Australian schools. Carlton South Victoria, Australia: Curriculum
Corporation. ISBN 978 1 74200 075 6
  Jim Luce (1 June 2010). "Euro-American Women' s Council Global Forum and
Awards Set For Athens in July". Huffington Post. 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.
  Mundy, K., et al. (eds). Comparative and International Education. New York:
Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College. ISBN 978-0807748817
  Osler, Audrey and Hugh Starkey (2010). Teachers and Human Rights Education.
London:Trentham Books. ISBN 978-1858563848
  "The Humanist Quantum Interference: Towards the "Homo Conscienciatus"".
Global Education Magazine. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  "Conferencias de Desarrollo Sostenible de las Naciones Unidas: Rio+20". ONGD
Educar para Vivir. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
  O’Sullivan, M. (2008). "You can’t criticize what you don’t understand: Teachers
as social change agents in neo liberal times." Pp. 113-126 in O’Sullivan, Michael & K.
Pashby (eds.) Citizenship in the era of globalization: Canadian perspectives. Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  Pike, G. & D. Selby (2000). In the Global Classroom 2. Toronto: Pippin.

  Diogenes Laertius, "The Lives of Eminent Philosophers", Book VI, Chapter 2,

line 63.

  Malhotra, Rajiv. (2014-01-14). I Indra's Net Check |url= value (help). Harper
Collins, India. ISBN 9789351362487.
  McFarland, S. Webb; Brown, D. (2012). "All humanity is my ingroup: A measure
and studies of Identification with All Humanity". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 103: 830–853. doi:10.1037/a0028724.
  Malsch, A. M., & Omoto, A. M. (2007). Prosocial behavior beyond borders:
Understanding a psychological sense of global community. Claremont, CA: Unpublished
manuscript, Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University.
  Reese, G.; Proch, J.; Cohrs, J.C. (2014). "Individual differences in responses to
global inequality". Analyses of Social issues and Public Policy 14: 217–238.
doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.992850.
  Reysen, S.; Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). "A model of global citizenship:
Antecedents and outcomes". International Journal of Psychology 48: 858–870.
doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.701749.
  McFarland, S.; Hornsby, W. (2015). "An analysis of five measures of global
human identification". European Journal of Social Psychology 45: 806–817.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2161.
  Reysen, Stephen; Katzarska-Miller, Iva (2013). "Student pathways to global
citizenship". In Boyle, Christopher. Student Learning: Improving Practice. New York:
Nova. pp. 121–137. ISBN 978-1-62618-938-6.
  Reysen, Stephen; Larey, Loretta; Katzarska-Miller, Iva (2012). "College course
curriculum and global citizenship". International Journal of Development Education and
Global Learning 4 (3): 27–40. ISSN 1756-526X.
  Reysen, Stephen; Katzarska-Miller, Iva; Gibson, Shonda; Hobson, Braken (2013).
"World knowledge and global citizenship: Factual and perceived world knowledge as
predictors of global citizenship identification". International Journal of Development
Education and Global Learning 5 (1): 49–68.
  Gibson, Shonda; Reysen, Stephen (2013). "Representations of global citizenship in
a school environment". International Journal of Education Research 8 (1): 116–128.
  Reysen, Stephen; Katzarska-Miller, Iva (2013). "Intentional worlds and global
citizenship". Journal of Global Citizenship and Equity Education 3 (1): 34–52.
  Plante, Courtney; Roberts, Sharon; Reysen, Stephen; Gerbasi, Kathleen (2014).
""One of us": Engagement with fandoms and global citizenship identification".
Psychology of Popular Media Culture 3 (1): 49–64. doi:10.1037/ppm0000008.
  Reysen, Stephen; Pierce, Lindsey; Mazambani, Gideon; Mohebpour, Ida; Puryear,
Curtis; Snider, Jamie; Gibson, Shonda; Blake, Marion (2014). "Construction and initial
validation of a dictionary for global citizen linguistic markers". International Journal of
Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning 4 (4): 1–15. doi:10.4018/ijcbpl.2014100101.
  Blake, Marion; Reysen, Stephen (2014). "The influence of possible selves on
global citizenship identification". International Journal of Development Education and
Global Learning 6 (3): 63–78.
  Katzarska-Miller, Iva; Barnsley, Carole; Reysen, Stephen (2014). "Global
citizenship identification and religiosity". Archive for the Psychology of Religion 36 (3):
344–367. doi:10.1163/15736121-12341291.
  Reysen, Stephen; Katzarska-Miller, Iva; Salter, Phia; Hirko, Caroline (2014).
"Blurring group boundaries: The impact of subgroup threats on global citizenship".
Cultural Encounters, Conflicts, and Resolutions 1 (2).
  Gibson, Shonda; Reysen, Stephen; Katzarska-Miller, Iva (2014). "Independent and
interdependent self-construal and global citizenship". International Journal of Business
and Public Administration 11 (2): 62–72.
  Blake, Marion; Pierce, Lindsey; Gibson, Shonda; Reysen, Stephen;
Katzarska-Miller, Iva (2015). "University environment and global citizenship
identification". Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology 5 (1): 97–107.
doi:10.5539/jedp.v5n1p97.
  Lee, Romeo; Baring, Rito; Sta Maria, Madelene; Reysen, Stephen (2015).
"Attitude toward technology, social media usage, and grade point average as predictors of
global citizenship identification in Filipino university students". International Journal of
Psychology. doi:10.1002/ijop.12200.
  Scholte, Jan-Aart (2005). "Chapter 6: Globalization and Governance".
Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave.
  Sassen, Saskia (2003). Towards post-national and denationalized citizenship (PDF).
New York: Sage. p. 286.
  Roudometof, Victor (2005). "Translationalism, Cosmopolitanism, and
Glocalization". Current Sociology 53 (1): 113–135. doi:10.1177/0011392105048291.
  Joel Stratte-McClure (2 October 2000). "A French Exception to the Science Park
Rule". Time EUROPE Magazine. Retrieved 2010-06-16.
  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. Retrieved 2010-06-16.
  "History of the Document." U.N.: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1".
  "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2".
  "Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13(2)".
  Dicey, Albert. (1885). An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.

  Palekar, S.A. (2008). Comparative Politics and Government. (Pp.64-65), New

Dehli: PHI Learning, Pvt. Lmt..ISBN 978-8120333352
  s:United States Declaration of Independence

  Mike Allen (24 Jul 2008). "Obama Promises To 'remake The World'". CBS News.
Retrieved 2010-06-16.
  Aris June 2007
  Diogenes Laertius, "The Lives of Eminent Philosophers", Chapter VI, line 63.
  Thomas Paine (1792). The Rights of Man. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
  "World Government of World Citizens". Retrieved 10 June 2014.
  "the utmost global citizen". Global Culture. 2007.

  Einstein - World Citizen, Erasing National Boundaries, American Museum of

Natural History
  Viereck, George Sylvester (26 October 1929), "What Life Means to Einstein: An
Interview by George Sylvester Viereck", The Saturday Evening Post: 117,
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to
_einstein.pdf retrieved on 7 November 2013
  My Country Is the World By Garry Davis

  Bahá'u'lláh (1994) [1873-92]. Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh Revealed After the

Kitáb-i-Aqdas. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. p. 167.
ISBN 0-87743-174-4.
  Bahá'í International Community (1993-06-14). "World Citizenship: A Global
Ethic for Sustainable Development". 1st session of the United Nations Commission on
Sustainable Development. New York, NY.
  Capdepuy, Vincent (2011). "Au prisme des mots". Cybergeo: European Journal of
Geography.
  "LIST OF MUNDIALIZED COMMUNITIES AND TOWNS". Retrieved 5 May
2016.
  Indian diplomat pens anthem for earth The New Indian Express 5 June 2013

  Parekh, B (2003). "Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship". Review of

International Studies 29: 3–17. doi:10.1017/s0260210503000019.
  Byers, Michael (2005). "The Meanings of Global Citizenship". UBC Global
Citizenship Speaker Series. Retrieved 2009-10-28{{inconsistent citations}}

1.  "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention". Yale University Avalon

Project.

Bibliography
 "For the Love of the World". Time (magazine). 13 June 1949. Retrieved
2007-05-11.
 "Thoughts & Afterthoughts". Time (magazine). 9 October 1950. Retrieved
2007-05-11.
 Briggs, Caroline (23 July 2005). "Sad farewell to 'world citizen'". BBC News.
Retrieved 2007-05-11.
 Thompson, Allan (14 December 2006). "A double standard for politicians' dual
citizenship". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2007-05-11.
 Singh Jaiswal, Anjali (19 August 2005). "Straight answers". The Times of India.
Retrieved 2007-05-11.
 E. Dougherty, Jon (2 February 1999). "Groups promote global governance".
WorldNetDaily. Retrieved 2007-05-11.
 Kaye, Margaret (7 June 1995). "People: Douglas Mattern: toward a world without
borders". Palo Alto Online. Retrieved 2007-05-11.
 Bahá'u'lláh (1988). "Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas". US
Bahá'í Publishing Trust. Retrieved 2008-03-05.
 A World Citizen Program site
 Primary School Global Citizenship site
 Cosmopolitanism at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 Global Culture Essays on the influence of Global Citizens
 Living in the World Risk Society by Ulrich Beck at the London School of
Economics
 Great Transition Initiative Paper Series Global Politics and Institutions, paper #3,
and Dawn of the Cosmopolitan: The Hope of a Global Citizens Movement, paper
#15, explore the potential for the emergence of a cosmopolitan identity and
corresponding institutions.

THE, VALUES, RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES OF GLOBAL
CITIZENSHIP
Leave a reply

By Ron Israel, Director, The Global Citizens’ Initiative

In this month’s global citizens’ blog, we share some observations on the values, rights,
and responsibilities of global citizenship. This month’s blog will be posted on the
BlogPost of the TGCI website. Please feel free to leave a reply or comment.

A global citizen is someone who sees themselves as part of an emerging sustainable

world community, and whose actions support the values and practices of that
community.There are two types of values that can characterize our emerging world
community: (a) political, economic and humanitarian values and (b) personal values.
Each of these types of values is evolving over time, as the nature of global issues change
and as a greater interest emerges regarding the common ethics and morals that underlie
the world’s great wisdom traditions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
and others).

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP VALUES

(a) Political, economic and humanitarian values:

For the most part the world community’s political, economic, and humanitarian values
are values that have been espoused by global leaders for the past one hundred years These
include: human rights, environmental protection, sustainable development gender equity,
religious pluralism, digital access, poverty alleviation and the reduction of resource
inequalities, global peace and justice, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, and
humanitarian assistance. These values are reflected in the nature of a growing number of
global issues that the world community needs to solve collaboratively, such as climate
change, human rights violations, gender inequities, religious intolerance, increases in civil
conflicts, and others.

These issues are beyond the capacity of individual nation states to solve on their own. Yet
because of the power of the nation-state; its dependence on the views of citizens, many of
whom are more concerned with local than global issues; and the consequent reluctance of
countries in working with others; many of our global issues continue to worsen.

One major, heartening expedition to this trend, is in the field of humanitarian assistance.
Over the last decade, in places like Haiti, Japan, and the Philippines, the world has
collectively responded to the emergency needs of the people involved.

(b) -Social, cultural and behavioral values:

The social, cultural, and behavioral values of the world community can be found in many
of the world’s great wisdom traditions. Sharif Abdullah, in his book Creating A World
That Works for All finds that most wisdom traditions share universal values such as love,
peace, nonviolence, compassion,service,caring for others, forgiveness,tolerance,
patience,humility,surrender, inclusivity, truth, joy,gratitude, and happiness. In an
interview we did with Sharif Abdullah he comments, somewhat skeptically, on this list:
“I can find some level of all of these values ascribed to in all cultures. However, the truth
is that most cultures believe these things, yet practice almost the opposite of these values,
which is why we’re talking right now. If people actually practiced their values, there
would be no need for my organization or yours. There is lots of evidence that we’re not
practicing the universal values.”

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

The rights of global citizens are embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
first drafted in 1948 after World War II. The core nature of the Universal
Declaration—grounded in individual liberty, equality, and equity—has remained constant.
However the ways in human rights are applied change over time, with changes that occur
in the political, economic and social fabric of society. Also new rights, that were not on
the 1948 human rights agenda have emerged, for example, digital access rights, LGBT
rights, and environmental rights. Some people cite the emergence of new rights and
changing political systems as calling forth the need for an updated Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.

The main problem related to human rights has been the difficulties that the world has had
in enforcing them. There is a long and shameful history of disrespect for and abuse of
human rights on the part of sovereign states, religious institutions, corporations and others.
A growing number of international mechanisms have been established for reporting
human rights abuses. There also are global, regional, and national courts that exist to
adjudicate incidences of human rights abuse. Yet, unfortunately human rights
enforcement mechanisms still have limited legal jurisdiction, and many states have not
agreed to participate in them. This is yet another reason for a review and update of our
current human rights policies and programs.

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

A global citizen, living in an emerging world community, has moral, ethical, political,
and economic responsibilities. It is a tall order that requires the provision of education,
training and awareness raising, starting at an early age and extending through secondary
and post secondary education. The great challenge for those of us interested in promoting
global citizenship is to educate and nurture a new generation of global citizen leaders.
The instructional framework for global citizen leadership should help participants fulfill
the following responsibilities.
#1 Responsibility to understand one’s own perspective and the perspectives of others on
global issues. Almost every global issue has multiple ethnic, social, political, and
economic perspectives attached to it. It is the responsibility of global citizens to
understand these different perspectives and promote problem-solving consensus among
the different perspectives and the building of common ground solutions. A global citizen
should avoid taking sides with one particular point of view, and instead search for ways
to bring all sides together.

# 2 Responsibility to respect the principle of cultural diversity: The multiple perspectives

that exist with most global issues often are a reflection of different cultural belief systems.
Each of our major cultural belief systems brings value-added to our search for solutions
to the global issues we face. In building a sustainable values-based world community it is
important to maintain respect for the world’s different cultural traditions; to make an
effort to bring together the leaders of these different cultural traditions who often have
much in common with one another.; and to help leaders bring the best elements of their
cultures to the task of solving global issues and building world community.

# 3 Responsibility to make connections and build relationships with people from other
countries and cultures. Global citizens need to reach out and build relationships with
people from other countries and cultures. Otherwise we will continue to live in isolated
communities with narrow conflict-prone points of view on global issues. It is quite easy
to build global relationships. Most countries, cities, and towns are now populated with
immigrants and people from different ethnic traditions. The Internet offers a range of
opportunities to connect with people on different issues. So even without traveling abroad
(which is a useful thing to do), it is possible to build a network of personal and group
cross-country and cultural relationships. Building such networks help those involved
better understand their similarities and differences and search for common solutions for
the global issues that everyone faces.

#4 Responsibility to understand the ways in which the peoples and countries of the world
are inter-connected and inter-dependent: Global citizens have the responsibility to
understand the many ways in which their lives are inter-connected with people and
countries in different parts of the world. They need for example to understand they ways
in which the global environment affects them where they live, and how the environmental
lifestyles they choose affect the environment in other parts of the world. They need to
understand the ways in which human rights violations in foreign countries affect their
own human rights, how growing income inequalities across the world affect the quality of
their lives, how the global tide of immigration affects what goes on in their countries.

#5 Responsibility to understand global issues: Global citizens have the responsibility to

understand the major global issues that affect their lives. For example, they need to
understand the impact of the scarcity of resources on societies; the challenges presented
by the current distribution of wealth and power in the world; the roots of conflict and
dimensions of peace-building; the challenges posed by a growing global populations.

#6 Responsibility to advocate for greater international cooperation with other nations:

Global citizens need to play activist roles in urging greater international cooperation
between their nation and others. When a global issue arises, it is important for global
citizens to provide advice on how their countries can work with other nations to address
this issue; how it can work with established international organizations like the United
Nations, rather than proceed on a unilateral course of action

#7 Responsibility for advocating for the implementation of international agreements,

conventions, treaties related to global issues: Global citizens have the responsibility to
advocate for having their countries ratify and implement the global agreements,
conventions, and treaties that they have signed.

#8 Responsibility for advocating for more effective global equity and justice in each of
the value domains of the world community. There are a growing number of cross-sectoral
issues that require the implementation of global standards of justice and equity; for
example the global rise in military spending, the unequal access by different countries to
technology, the lack of consistent policies on immigration. Global citizens have the
responsibility to work with one another and advocate for global equality and justice
solutions to these issues.

http://www.theglobalcitizensinitiative.org/global-citizenship-blog-may-2014/

Global Citizenship: Plausible Fears and Necessary Dreams

Robert Paehlke

June 2014

Some see global governance as necessary to protect human rights, mitigate climate
disruption, reduce war, and counter rising inequality. Others fear global governance and
even assume that all collective global actions, as well as global institutions like the
United Nations, threaten both sovereignty and democracy. Within such contested territory,
political leaders remain wary of strong global initiatives on environmental and social
policy concerns—while still, on the other hand, favoring neoliberal free trade initiatives.
Yet many trade treaties are in fact a form of global governance, one that undermines
democracy at all levels by privileging the economic dimension of policy while excluding
all others. Global citizenship and the democratization of international relations can
counter public fears regarding a wide range of global policy initiatives. Such enlargement
of the idea of citizenship has become an emergent possibility in the current epoch and, if
expressed through a coherent global movement, can become a popular force for a Great
Transition.

Global Governance on Trial | Global Citizenship Emerging? | Political Efficacy and

Social Change | A Very Short History of Citizenship | Making Global Governance
Attractive...and Achievable | The Character of the Global Citizens Movement | Endnotes

Global Governance on Trial

UN-funded health workers providing vaccinations in Pakistan were murdered by

extremists. Without the violence, but also in the grip of anti-UN paranoia, some US
conservatives have denounced, of all things, bicycle paths, alleging that Agenda 21, the
UN’s 1992 road map for sustainable development, would force Americans out of their
cars and into big cities; others have asserted that the UN intends to take people’s guns;
and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has called global warming a fraud
perpetrated to create a global government “to control all our lives.” Prior to becoming
Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper argued that the real intent of the Kyoto Accord
was global economic redistribution. Such claims are somehow not universally seen as
madness.

The idea of global governance is alien to many. Political wariness clouds how we think
about the urgent need for collective action on global challenges. Despite temptations to
do so, those who appreciate humanity’s multidimensional shared fate should not just
ignore this concern. Our political discourse must acknowledge the legitimate anxieties
that many have about the prospect of global governance as well as the frequently voiced
parallel view that citizen-based global cooperation is essentially silly, an impossible
dream of foolish do-gooders. Many doubt that citizens can influence decisions on a global
level because they doubt that they can even do so on a local level. We need to respond to
cynicism and hopelessness by asserting, based on analysis of historical conditions and
emerging possibilities, that there is nothing naïve about believing that citizens,
governments, and human institutions can prevent everrising inequality and the
overheating of the planet.

Those who present global governance as implausible ignore the everyday reality of global
economic integration. A fragmented form of global governance already exists, a
governance system rooted in the policies implicitly embedded within today’s adjudicated
trade agreements. This system of governance, in which investment capital is highly
mobile and labor much less so, risks placing nations that protect and strengthen social
policies, encourage labor unions, or establish environmental rules at a competitive
disadvantage.1 Economic integration in the absence of an overarching and democratically
adjudicated framework for establishing economic, social, and environmental rules denies
equitable participation in global decisions and systematically undermines local and
national democracy. The question is not whether there will be global governance, but
whether it will be democratic and integrative.

Today’s global trade agreements impact a far broader range of public policies than just
trade and occur with virtually no public input or scrutiny. Nobel Prize winning economist
Joseph Stiglitz has criticized the anti-democratic nature of such negotiations, noting that
“[c]orporations are attempting to achieve by stealth—through secretly negotiated trade
agreements—what they could not attain in an open political process.”2 The Trans-Pacific
Partnership, now under deliberation, provides such an example.This closed negotiation
process includes government officials, hundreds of corporate representatives, and a small
number of labor leaders, but no representatives of other civil society organizations, such
as those concerned with the environment, human rights, or social policy.

Global Citizenship Emerging?

Despite wariness of global governance, and lack of awareness that such governance
already exists, many now see themselves as global citizens. A multi-nation poll
conducted in 2005 found that “for the first time in history, one citizen in five across the
world strongly identifies with being a citizen of the world ahead of being a citizen of a
home country.”3 Those who fear global governance may find this alarming, but they are
clinging to a fading past.

The same poll found that a majority of university-educated citizens saw a need for more
comprehensive and better enforced global rules. It also found that leaders of
non-governmental organizations, when asked to identify their ideal form of global
governance for 2020, were as likely to choose “the emergence of directly-elected world
government” as “a reformed and strengthened United Nations.” The extent to which this
is a negative judgment about the prospects for UN reform is unclear, but it does suggest
that many are open to global political change beyond what most national governments
would countenance.4

An active global citizens movement (GCM) could, however, grow to influence global
outcomes without a global government or even a formal global decision-making process.
Indeed, a GCM might not opt to create a global government in the future, even if it had
the capacity to do so, if it is able to achieve effective policies and initiatives on key global
issues in other ways. Such a strategy for resolving global challenges would require dense
cross-national networks and persistent effort.
Only a GCM can provide sustained locale-by-locale support for action on global concerns
in the face of certain and ubiquitous political resistance. Indeed, such concerns would not
persist if many national and local jurisdictions had not ignored or stymied solutions. A
global stage dominated by economic interests and national leaders alone, operating
largely behind closed doors, has systematically avoided confronting these challenges. On
the world stage, the audience cannot even see the play, let alone join the cast.

In this context, the world has drifted into a perilous condition where problems like
climate change and rapidly rising inequality have become urgent, demanding solutions
long before global government could emerge. Global, citizen-based political action must
precede whatever new institutional arrangements might emerge in the long run.
Strengthening organizational capacity and public awareness can, however, mute these
crises, and coherent and comprehensive governance can arise out of that process or
develop later.

Building a GCM equal to this challenge is itself a massively complex task, requiring vast
reserves of optimism and energy from millions of citizens. Fortunately, complex
movements can emerge one issue at a time and spread sporadically and spontaneously.
Vibrant global environmental and human rights movements, as well as other efforts
addressing key aspects of global citizenship, already exist. Taken together, Amnesty
International, Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, and the thousands of citizen-based
development, human rights, social justice, environmental, and other civil society
organizations could achieve synergies within a multi-issue global citizens movement.
Still missing, though, is a wider appreciation of the interrelatedness of the issues on
which these groups work as well as a greater sense among their participants that they are
engaged in a common effort.

An overarching movement plan is not necessary, nor is an institutional structure or central

administration. Movements can be amorphous and grow organically, generally including
and spawning diverse organizations, each with continuously evolving perspectives.
Individual citizens can, however, identify with and feel a part of a movement as a whole,
share its broad goals, and actively participate in—or simply support—its initiatives. The
American civil rights movement and the environmental movements in many nations have
taken this pluralistic yet unified form. Broad-based movements do not have an address
and phone number or a single leadership group. There will not likely be a single central
website for the global citizens movement. All of these things make a GCM more
decentralized, more unplanned, more possible, and less threatening.

Political Efficacy and Social Change

The social science concept of political efficacy can further illuminate the prospects for
such a movement. Political efficacy is self-confidence regarding political activity, the
belief that citizens can influence political and policy outcomes. Without widespread
political efficacy, democracy loses legitimacy and cannot live up to its potential. Since
robust political activism depends on such efficacy, the currently low level of political
efficacy with respect to global issues and decisions reveals the challenge inherent in
initiating and establishing a global citizens movement.

Moreover, low political efficacy at a global scale systematically undermines political

efficacy within nations. In particular, inadequate multilateral agreements weaken national
capacity to set strong social and environmental policy. Political leaders and economic
elites evade responsibility by implying that they are powerless in the face of “global
competition” to prevent the erosion of incomes, improve social programs, or strengthen
regulation. If citizens believe that governments are powerless to establish policies that
affect their everyday lives, they will see little point in participating in the political
process.

Global economic integration does not inevitably undermine democracy, but it does when
it proceeds without, in the words of former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali,
the “democratization of international relations.” Indeed, long-standing inaction on
transnational policy challenges reflects a willful erosion of public influence regarding
those challenges at all levels. Citizens feel that action is impossible when, in fact, elites
have consciously excluded social, environmental, and other urgent matters from existing
trade agreements, and largely failed to take effective actions outside of those agreements.
The situation is, however, far from hopeless.

American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset in his work Political Man assessed
the determinants of political efficacy and analyzed why social and economic groups did
or did not act politically to change an established order. Groups like cigar rollers were
politicized, while other groups of similar station were not, because the cigar rollers sat in
a circle at large tables and could readily converse while they worked. In other work
settings, workers could not interact and thus were far less likely to be politically engaged.
Others were more likely to be politicized if they worked and lived in the same
neighborhoods and had ongoing social and family connections. Today, while citizens in
many nations are politically discouraged, new media make global conversations possible
and facilitate the creation and functioning of transboundary organizations of citizens.

Industrial age politicization and political efficacy created political forces, such as unions
and political parties, that eventually embedded market decisions within democracies in
post-Depression, post-World War II Western nations. Unionization, social and
educational policies, and graduated taxation all contributed to the reduction of inequality.
In the 1970s, in the US and many other nations, citizen-based environmental movements
pressed governments to enact wide-ranging regulations.
However, for more than thirty years now, social inequality has risen continuously within
most nations, and perilous global environmental problems have emerged. In China, the
top 10% now receive 60% of all income, and most rapidly industrializing countries show
similar patterns.5 In the thirty-four OECD countries, the richest 10% have a total income
nine times higher than the lowest 10%, up from seven times higher twenty-five years
ago.6 Between 1993 and 2012, growth in real income for the top 1% in the US was 86.1%,
while the remaining 99% saw income growth of only 6.6%, most of which went to the
remainder of the top 10%. Even in more historically equal nations like Germany and
Sweden, there has been slippage in recent years.

Three cautions are worth noting regarding this pattern. First, while inequality is rising
globally, median incomes in rapidly industrializing countries like China and Brazil are
gaining on those in North America and Europe. Second, not all of the increase in national
inequality results from globalized trade and “exported” jobs; much results from
technological advances that displace human labor. Attributing these trends to increased
trade alone is thus an oversimplification that sidesteps the real challenge of establishing
policies that reduce inequality within and between nations while also improving
opportunities for better work-life balance everywhere. Third, not every nation readily
accedes to the adoption of austerity policies that exacerbate inequality. France, for
example, attempted to resolve its deficits with higher taxes on the wealthy rather than
cuts to public sector employment and support for the poor.7

In sum, rising inequality is more a result of public policy than an inevitable result of
global economic integration, particularly when such policies are economically inefficient,
socially divisive, politically corrosive, and environmentally destructive. Governments
face constant pressure to adopt policies that exacerbate inequality as a putative necessity
to remain economically competitive. A global citizens movement pushing for coordinated
global action could offer the much needed counterpressure to such orthodox political
logic.

Efficacy, however, also requires overcoming despair regarding the future, the assumption
that nothing can change or that things will inevitably get worse. Democracy grew during
the Age of Enlightenment, a time of great optimism regarding the human future. Paul
Raskin rightfully argues that pessimism is “not so much wrong as disempowering.”8 He
shows that sufficient resource capacity exists to create, over time, a world that is both
environmentally sustainable and globally egalitarian, but that only “pragmatic hope” can
create the citizen energy needed to achieve cultural and political change. Frances Moore
Lappé likewise argues that environmental doom-and-gloom is a “thought trap” that can
stultify our collective capacity to act.9

Establishing political efficacy globally is a spectacularly daunting challenge. Yet without

it, how will citizens be able to pressure governments into acting on global challenges or,
ultimately, institutionalizing inclusive global decision-making processes? Without it,
global governance will remain paralyzed and action on global challenges largely
inadequate. The challenge is all too real, but global citizen action is beginning to take
hold.

Notable efforts include fair trade initiatives, the efforts of development-oriented civil
society organizations, global human rights campaigns, and environmental activism. These
broad waves of civic initiative play out in myriad examples. For instance, Electoral
Rebellion recognizes that people often have a stake in other countries’ elections.
Individual Israelis, through this organization, offer to vote on behalf of individual
Palestinians, and Germans have voted on behalf of Spaniards when Germany imposed
austerity measures on Spain. Those who offer their vote in these cases might well have
voted the same way regardless, but the act of exchange is widely visible and makes a
political point regarding transborder citizenship interests. In another arena, No Kero and
Solar Sister provide affordable solar lighting to replace kerosene lamps and solar phone
rechargers for villages beyond the electric grid.10 Replacing kerosene reduces black
carbon (soot), a potent greenhouse gas, and saves users money, thereby improving their
economic situations. A self-conscious global citizens movement could expand and
multiply these and hundreds of other small initiatives.

Activism in the emerging civic, or social, economy complements such work. In the
Global South, budding social entrepreneurs, with the help of governments or private
foundations, have created innovative products explicitly designed to improve the
environment and expand economic opportunities.11 The United States has seen the rise of
entrepreneurial nonprofits with social and environmental missions as well as “benefit
corporations,” private firms that prioritize purposes other than just the bottom line.12 Such
enterprises, in effect, expand citizenship into the market realm. Few participants in these
efforts are under the illusion that their efforts are panaceas, but these initiatives can
launch quickly and build the linkages needed to grow a more comprehensive movement.
They create connections, nurture hope, and build efficacy.

Challenging governments, international institutions, and trade policy is also essential, but
few are prepared to begin there. In concert with global efforts, concrete and visible
successes, however small, are needed to build a movement. Even if those initial efforts
are insufficient, wider knowledge of them, and more minds opened to new possibilities,
will spur other efforts. Such a movement can take hold organically and rapidly as crises
mature and more people appreciate that global governance is where the long arc of human
history is taking us—and has been for centuries.

A Very Short History of Citizenship

The history of citizenship suggests that global citizenship is part of a natural (though not
inevitable) progression of human history. Over the centuries, citizenship evolved from
local to national, following the expansion of production and markets. In the context of our
increasingly interdependent economy, a shift toward global citizenship and rulemaking
simply continues this evolution. The rights and duties of citizenship, moreover, have also
evolved and expanded. Citizenship began with legal rights and duties and expanded to
incorporate political rights and duties and then, more recently, social and environmental
rights and duties. Appreciating this history makes global citizenship and governance less
implausible and less threatening.

Citizenship evolved slowly from communities (city-states and principalities) to

nation-states. The central impetus for the shift to national citizenship was the Industrial
Revolution, where increased output created a need to expand markets. Multiple
autonomous principalities hindered trade with their imposition of varying bridge tolls,
road use charges, and duties. Larger governmental entities and uniform rules paved the
way for continuous growth in production and trade. Growing literacy and rising wealth
unrelated to inherited land led to a more democratic sense of citizenship. The nation-state
emerged, and the spread of democracy was not far behind.

The creation of the modern welfare state in the first half of the twentieth century
enhanced the scope of citizenship. British sociologist T.H. Marshall called this shift
social citizenship, to convey that meaning of citizenship had come to encompass
minimum standards of economic well-being.13 Writing in 1950, he argued that the basic
rights of citizenship had evolved over several centuries. In Britain, hard-won civil rights
(freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and religion, as well as the right to own property,
conclude contracts, and access justice) were expanded to include political rights via the
Reform Acts of 1832, the 1860s, and the 1880s, which gradually lowered property
requirements for voting. These rights then expanded to include basic social rights.

Marshall saw these three aspects of citizen rights (civil, political, and social) as mutually
reinforcing. The right to vote protects civil rights, and civil rights are essential to the
effectiveness of voting and the functioning of government. Social and economic minima
are likewise essential to both voting and civil rights and had, in his view, become a
fundamental aspect of modern citizenship by the early twentieth century.

Marshall saw these three aspects of citizen rights (civil, political, and social) as mutually
reinforcing. The right to vote protects civil rights, and civil rights are essential to the
effectiveness of voting and the functioning of government. Social and economic minima
are also essential to both voting and civil rights and had, in his view, become an essential
aspect of modern citizenship by the early twentieth century.

Today, diminishing social equity in wealthy nations undermines Marshall’s social

citizenship and the sense of progress that supported the emergence of political efficacy
and democratic citizenship. Marshall’s buoyant perspective now seems to describe a more
optimistic and prosperous time, yet when he wrote, average income per capita was far
below what it is today. Few political figures today aspire to do more than slow the rate of
decline in social equity. Social citizenship is crumbling, and declining social capital is
threatening political citizenship.14

Taking citizenship global will not automatically reverse this decline, but it could build
hope by establishing a sense of civic, political, social, and environmental citizenship
worldwide. Citizenship, widely understood in global as well as national and local terms,
moves mindsets from a focus on competition to citizenly concern regarding shared
obligations. In time, it could also change the broad arc of public policy discourse,
ultimately altering policy outcomes in ways that re-embed market forces in ethical habits
and socio-political rules on a global scale.

Making Global Governance Attractive...and Achievable

Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that democracy was only possible in communities of

limited size. Fortunately, given the need for global governance, our technical capacity to
communicate has changed radically in the three centuries since Rousseau. The Internet
now enables people to locate each other and mobilize around specific initiatives or broad
concerns. Internet use has become part of the rhythm of daily life (there are more than
500 million users in China alone), eroding both borders and distance. Barriers like
language, censorship, and the cost of access remain, but increasingly, they too can be
overcome.

This makes active global citizenship possible by opening lines of communication that can
build trust and allow diverse individuals, organizations, and institutions to act together
and to pressure governments and public institutions at all levels. With such new
technologies, citizen-driven initiatives can be launched in a coordinated way or begin in a
few places and spread spontaneously. This makes active global citizenship possible in
ways that Rousseau could not have even imagined.

Our communication and transportations systems have facilitated the creation of an

increasingly interdependent global economy, but without fair and effective social and
environmental rules, such an economy carries great risks. The increasing concentration of
wealth leads to a parallel concentration of political power. At the same time, the
preferential treatment of investment income and the stagnation, or even decline, of wages
reduce public revenue. The impacts of feckless globalization on the ecosphere pose
severe risks. Cynicism regarding government rises when political leaders only consider a
narrow range of action. A broad citizens movement can counter this distrust by taking
citizen-to-citizen communication and democratic action global.
The first (and perhaps the best) way to lessen wariness about more open and visible
global governance is to show that, rather than threatening existing democracy, it is crucial
to protecting it from the eroding effects of the decidedly non-democratic global
governance now operating. To reinforce this message, a global citizens movement might
undertake campaigns to strengthen (“thicken,” in political science terminology) local and
national democracy. The movement should be consistently and visibly on the side of
expanding and deepening democracy, human rights, and fairness.

In Canada, the movement could support proportional representation or preferential voting,

where voters can rank each candidate preferentially, with second and third choice votes
counted from candidates finishing furthest behind, giving voters more input into election
outcomes. The GCM might call for the prompt restoration of free and fair elections in
Egypt or their establishment in Saudi Arabia or China. It might also oppose voter
identification laws in the United States, which consciously exclude minority, poor, and
student voters in certain states, or challenge election finance rules that allow large and
secret campaign contributions. American elections, in particular, affect virtually everyone
on the planet and are thus, to some extent, everyone’s business.

A second way to support and strengthen local and national democracy, and to reflect
Rousseau’s wisdom, is to promote a limited global agenda. Given that economic
integration has at least partially unraveled the embedding of market forces within
democratic governance, and that new threats require worldwide action, a global agenda is
unavoidable. Nevertheless, the challenges that require global action (as distinct from
initiatives within multiple jurisdictions) are few in number. Moreover, policy architecture
can accommodate local designs of policy implementation, as federal experience in
multiple nations bears out. The principle of subsidiarity, establishing policies at the most
local level possible, should guide decision-making as well as the internal processes of the
movement that advances it. If the global governance agenda remains limited while an
essential feature of global citizenship remains expanding democracy at all levels, not
constraining democracy within nations, there is little sound reason for wariness regarding
global governance.

Third, local economic diversity, including initiatives advocated by environmental and

development citizen activists, aligns well with this emerging cosmopolitanism. Indeed,
stronger local economies are needed to enable and support policy subsidiarity. Renewable
energy can be small in scale and is typically more widely distributed than other energy
options. Local agriculture and food sovereignty strengthen local economies. Even
environmentalist demands for durable and repairable products strengthen local economies
through stimulating local repair and resale enterprises. Finally, new media distribute
content creation widely, the opposite effect of mass media, and have the potential to
strengthen citizen engagement by creating new possibilities for political activism.
These possibilities are especially important in the Global South. Without new local
energy options, many nations cannot afford fossil fuel imports. Many poor nations
already rely heavily on renewable energy sources, usually hydroelectricity and biomass.
They could greatly expand renewable energy production with solar and wind,
technologies highly suited to decentralized populations. Feed-in tariffs, for instance,
could help to scale up these technologies, simultaneously expanding energy access and
reducing greenhouse emissions.15

In the communications sector of the Global South, sunk costs are limited, for example, in
telephone lines. New technologies can bypass those costs, just as the limited presence of
refining capacity and coal-fired power plants leaves the way open for renewables. Being
behind in conventional technology opens the possibility of leapfrogging into more
efficient, localized, and green technologies and production options.

Local food production for local consumption is far more secure, sustainable, and
affordable than industrial-scale agriculture. The greatest barrier in the South to food
production has been North American and European agricultural subsidies and food aid
that forces recipient nations to buy from donor nations, undermining local food
production. So-called free trade agreements have had little or no impact on those
anti-market practices even while the IMF demands reductions in price subsidies for food
in many of the affected countries. Movement-linked organizations should advocate
greater food sovereignty and support groups that initiate urban food production in poor
nations and poor neighborhoods in wealthy nations.

Fourth, a GCM should advance simultaneity as a form of global governance. Simultaneity

recognizes that the competitive disadvantages of acting are lowered significantly if
economic competitors take simultaneous action. This puts the focus on pressuring and
working with local and national governments regarding global concerns. The pursuit of
common global purposes is less threatening than are demands for global rulemaking.
Some will, of course, nonetheless claim that “foreign” forces are at work, the “proof”
lying in the global nature of the campaign. The appropriate response to such assertions is
to ask, “What do you think would happen if we took this initiative here and no one
elsewhere did so as well?” That indeed is precisely the discussion that needs to take place
issue by issue. The logic of simultaneity can be widely understood. Simultaneous action
must replace simultaneous inaction.

Fifth, and finally, to achieve broad appeal, a GCM must remain reasonably open
regarding classic left-right political perspectives. Citizens everywhere understand that
global decisions are now necessary, and a global movement facing up to the urgency of
today’s challenges needs to welcome diverse approaches and solutions. The time has
passed for anything hinting of reincarnation of the socialist internationals of a bygone era.
We do not, of course, need to hesitate to criticize excessive concentrations of wealth or
inadequate regulation. Such things are at the heart of the problems the world faces.
However, we need to be mindful that the solution is not just restraining the market, but
also opening up more opportunities for real entrepreneurship, especially more start-ups
and small-scale or community-based initiatives. Expanded local food and energy
production, combined with public incentives such as feed-in-tariffs, is already altering
market behavior.

Locally grown organic food, once only in isolated outlets, is now widely available. In
Germany citizen, cooperative, municipal, and farmer-owned renewable electricity
generation exceeds the output from renewable sources of large utilities, and electricity
from those sources and will soon exceed production from fossil-based sources. Such local
and participatory control leads to less NIMBY resistance to wind energy, more
innovation, and potentially even some reduction in the concentration of wealth.
Decentralization could in time offset or diminish the corrupting political effects of
concentrated wealth in big energy and industrial agriculture.

Again, one cannot predict where a GCM will stand on particular issues. A GCM need not
prima facie oppose “globalization” or “capitalism.” The movement should seek positives:
socio-economic equity, environmental sustainability, strengthened democracy, and
human rights. The best combination of ways to achieve these objectives globally,
nationally, and locally remains to be seen.

Such considerations can aid a future GCM in creating quick, small, visible victories that
enhance the efficacy felt by citizens regarding problems that require global solutions.
That low efficacy is a core problem is hardly surprising. Humans have only rarely ever
acted as citizens on this scale. We can do so because we must, but positive global change
is most likely if it is initiated in many places and spreads organically. Something widely
understood to be a global citizens movement will only emerge over time.

The Character of the Global Citizens Movement

What can we anticipate about the nature of a global citizens movement itself? A
movement committed to expanded democracy, equity, and human rights must itself, in
practice, be inclusive, equitable, and scrupulously democratic. Indeed, given that global
institutions incorporating citizen participation will not emerge easily or quickly, the
movement must be a model of democracy and inclusiveness to demonstrate the
possibility of such democracy on a global scale.

The GCM will also be multi-centered geographically because of, at the very least, the
cost of frequent face-to-face meetings. This pattern of decentralization already exists in
global civil society. Most global environmental, social justice, and development
organizations are either multi-centered or linked to broad geographic networks.
Campaign ideas emerge in many locations and can spread to other locations quickly. As
noted above, movements like the 1960s American civil rights movement were also
multi-centered; an effective global citizens movement almost inevitably will be more so.
The civil rights movement spread through the media of the day; today’s campaigns can
actively be spread using new media rather than depending on traditional, centralized
media systems.

In this way, a GCM, decentralized and inclusive, can stand in stark contrast to current
global decision-making, both public and private, which is centralized, hierarchical, and
exclusive. Global citizens can solve problems directly through personal,
community-based, technological, and economic as well as national and international
political efforts. Increasing numbers of people can come to understand that what they are
doing, or might aspire to do, is potentially part of a citizen-based global effort.

Such actions are necessary because, while effective global governance is long-term, some
challenges are too urgent to depend wholly on pressing national governments to step up.
With many existing governments, national governments perhaps especially, at least
partially within the sway of concentrated wealth, citizens must rise up to explore the
possibilities and act on that vision to create change on a global level. Ultimately,
sufficient change will require governmental and intergovernmental action, but those may
only be possible when majorities glimpse the kind of world that is possible and, crucially,
understand that citizens can make it happen.

Endnotes
1. An indication of how far control-by-trade-regime can go is the use of trade rules to block nations from discouraging tobacco use as a public health
measure. See Sabrina Tavernise, “Tobacco Firms’ Strategy Limits Poorer Nations’ Smoking Laws,” New York Times, December 13, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/health/tobacco-industry-tactics-limit-poorer-nations-smoking-laws.html.
2. Joseph Stiglitz, “Developing Countries Are Right to Resist Restrictive Trade Agreements,” The Guardian, November 8, 2013,
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/08/trade-agreements-developing-countries-joseph-stiglitz.
3. Doug Miller, “Citizens of the World Want UN Reform,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 8, 2005, http://
www.globescan.com/news_archives/dm_globe_04-08-05.html.
4. These approaches could be combined. For example, Daniele Archibugi has called for a bicameral UN with one chamber directly elected and the other
representing nations. See his The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008).
5. Oxfam, “The Cost of Inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt Us All,” media briefing, January 18, 2013,
http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/the-cost-of-inequality-how-wealth-and-incomeextremes-hurt-us-all-266321.
6. Emmanuel Saez, “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States,” September 3, 2013,
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf.
7. The country paid a price, though, when Standard and Poor’s downgraded France’s credit rating. Paul Krugman, “The Plot against France,” New York
Times, November 13, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/ opinion/krugman-the-plot-against-france.html.
8. Paul Raskin, “Game On: The Basis for Hope in a Time of Despair,” Great Transition Initiative (March 2013): 1,
http://greattransition.org/archives/perspectives/Perspective_Game_On.pdf.
9. Frances Moore Lappé, EcoMind (New York: Nation Books, 2011).
10. See www.nokero.com and www.solarsister.org. See also Rich McEachran, “African Social Enterprises Pave the Way for Solar Power While
Stimulating the Local Economy,” The Guardian, December 3, 2013, http://www.
theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2013/dec/03/african-social-enterprises-solar-power.
11. See discussion in Mary Kaldor, Sabine Selchow, and Henrietta L. Moore, eds., Global Civil Society Yearbook 2012 (London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2012).
12. Some US states have legally designated benefit corporations to prevent shareholder lawsuits regarding management’s failure to maximize profits.
13. T. H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class: And Other Essays (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1950).
14. This pattern in the US context is described in Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon
& Schuster, 2000).
15. Tariq Banuri and Niclas Hällström, “A Global Programme to Tackle Energy Access and Climate Change,” Development Dialogue 61 (September
2012): 264-279, http://www.whatnext.org/Publications/Volume_3/Volume_3_articles/Volume_3_articles.html.

http://www.greattransition.org/publication/global-citizenship-plausible-fears-necessary-dr
eams

Global Citizenship – What Are We Talking About and Why Does It Matter?

March 11, 2012 - 4:52pm

Kris Olds

Editor's note: This guest entry was written by Madeleine F. Green, a Senior Fellow at
NAFSA and the International Association of Universities. It was originally published in
NAFSA's newish Trends & Insights series of short online article that are "designed to
highlight social, economic, political and higher education system trends affecting
international higher education." Our thanks to Madeleine and NAFSA for permission to
post her fascinating entry here (which is also available as a PDF via this link). Kris Olds

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

During the past decade higher education's interest in internationalization has intensified,
and the concept of civic education or engagement has broadened from a national focus to
a more global one, thus expanding the concept that civic responsibility extends beyond
national borders.

As Schattle (2009) points out, the concept of global citizenship is not a new one; it can be
traced back to ancient Greece. But the concept and the term seem to have new currency
and are now widely used in higher education. Many institutions cite global citizenship in
their mission statements and/or as an outcome of liberal education and
internationalization efforts. Many have "centers for global citizenship" or programs with
this label.

Additionally, national and international organizations and networks have devoted

themselves to helping institutions promote global citizenship, although they do not
necessarily use that term. For example, the Association of American Colleges and
Universities sponsors a series of programs concerned with civic learning, a broad concept
that includes several goals for undergraduate education: strengthening U.S. democracy,
preparing globally responsible citizenry, developing personal and social responsibility,
and promoting global learning and diversity. The Salzburg Seminar's International Study
Program provides week-long workshops for faculty to consider the concepts of global
citizenship and their integration into undergraduate education. It also provides college
students with programs on global issues. The Talloires Network is an international
alliance formed in 2005 that includes 202 institutions in 58 countries "devoted to
strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of higher education." The
Talloires declaration refers specifically to "preparing students to contribute positively to
local, national, and global communities." Founded in 1985, the oldest of these networks,
Campus Compact, retains its predominant, but not exclusive, focus on the United States.

Defining Global Citizenship

A foray into the literature or a look at the many ways colleges and universities talk about
global citizenship reveals how broad a concept it is and how different the emphasis can
be depending on who uses the term. This essay can only outline a few important elements
of global citizenship, but a brief overview of the many meanings should help institutions
formulate or clarify their own definition of it, identify those elements that are central to
their educational vision, and add other dimensions. The following are among the most
salient features of global citizenship (this section draws from a variety of sources but
primarily relies on Schattle (2007)).

Global citizenship as a choice and a way of thinking. National citizenship is an accident

of birth; global citizenship is different. It is a voluntary association with a concept that
signifies "ways of thinking and living within multiple cross-cutting communities—cities,
regions, states, nations, and international collectives…" (Schattle 2007, 9). People come
to consider themselves as global citizens through different formative life experiences and
have different interpretations of what it means to them. The practice of global citizenship
is, for many, exercised primarily at home, through engagement in global issues or with
different cultures in a local setting. For others, global citizenship means firsthand
experience with different countries, peoples, and cultures. For most, there exists a
connection between the global and the local. Whatever an individual's particular "take"
on global citizenship may be, that person makes a choice in whether or how to practice it.

Global citizenship as self-awareness and awareness of others. As one international

educator put it, it is difficult to teach intercultural understanding to students who are
unaware they, too, live in a culture that colors their perceptions. Thus, awareness of the
world around each student begins with self-awareness. Self-awareness also enables
students to identify with the universalities of the human experience, thus increasing their
identification with fellow human beings and their sense of responsibility toward them.

Global citizenship as they practice cultural empathy. Cultural empathy or intercultural

competence is commonly articulated as a goal of global education, and there is significant
literature on these topics. Intercultural competence occupies a central position in higher
education's thinking about global citizenship and is seen as an important skill in the
workplace. There are more than 30 instruments or inventories to assess intercultural
competence. Cultural empathy helps people see questions from multiple perspectives and
move deftly among cultures—sometimes navigating their own multiple cultural identities,
sometimes moving out to experience unfamiliar cultures.

Global citizenship as the cultivation of principled decisionmaking. Global citizenship

entails an awareness of the interdependence of individuals and systems and a sense of
responsibility that follows from it. Navigating "the treacherous waters of our epic
interdependence (Altinay 2010, 4) requires a set of guiding principles that will shape
ethical and fair responses. Although the goal of undergraduate education should not be to
impose a "correct" set of answers, critical thinking, cultural empathy, and ethical systems
and choices are an essential foundation to principled decisionmaking.

Global citizenship as participation in the social and political life of one's community.
There are many different types of communities, from the local to the global, from
religious to political groups. Global citizens feel a connection to their communities
(however they define them) and translate that sense of connection into participation.
Participation can take the form of making responsible personal choices (such as limiting
fossil fuel consumption), voting, volunteering, advocacy, and political activism. The
issues may include the environment, poverty, trade, health, and human rights.
Participation is the action dimension of global citizenship.

Why Does Global Citizenship Matter?

The preceding list could be much longer and more detailed; global citizenship covers a lot
of ground. Thus, it is useful to consider the term global citizenship as shorthand for the
habits of mind and complex learning associated with global education. The concept is
useful and important in several respects.

First, a focus on global citizenship puts the spotlight on why internationalization is central
to a quality education and emphasizes that internationalization is a means, not an end.
Serious consideration of the goals of internationalization makes student learning the key
concern rather than counting inputs.

Second, the benefits of encouraging students to consider their responsibilities to their

communities and to the world redound to them, institutions, and society. As Altinay
(2010, 1) put it, "a university education which does not provide effective tools and
forums for students to think through their responsibilities and rights as one of the several
billions on planet Earth, and along the way develop their moral compass, would be a
failure." Strengthening institutional commitment to serving society enriches the
institution, affirms its relevance and contributions to society, and benefits communities
(however expansive the definition) and the lives of their members.

Third, the concept of global citizenship creates conceptual and practical connections
rather than cleavages. The commonalities between what happens at home and "over
there" become visible. The characteristics that human beings share are balanced against
the differences that are so conspicuous. On a practical level, global citizenship provides a
concept that can create bridges between the work of internationalization and multicultural
education. Although these efforts have different histories and trajectories, they also share
important goals of cultural empathy and intercultural competence (Olson et al. 2007).

No concept or term is trouble-free; no idea goes uncontested by some faculty member or

group. For better or for worse, global citizenship will undoubtedly provoke disagreements
that reflect larger academic and philosophical debates. There is plenty of skepticism
about global citizenship. Some object to any concept that suggests a diminished role for
the nation and allegiance to it or the ascendancy of global governance systems. The idea
of developing students' moral compasses can raise questions about whose values and
morals and how institutions undertake this delicate task. Some students will choose not to
accept responsibility for the fate of others far away, or may see inequality as an
irremediable fact of life. Some faculty will stand by the efficacy and wisdom of the
market; others will see redressing inequality as the key issue for the future of humankind.
And so on.

Such debates, sometimes civil or acrimonious, are, for better or worse, the stuff of
academe. Implementing new ideas—even if they have been around for a very long time
as in the case of global citizenship—can be slow and painful. However, if colleges and
universities can produce graduates with the knowledge and the disposition to be global
citizens, the world would certainly be a better place.

Madeleine F. Green

-----------------------------------------

Box 1 - Conceptual Divides

What was once simply called “international education” is now a field awash with varied
terminology, different conceptual frameworks, goals, and underlying assumptions.*

Although "internationalization" is widely used, many use globalization—with all its

different definitions and connotations— in its stead. Rather than take on the job of sorting
out the terminology, let me point out two significant conceptual divides in the
conversation. Both center on the purpose of internationalization.

In the first divide, we see one face of internationalization as referring to a series of

activities closely associated with institutional prestige, profile, and revenue. These
activities are generally quantifiable, lend themselves to institutional comparisons and
benchmarking, and provide metrics for internationalization performance that resonate
with trustees and presidents. Examples include hosting international students, sending
students abroad, developing international agreements, and delivering programs abroad.

The other face of internationalization—student learning— is much more difficult to

capture and assess, but it provides an important answer to the “so what?” question. Why
does internationalization matter? What impact do internationalization activities have on
student learning? How do they contribute to preparing students to live and work in a
globalized and culturally diverse world?

Different terms with overlapping meanings are used to describe the student learning
dimension of internationalization. Global learning, global education, and global
competence are familiar terms; they, too, are often used synonymously. The global in all
three terms often includes the concepts of international (between and among nations),
global (transcending national borders), and intercultural (referring often to cultural
differences at home and around the world).

Also prevalent in the student learning discussion is another cluster of terms that focus
specifically on deepening students’ understanding of global issues and interdependence,
and encouraging them to engage socially and politically to address societal issues. These
terms include global citizenship, world citizenship (Nussbaum 1997), civic learning, civic
engagement, and global civics (Altinay 2010). These terms, too, share several key
concepts, and are often used interchangeably.

The second divide focuses on the divergent, but not incompatible goals of workforce
development (developing workers to compete in the global marketplace) or as a means of
social development (developing globally competent citizens.) Global competitiveness is
primarily associated with mastery of math, science, technology, and occasionally
language competence, whereas “global competence” (a broad term, to be sure), puts
greater emphasis on intercultural understanding and knowledge of global systems and
issues, culture, and language.

As the field grows increasingly complex and the instrumental goals of

internationalization become more prominent, it is important that campus discussions and
planning efforts sort out their language, underlying concepts, and implied or explicit
values. Otherwise, people run the risk of talking past each other and developing strategies
that may not match their goals.

----------------------------------------

* It is important for U.S. readers to note that the goals of and assumptions about
internationalization vary widely around the world. The Third Global Survey of
Internationalization conducted by the International Association of Universities found that
there are divergent views among institutions in different regions of the risks and benefits
of internationalizations. Based on their findings, IAU has launched an initiative to take a
fresh look at internationalization from a global perspective.

References

Altinay, Hakan. "The Case for Global Civics." Global Economy and Development
Working Paper 35, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2010.

Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in

Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.

Olson, Christa, Rhodri Evans, and Robert Shoenberg. 2007. At Home in the World:
Bridging the Gap Between Internationalization and Multi-Cultural Education.
Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Schattle, Hans. 2007. The Practices of Global Citizenship . Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Schattle, Hans. 2009. "Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice." In The Handbook of
Practice and Research in Study Abroad:Higher Education and the Quest for Global
Citizenship, ed. R. Lewin. New York: Routledge.

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/globalhighered/global-citizenship-%E2%80%93-
what-are-we-talking-about-and-why-does-it-matter

English 99 Global Civics

 Basics - Welcome
 Curricular Content

o Essay #1: Global Citizenship: An Attempt of Definition

o Essay #2: The Major Problems of Globalization
o Event Paper
o Research Paper
o Reflection Paper

 Co curricular Content
 Other
Essay #1: Global Citizenship

Loukman Lamany

English 99.1899

February 11, 2011

Professor Andrew Rowan

Global Citizenship: An Attempt of Definition

Defining global citizenship is not as easy as it may seem. According to Oxford Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, the term "global" is defined as "covering or affecting the whole
world." The term "citizenship" is defined as "the legal right to belong to a particular
country," "the state of being citizen and accepting the responsibilities of it." Putting
together the two definitions "global citizenship" would mean, the legal right to belong to
a particular country, here the whole world and the state of being citizen (of the world),
and accepting the responsibilities of it. Well, that was easy, at least theoretically, it was.
But moving beyond the theoretical definition and understanding the practical meaning of
global citizenship is much harder. To me, while there are no political needs associated
with the concept of global citizenship there are, nonetheless, individual responsibilities
associated with it, which makes possible for the concepts of national and global
citizenship to coexist.

One definition of "citizenship,” as defined earlier, is the legal right to belong to a

particular country. Applied to the global context, it is the legal right to belong to the
world. If this is easy for a country, there is no legal right, tangible and formal given to an
individual as a global citizen. There are several requirements to be met before a
citizenship of a country is granted. Here in the United States, for instance, citizenship is
obtained by birth on American soil or outside America from American parents.
Foreigners can be naturalized Americans, meaning to become American citizens by legal
residency for more than five years, or by marrying an American, among other
requirements. In France, another developed country, and in Togo, a small African nation
and my native land, the requirements are more or less the same. For Saudi Arabia, a
kingdom keen to protecting its cultural values, it is almost impossible to be a naturalized
Saudi, even if one was born in the kingdom from foreign parents. From the above
revelations, one question comes into my mind. Under which requirements could
somebody become a global citizen? The fact that he or she is born in this world should be
sufficient.

One problem with the legal right to belong to a particular country is that one can be
stripped out of those rights once he or she no longer meets the requirements. The process
of denaturalization or the revocation is not common but exists as a law not only in the US
but also in France and other countries. In U.S., if a naturalized citizen refuses to testify
before the Congress, for example, he or she can be subject to the process of
denaturalization. In France, a law passed in 1927 authorized the government to
denaturalize new citizens who committed acts contrary to national interest. Consequently,
some 15,000 formerly naturalized citizens were denaturalized during World War II for
high treason to the French nation. And again another question comes into my mind.
Under what circumstances somebody’s global citizenship should be revoked? These
tangible, but not easily answerable questions are the reasons why I believe there should
not be any political needs associated with global citizenship. Besides, defining the
requirements or restrictions to the concept of global citizenship would be contrary to the
concept of "global" itself. "Global" should be inclusive, not exclusive.

Nevertheless, the other definition of "citizenship," as aforementioned, is the state of

being citizen and accepting the responsibilities of it. This implies that there are individual
responsibilities associated with being a global citizen. I cannot enumerate all the
responsibilities which come with being a global citizen. However, the whole morale of it
is to act responsibly towards the world, and all the people and things we share and will
share it with. According to Hakan Altinay in The Case for Global Civics, "doing unto
others what we would have them to do unto us remains the most resilient benchmark for
decent conduct in human history," and "the essence of global civics." Therefore, the
protection of the environment does not just guarantee the future generations a safer and
resourceful planet but that is what we would ask for if we were to be born in the future.
Helping the poor countries in their development programs is not only helping our global
economy but that is what we would ask for if we were from these countries. Joining a
human rights movement does not only help the oppressed but that is what we would do if
we were the ones being oppressed, and the list goes on.

Moreover, taking on global responsibilities is as important as a necessity in this age of

enhanced information systems. It is beyond "doing unto others what we would want them
to do unto us." It is a matter of fitting within this society of the Internet and enhanced
communication and information systems. There is no village which lives within its own
resources. Nowadays, there are more imports and exports of goods, more immigration
and emigration than never before in human history. Knowing more about the agents and
factors of this dynamism can only help understand the exchanges and the dynamics better,
and therefore to fit well into this highly dynamic society. A global citizen is aware
enough not to visit Egypt in February 2011 because of the violence unless he or she
chooses to join the protests peacefully. He or she is concerned about the protection of the
environment because he or she knows about the consequences associated with global
warming. A global citizen is concerned about the spread of AIDS in Africa, the lack of
education in the developing world and even in certain neighborhoods in the developed
world. He or she is concerned about the gender inequalities all over the world and so
forth.

With the responsibilities mentioned above, one might think there are so many
responsibilities associated with being a global citizen that it is almost impossible to be a
global citizen. But, education can help with that. In fact, education is the best tool to
global civics and a great asset to a global citizen. With education, a global citizen knows
that there are not only responsibilities associated with global citizenship, there are also
global rights. And if this can be motivating enough, according to the United Nation's
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3, "everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of person." The same document goes on to ban slavery, torture, etc, and
guarantees everyone's right to freedom among other universal rights. Maybe knowing
one's global and universal rights should motivate a person to take on his or her global
citizen's responsibilities which are none other than protecting those rights and that of
others. And, this can only be achieved through education. Instructing students on global
citizenship is not enough; students need to think critically on what it really means to be a
global citizen on their own. The concept is already too complex to grasp. Maybe, "here
are your universal rights, what would you do to protect them?" should be a good question
to start with the education on global civics.

Now that we have an understanding of global citizenship, its rights and

responsibilities, it is clear that we can both be a national and a world citizen. A national
citizenship is the one we are the closest to; it requires political needs, which once one
meets them, he or she is given a formal paper recognizing his or her citizenship. The
global citizenship is when one is actively concerned about a broader scale, events and
activities which go beyond the national border. I Think I am an example of a global
citizen. I am a Togolese citizen because I was born in Togo to Togolese parents. I have
been living in the United States for the past five years, and, although I am not a U.S.
citizen, I am getting my education from a U.S. school. I am as concerned about the
human rights situation in my native Togo, as I am about the declining of U.S. education.
For these reasons, I am actively involved in anything that deals with improving the
human rights in Togo as well as improving education in the United States. Note that
global citizenship is an active role. Just being a Togolese citizen and living in the U.S.
does not make me a global citizen. I can only consider myself a global citizen the
moment when I am actively involved in global issues.

Global citizenship can be defined as the state of being a citizen of the world and
accepting the responsibilities of it. It is a concept which is difficult to grasp since people
always associate citizenship with some patriotism-centered requirements. There should
not be any requirement to global citizenship besides being born in the world. The most
important concept about global citizenship is that there are responsibilities but also rights
associated with being a global citizen and education is the greatest asset to becoming a
global citizen. Finally, and from what precedes, global citizenship is just a broader
version of the national perspective; therefore, it is possible to be both a national and a
global citizen.

https://bcc-cuny.digication.com/loukmanlamany/Essay_1_Global_Citizenship_An_Attem
pt_of_Definitio

What Does it Mean to be a Global

Citizen?
By Ronald C. Israel

Published in Spring | Summer 2012

Comments 27

At The Global Citizens’ Initiative we say that a “global citizen is someone who identifies
with being part of an emerging world community and whose actions contribute to
building this community’s values and practices.”
To test the validity of this definition we examine its basic assumptions: (a) that there is
such a thing as an emerging world community with which people can identify; and (b)
that such a community has a nascent set of values and practices.

Historically, human beings have always formed communities based on shared identity.
Such identity gets forged in response to a variety of human needs— economic, political,
religious and social. As group identities grow stronger, those who hold them organize
into communities, articulate their shared values, and build governance structures to
support their beliefs.

Today, the forces of global engagement are helping some people identify as global
citizens who have a sense of belonging to a world community. This growing global
identity in large part is made possible by the forces of modern information,
communications and transportation technologies. In increasing ways these technologies
are strengthening our ability to connect to the rest of the world—through the Internet;
through participation in the global economy; through the ways in which world-wide
environmental factors play havoc with our lives; through the empathy we feel when we
see pictures of humanitarian disasters in other countries; or through the ease with which
we can travel and visit other parts of the world.

Those of us who see ourselves as global citizens are not abandoning other identities, such
as allegiances to our countries, ethnicities and political beliefs. These traditional
identities give meaning to our lives and will continue to help shape who we are. However,
as a result of living in a globalized world, we understand that we have an added layer
of responsibility; we also are responsible for being members of a world-wide
community of people who share the same global identity that we have.

We may not yet be fully awakened to this new layer of responsibility, but it is there
waiting to be grasped. The major challengethat we face in the new millennium is to
embrace our global way of being and build a sustainable values-based world community.

What might our community’s values be? They are the values that world leaders have been
advocating for the past 70 years and include human rights, environmental protection,
religious pluralism, gender equity, sustainable worldwide economic growth, poverty
alleviation, prevention of conflicts between countries, elimination of weapons of mass
destruction, humanitarian assistance and preservation of cultural diversity.

Since World War II, efforts have been undertaken to develop global policies and
institutional structures that can support these enduring values. These efforts have been
made by international organizations, sovereign states, transnational corporations,
international professional associations and others. They have resulted in a growing body
of international agreements, treaties, legal statutes and technical standards.
Yet despite these efforts we have a long way to go before there is a global policy and
institutional infrastructure that can support the emerging world community and the values
it stands for. There are significant gaps of policy in many domains, large questions about
how to get countries and organizations to comply with existing policy frameworks, issues
of accountability and transparency and, most important of all from a global citizenship
perspective, an absence of mechanisms that enable greater citizen participation in the
institutions of global governance.

The Global Citizens’ Initiative sees the need for a cadre of citizen leaders who can play
activist roles in efforts to build our emerging world community. Such global citizenship
activism can take many forms, including advocating, at the local and global level for
policy and programmatic solutions that address global problems; participating in the
decision-making processes of global governance organizations; adopting and promoting
changes in behavior that help protect the earth’s environment; contributing to world-wide
humanitarian relief efforts; and organizing events that celebrate the diversity in world
music and art, culture and spiritual traditions.

Most of us on the path to global citizenship are still somewhereat the beginning of our
journey. Our eyes have been opened and our consciousness raised. Instinctively, we feel a
connection with others around the world yet we lack the adequate tools, resources, and
support to act on our vision. Our ways of thinking and being are still colored by the
trapping of old allegiances and ways of seeing things that no longer are as valid as they
used to be. There is a longing to pull back the veil that keeps us from more clearly seeing
the world as a whole and finding more sustainable ways of connecting with those who
share our common humanity.

This article can be found in the Spring | Summer 2012 issue of Kosmos Journal, or can be
downloaded as a PDF here.

http://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-global-citizen/