Soft versus critical global citizenship

education
Understanding global issues often requires learners to examine
a complex web of cultural and material processes and contexts
on local and global levels. Vanessa Andreotti explores how
critical global citizenship can be an effective way to support
learners in that process.

Introduction

At the end of a ‘Make Poverty History’ (MPH) training session for activists,
as an inspiration for a group of about 30 young people to write their action
plans, a facilitator conducted the following visualisation (reproduced from
my notes):

“Imagine a huge ball-room. It is full of people wearing black-tie. They

are all celebrities. You also see a red carpet leading to a stage on the
other side. On the stage there is Nelson Mandela. He is holding a prize.
It is the activist of the year prize. He calls your name. You walk down
that corridor. Everyone is looking at you. What are you wearing? How
are you feeling? Think about how you got there: the number of people
that have signed your petitions, the number of white bands on the wrists
of your friends, the number of people you have taken to Edinburgh. You
shake Mandela’s hands. How does that feel? He gives you the
microphone. Everyone is quiet waiting for you to speak. They respect
you. They know what you have done. Think about the difference you
have made to this campaign! Think about all the people you have helped
in Africa…”.

Listening to this as a Southern person was disturbing, but what was even
more worrying was to observe that, when the young people opened their
eyes and I asked around if they thought the visualisation was problematic,
the answer was overwhelmingly ‘no’. They confirmed that their primary
motivation for ‘training as an activist’ was related to self-improvement, the
development of leadership skills or simply having fun, enhanced, of course,
by the moral supremacy and vanguardist feeling of being responsible for
changing or saving the world ‘out there’. This actually echoed one of the

Page 40 Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review

sayings in a poster of the organisation that was running the course “do what
you love doing, but save the world while you do it”.
Part of the reason why I felt so uncomfortable was that the group
seemed to be unaware that the thought patterns and effects of ‘what they love
doing’ could be directly related to the causes of the problems they were
trying to tackle in the first place. This points to a central issue in global
citizenship education: whether and how to address the economic and cultural
roots of the inequalities in power and wealth/labour distribution in a global
complex and uncertain system.
In order to understand global issues, a complex web of cultural and
material local/global processes and contexts needs to be examined and
unpacked. My argument is that if we fail to do that in global citizenship
education, we may end up promoting a new ‘civilising mission’ as the slogan
for a generation who take up the ‘burden’ of saving/educating/civilising the
world. This generation, encouraged and motivated to ‘make a difference’,
will then project their beliefs and myths as universal and reproduce power
relations and violence similar to those in colonial times. How can we design
educational processes that move learners away from this tendency?
This article aims to introduce the argument for critical global
citizenship education. It is divided into three parts. In the first part I present
Andrew Dobson’s arguments in relation to the grounds for global citizenship
and his critique of the notions of the ‘global citizen’ and ‘interdependence’.
In the second part, I present Gayatri Spivak’s analysis of some cultural
effects of colonialism in the relationship/assumptions of North and South. In
the last part I compare and contrast soft and critical citizenship education in
general terms based on Dobson’s and Spivak’s analyses and briefly explore
the notion of critical literacy as a significant dimension of critical global
citizenship education. I argue that, for educators, a careful analysis of the
context of work is paramount for informed decisions in terms of what focus
to choose, but that it is imperative to know the risks and implications of the
options available in order to make responsible pedagogical choices.

Common humanity or justice: The material dimension of

citizenship education

Andrew Dobson is a British political author and Professor at the Open

University, specialising in environmental politics. His most famous work is
entitled Green Political Thought. He addresses the grounds for global
citizenship and the notions of a ‘global citizen’ and ‘interdependence’. He
starts his analysis with what he perceives as a common question in the
‘Northern’ context:

Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review Page 41

 “How can severe poverty of half of humankind continue despite
enormous economic and technological progress and despite the
enlightened moral norms and values of our heavily dominant Western
civilisation?” (Pogge, 2002, p.3 cited in Dobson, 2006, p.170).

He states that, for many in the political sciences today, it is precisely the
assumptions of progress and values/morality of the West that are at the root
of the problem. He poses another question: “what should (then) be the basis
for our concern for those whom we have never met and are never likely to
meet?”. He proposes that the answer should be framed around political
obligation for doing justice and the source of this obligation should be a
recognition of complicity or “causal responsibility” in transnational harm
(Dobson, 2006).
Dobson argues that the globalisation of trade creates ties based on
“chains of cause and effect that prompt obligations of justice, rather than
sympathy, pity or beneficence” (p.178). He offers the ecological footprints
as an illustration of how this operates “as a network of effects that prompts
reflection on the nature of the impacts they comprise” (p.177). He also
mentions unjust practices imposed by the North as a global institutional
order that reproduce poverty and impoverish people (p.177).
Two of the central pleas of the MPH campaign point in the same
direction. The calls for trade justice and debt relief suggested that the North
had something to do with the poverty created elsewhere. However, this
acknowledgement of complicity did not translate into the campaigning
strategies. The use of images, figures and slogans emphasised the need to be
charitable, compassionate and ‘active’ locally (in order to change
institutions), based on a moral obligation to a common humanity, rather than
on a political responsibility for the causes of poverty.
Dobson argues that acts grounded on this moral basis are easily
withdrawn and end up reproducing unequal (paternalistic) power relations
and increasing the vulnerability of the recipient (Dobson, 2006). For him,
justice is a better ground for thinking as it is political and prompts fairer and
more equal relations. He makes a distinction between being human and
being a citizen: being human raises issues of morality; being a citizen raises
political issues (Dobson, 2005).
Unlike what was suggested in the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign,
Dobson emphasises individual - rather than institutional - responsibility. He
quotes Pogge (2002) to stress this point:

Page 42 Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review

 “We are familiar, through charity appeals, with the assertion that it lies
in our hands to save the lives of many or, by doing nothing, to let these
people die. We are less familiar with the assertion examined here of a
weightier responsibility: that most of us not merely let people starve but
also participate in starving them” (p. 214 cited in Dobson, 2006, p.
182).

Dobson also challenges the concepts of a ‘global citizen’, interdependence

and world-wide interconnectedness that often accompany unexamined
notions of a common humanity in global citizenship education. He asserts
that they do not take sufficient account of unequal power relations between
the North and the South, as Vandana Shiva states:

“The ‘global’ in the dominant discourse is the political space in which

a particular dominant local seeks global control, and frees itself of
local, national and international restrains. The global does not
represent the universal human interest; it represents a particular local
and parochial interest which has been globalised through the scope of
its reach. The seven most powerful countries, the G7, dictate global
affairs, but the interests that guide them remain narrow, local and
parochial” (Shiva, 1998, p. 231 cited in Dobson, 2005, p. 261).

Shiva and Dobson argue that only certain countries have globalising powers
- others are globalised. In this sense, the North has a global reach while the
South only exists locally:

“Globalisation is, on this reading, an asymmetrical process in which

not only its fruits are divided up unequally, but also in which the very
possibility of ‘being global’ is unbalanced” (Dobson, 2005, p. 262).

Having the choice to traverse from the local to the global space is the
determining factor for whether or not you can be a global citizen. If you are
not ‘global’, “the walls built of immigration controls, of residence laws and
of ‘clean streets’ and ‘zero tolerance’ grow taller” (Bauman, 1998, p.2 cited
in Dobson, 2005, p. 263) to try to contain the diffusion of ideas, goods,
information and peoples in order to protect specific local spaces from
unwanted ‘contamination’. Thus, we end up with a one way transfusion (in
its legal form at least) rather than a diffusion. As the capacity to act globally
is limited, Dobson concludes that those who can and do act globally are in
effect often projecting their local (assumptions and desires) as everyone
else’s global (Dobson, 2005, p.264). This is well illustrated in one of MPH’s

Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review Page 43

campaign slogans: “Make History” (Whose history? Who is making this
history? In whose name? For whose benefit?).
Dobson’s analyses raises important questions for global citizenship
education: who is this global citizen? What should be the basis of this
project? Whose interests are represented here? Is this an elitist project? Are
we empowering the dominant group to remain in power? Are we doing
enough to examine the local/global dimensions of our assumptions?
However, Dobson’s account also seems to oversimplify North-South
relations by presenting the South as only a site for Western forceful
dominance or some ‘grassroots’ resistance. In analysing the cultural aspects
of the historical construction of this relationship, other critics present a more
complex picture, taking into account the ‘complicity’ of the South itself in
maintaining Northern dominance.

Sanctioned ignorance: The cultural dimension

A cultural analysis raises complementary questions for global citizenship

education. The emphasis here is on the implications of the projection of
Northern/Western values and interests as global and universal which
naturalises the myth of Western supremacy in the rest of the world. Gayatri
Spivak, a professor at Columbia University in the United States who has had
a great impact on the theoretical development in the areas of cultural studies,
critical theory and colonial discourse analysis, calls this process “worlding
of the West as world” (Spivak, 1990).
Spivak argues that this naturalisation occurs by a disavowal of the
history of imperialism and the unequal balance of power between the ‘First’
and ‘Third’ Worlds in the global capitalist system. The outcome of this
naturalisation is a discourse of modernisation in which colonialism is either
ignored or placed securely in the past, so that we think it is over and does not
affect - and has not affected - the construction of the present situation.
The result is a sanctioned ignorance (constitutive disavowal) of the role
of colonialism in the creation of the wealth of what is called the ‘First World’
today, as well as the role of the international division of labour and
exploitation of the ‘Third World’ in the maintenance of this wealth. Within
this naturalised logic, the beginning of the Third World is post-WWII “with
‘First’ World growth patterns serving as history’s guide and goal” (Kapoor,
2004, p. 669).
This ideology produces the discourse of ‘development’ and policies of
structural adjustment and free trade which prompt Third World countries to
buy (culturally, ideologically, socially and structurally) from the ‘First’ a
“self-contained version of the West”, ignoring both its complicity with and

Page 44 Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review

production by the ‘imperialist project’ (Spivak, 1988). Also within this
framework, poverty is constructed as a lack of resources, services and
markets, and of education (as the right subjectivity to participate in the
global market), rather than a lack of control over the production of resources
(Biccum, 2005, p.1017) or enforced disempowerment. This sanctioned
ignorance, which disguises the worlding of the world, places the
responsibility for poverty upon the poor themselves and justifies the project
of development of the Other as a ‘civilising mission’.
For Spivak the epistemic violence of colonialism (where colonialism
affects the coloniser’s capacity to know their situation of real exploitation)
makes this sanctioned ignorance work both ways with complementary
results: the First World believes in its supremacy and the Third World forgets
about the worlding and ‘wants’ to be civilised/catch up with the West. In line
with Said, Bhabha and Fanon, Spivak affirms that the colonial power
changes the subaltern’s perception of self and reality and legitimises its
cultural supremacy in the (epistemic) violence of creating an ‘inferior’ other
and naturalising these constructs. Spivak illustrates that in the ‘First World’
it reinforces Eurocentrism and triumphalism as people are encouraged to
think that they live in the centre of the world, that they have a responsibility
to ‘help the rest’ and that “people from other parts of the world are not fully
global” (Spivak, 2003, p.622).
This is echoed in policies related to the ‘global dimension’ in England
in the notion that different cultures only have ‘traditions, beliefs and values’
while the West has (universal) knowledge (and even constructs knowledge
about these cultures). The idea of a ‘common history’, which only
acknowledges the contribution of other cultures to science and mathematics
also reinforces this perception, which projects the values, beliefs and
traditions of the West as global and universal, while foreclosing the
historical processes that led to this universalisation.
This has significant implications for the notion of ‘global citizenship’.
However, in terms of the reproduction of this ideology, for Spivak the class
culture is more important than geographic positioning: she refers to an elite
global professional class (consisting of people in or coming from the First
and the Third Worlds) marked by access to the internet and a culture of
managerialism and of international non-governmental organisations
involved in development and human rights. She maintains that this global
elite is prone to project and reproduce these ethnocentric and
developmentalist mythologies onto the Third World ‘subalterns’ they are
ready to help to ‘develop’. She also states that in order to change this
tendency educational interventions should emphasise “unlearning” and
“learning to learn from below” (Spivak, 2004).

Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review Page 45

 The analyses of Dobson and Spivak are not isolated examples in their
disciplines. Several academics and practitioners have questioned the
ideologies behind development and global citizenship education in recent
years and a few pedagogical initiatives have been developed based on these
analyses. However, in general terms, the articulations between new thinking
and new practices have been weak.

Soft versus critical citizenship education and the notion of critical

literacy

From the analyses of Dobson and Spivak it is possible to contrast soft and
critical frameworks in terms of basic assumptions and implications for
citizenship education. Table 1 illustrates this comparison in very general
terms, in order to prompt discussion.

Table 1: Soft versus critical citizenship education

Soft Critical
Global Citizenship Global Citizenship
Education Education

Problem Poverty, helplessness Inequality, injustice

Nature of the Lack of ‘development’, Complex structures,

problem education, resources, systems, assumptions,
skills, culture, technology, power relations and
etc. attitudes that create and
maintain exploitation and
enforced disempowerment
and tend to eliminate
difference.

Justification for ‘Development’, ‘history’, Benefit from and control

positions of education, harder work, over unjust and violent
privilege (in the better organisation, better systems and structures.
North and in the use of resources,
South) technology.

Page 46 Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review

Basis for caring Common humanity/being Justice/complicity in harm.
good/sharing and caring. Responsibility TOWARDS
Responsibility FOR the the other (or to learn with
other (or to teach the the other) - accountability.
other).

Grounds for Humanitarian/moral Political/ethical (based on

acting (based on normative normative principles for
principles for thought and relationships).
action).

Understanding of We are all equally Asymmetrical

interdependence interconnected, we all globalisation, unequal
want the same thing, we power relations, Northern
can all do the same thing. and Southern elites
imposing own assumptions
as universal.

What needs to Structures, institutions and Structures, (belief)

change individuals that are a systems, institutions,
barrier to development. assumptions, cultures,
individuals, relationships.

What for So that everyone achieves So that injustices are

development, harmony, addressed, more equal
tolerance and equality. grounds for dialogue are
created, and people can
have more autonomy to
define their own
development.

Role of Some individuals are part We are all part of the

‘ordinary’ of the problem, but problem and part of the
individuals ordinary people are part of solution.
the solution as they can
create pressure to change
structures.

What individuals Support campaigns to Analyse own

can do change structures, donate position/context and
time, expertise and participate in changing
resources. structures, assumptions,
identities, attitudes and
power relations in their
contexts.

Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review Page 47

 How does change From the outside to the From the inside to the
happen inside (imposed change). outside.

Basic principle Universalism (non- Reflexivity, dialogue,

for change negotiable vision of how contingency and an ethical
everyone should live what relation to difference
everyone should want or (radical alterity).
should be).

Goal of global Empower individuals to Empower individuals to

citizenship act (or become active reflect critically on the
education citizens) according to what legacies and processes of
has been defined for them their cultures, to imagine
as a good life or ideal different futures and to
world. take responsibility for
decisions and actions.

Strategies for Raising awareness of Promoting engagement

global citizenship global issues and with global issues and
education promoting campaigns. perspectives and an ethical
relationship to difference,
addressing complexity and
power relations.

Potential benefits Greater awareness of some Independent/critical

of global of the problems, support thinking and more
citizenship for campaigns, greater informed, responsible and
education motivation to help/do ethical action.
something, feel good
factor.

Potential Feeling of self-importance Guilt, internal conflict and

problems and self-righteousness paralysis, critical
and/or cultural supremacy, disengagement, feeling of
reinforcement of colonial helplessness.
assumptions and relations,
reinforcement of privilege,
partial alienation,
uncritical action.

Page 48 Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review

The notions of power, voice and difference are central for critical citizenship
education. Thus, for the creation of an ethical relationship with learners (and
with the South), the development of critical literacy becomes necessary. I
conceptualise critical literacy as a level of reading the word and the world
that involves the development of skills of critical engagement and
reflexivity: the analysis and critique of the relationships among perspectives,
language, power, social groups and social practices by the learners.
Criticality, in this context, does not refer to the dominant notion that
something is right or wrong, biased or unbiased, true or false. It is an attempt
to understand origins of assumptions and implications. In this sense, critical
literacy is not about ‘unveiling’ the ‘truth’ for the learners, but about
providing the space for them to reflect on their context and their own and
others’ epistemological and ontological assumptions: how we came to
think/be/feel/act the way we do and the implications of our systems of belief
in local/global terms in relation to power, social relationships and the
distribution of labour and resources.
Critical literacy is based on the strategic assumption that all knowledge
is partial and incomplete, constructed in our contexts, cultures and
experiences. Therefore, we lack the knowledge constructed in other
contexts, cultures and experiences. So we need to engage with our own and
other perspectives to learn and transform our views, identities and
relationships - to think otherwise. Action is always a choice of the individual
after a careful analysis of the context of intervention, of different views, of
power relations (especially the position of who is intervening) and of short
and long term (positive and negative) implications of goals and strategies.
In contrast with soft global citizenship education, this approach tries to
promote change without telling learners what they should think or do, by
creating spaces where they are safe to analyse and experiment with other
forms of seeing/thinking and being/relating to one another. The focus is on
the historical/cultural production of knowledge and power in order to
empower learners to make better informed choices - but the choices of action
and meaning (what ‘we’ are or ‘should be’) are never imposed, as the ‘right
to signify’ is recognised and respected (as an ethical relationship
‘commands’).
However, as there is no universal recipe or approach that will serve all
contexts, it is important to recognise that ‘soft’ global citizenship education
is appropriate to certain contexts - and can already represent a major step.
But it cannot stop there or the situation illustrated at the beginning of this
paper will become the norm. If educators are not ‘critically literate’ to
engage with assumptions and implications/limitations of their approaches,
they run the risk of (indirectly and unintentionally) reproducing the systems

Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review Page 49

of belief and practices that harm those they want to support. The question of
how far educators working with global citizenship education are prepared to
do that in the present context in the North is open to debate.

References and Bibliography

Bauman, Z (1998) Globalization: the Human Consequences,

Columbia University Press, New York.

Bhabha, H (1994) The Location of Culture, Routledge, London.

Biccum, A (2005) ‘Development and the ‘new’ imperialism:

a reinvention of colonial discourse in DFID promotional
literature’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp.1005-1020.

Dobson, A (2005) ‘Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and the

Environment’, International Relations, Vol.19, pp.259-273.

Dobson, A (2006) ‘Thick Cosmopolitanism’, Political Studies,

Vol.54, pp.165-184.

Kapoor, I (2004) ‘Hyper-self-reflexive development? Spivak on

representing the Third World “Other”’, Third World
Quarterly, Vol.4, pp.627-647.

Pogge, T (2002) World Poverty and Human Rights, Polity Press,

Cambridge.

Shiva, V (1998) ‘The Greening of Global Reach’ in G Thuatail, S

Dalby & P Routledge (eds.), The Geopolitics Reader, Routledge,
pp.230-143.

Spivak, G (1988) ‘“Can the Subaltern Speak?”’, in C Nelson & L

Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation
of Culture, pp. 271-313, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

Spivak, G (1990) The Post-colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies,

Dialogues, Routledge, New York & London.

Spivak, G (2003) ‘A conversation with Gayatri Chakravorty

Spivak: politics and the imagination’, interview by
J Sharpe, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,
Vol.28, pp.609-624.

Page 50 Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review

Spivak, G (2004) ‘Righting wrongs’, The South Atlantic Quarterly,Vol.103, 523-581.

Vanessa Andreotti is a Brazilian educator who has worked as

a practitioner/researcher in the fields of global
citizenship/development education for the last seven years. She
is a research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Social and
Global Justice at the University of Nottingham where she
coordinates the Open Spaces for Dialogue and Enquiry
initiative (www.osdemethodology.org.uk) and the project
‘Through Other Eyes’ about indigenous understandings of the
development agenda. She is also finishing a PhD on the
representations of ‘North and South’ in global citizenship
education in England.

The author would like to thank the following friends and colleagues
who provided extremely valuable feedback, ideas and insights to
earlier versions of this article: Linda Barker, Katy Newell-Jones,
Doug Bourn, Ange Grunsell, April Biccum and Lynn Mario de
Souza.

Policy & Practice - A Development Education Review Page 51