World citizenship | Wikipedia audio article

World citizenship | Wikipedia audio article


Global citizenship is the idea that all people
have rights and civic responsibilities that come with being a member of the world, with
whole-world philosophy and sensibilities, rather than 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 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. Extended, the idea leads to questions about the state of global society
in the age of globalization. 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. Various organizations, such as the World Service Authority, have advocated global
citizenship.==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). 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 Global Studies Center at the University of Pittsburgh).====Global citizenship education====Within the educational system, the concept
of global citizenship education (GCED) is beginning to supersede or overarch movements
such as multicultural education, peace education, human rights education, Education for Sustainable
Development and international education. Additionally, GCED rapidly incorporates references to the
aforementioned movements. The concept of global citizenship has been linked with awards offered
for helping humanity. Teachers are being given the responsibility of being social change
agents. 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”.With GCED 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, GCED must encourage
active involvement. GCED can be taught from a critical and transformative perspective,
whereby students are thinking, feeling, and doing. In this approach, GCED 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. Worldmindedness. Graham Pike and David Selby
view GCED 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.
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.===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. A Sanskrit term, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,
has the meaning of “the world is one family”. 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.===Psychological studies===
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?”), 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”),
Gerhard Reese and colleagues’ Global Social Identity scale (e.g. “I feel strongly connected
to the world community as a whole.”), and Stephen Reysen and Katzarska-Miller’s global
citizenship identification scale (e.g., “I strongly identify with global citizens.”).
These measures are strongly related to one another, but they are not fully identical.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.Research has found that 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. They want their countries to do more to alleviate global suffering.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). 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. Subsequent research has examined variables
that influence the model such as: participation in a college course with global components,
perception of one’s global knowledge, college professors’ attitudes toward global citizenship,
belief in an intentional worlds view of culture, participation in a fan group that promotes
the identity, use of global citizen related words when describing one’s values, possible
self as a global citizen, religiosity and religious orientation, threat to one’s nation,
interdependent self-construal prime, perception of the university environment, and social
media usage.==Aspects=====Geography, sovereignty, and citizenship
===At the same time that globalization is reducing
the importance of nation-states, 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.===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.
Global citizenship advocates may confer specific rights and obligations of human beings trapped
in conflicts, those incarcerated as part of ethnic cleansing, and pre-industrialized tribes
newly discovered by scientists living in the depths of dense jungle====UN General Assembly====
On 10 December 1948, the UN General Assembly Adopted Resolution 217A (III), also known
as “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”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.” 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 opinions, 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.”Article 13(2) states that “Everyone has the right
to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” 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. Dicey emphasized
three aspects of the rule of law : No one can be punished or made to suffer except
for a breach of law proved in an ordinary court.
No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic,
or political status. 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; “Global citizenship in the United States”
was a term used by former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2008 in a speech in Berlin.==Social movements=====
World citizen===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), a Cynic philosopher in Ancient Greece. Of Diogenes it is said: “Asked where he came
from, he answered: ‘I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)'”. 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.” Today, the increase in worldwide globalization has led to the formation of
a “world citizen” social movement under a proposed world government. 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. Many people also consider themselves world
citizens, as they feel at home wherever they may go.
Albert Einstein described himself as a world citizen and supported the idea throughout
his life, famously saying “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of
mankind.” 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 sells World Passports, a fantasy passport
to world citizens. In 1956 Hugh J. Schonfield founded the Commonwealth of World Citizens,
later known by its Esperanto name “Mondcivitana Respubliko”, 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.” 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. “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.”===Mundialization===
Philosophically, mundialization (French, mondialisation) is seen as a response to globalization’s
“dehumanisation through [despatialised] planetarisation” (Teilhard de Chardin quoted in Capdepuy 2011).
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.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, supporters hope
it could develop new systems to draw on the highest and best wisdom of all humanity, and
solve major planetary problems like hunger, access to 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.==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.” 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. He also notes that such a world state would
inevitably be “remote, bureaucratic, oppressive, and culturally bland.” Parekh presents his
alternative 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.” 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.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?” 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. 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.” Byers states that global citizenship is a “powerful
term” because “people that invoke it do so to provoke and justify action,” 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.Neither criticism of global citizenship is 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.”==See also

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *