Reflective Journal International Development Education And Colonialism

Global Citizenship (Education)

Global Education refers to an educational concept which reacts to the atrocities of globalisation, to the increasing complexities of our life situations and the present development towards a global society. Global Citizenship Education represents a paradigm which demonstrates on how education can induce skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values to learners in the pursuit transform the world into a more just, tolerant, peaceful, secure, sustainable and inclusive. The form of education according to UNESCO is a paradigm shift that emphasizes the role of education in the understanding and resolving of global challenges which are inscribed in the social, political, cultural and environmental pillars. The purpose of this form of education is to develop learners in the cognitive, affective and psycho motive domains, thus leading to holistic development on the part of learners (E.G.C., 2013).

The form of education is relevant in the contemporary world in which globalisation is taking root at a rapid rate. Amidst globalisation, there is a mixing of cultures and different philosophies upon the face of interactions. This, therefore, calls for a need for mutual understandings and appreciation of such cultural and philosophical extractions. Global Citizenship Education stands as a unifying tool, which is motivating cooperation and social transformation (Banks, 2007). In immersing myself into the concepts underlying Global Education, I have proudly developed the understanding of its rationale in unifying and appreciating diversity which characterizes the people of the world. This is so paramount especially when the world is susceptible to conflicts, terrorism, environmental ruination, desertification, and species extinction.

The kind of education employs a multifaceted approach, utilising concepts and methodologies, and models that already exist in various educational fields such as peace education, human rights education, and education for sustainable development (Redclift, 2002). The pursuit is to inspire international understanding and champion for their advancing agendas in fostering a just, peaceful and sustainable world for both present and future posterity. Additionally, the form of education is structured to contribute to informing global citizen and promote global citizenship. The concepts discussed explore global topics to manage the shift towards localism and globalism.

Globalisation (Local/Global)

The concept of defining globalisation has received different description by various scholars. But for this reflective assignment; I choose to apply Cohen and Kennedy (2000) who held the view that globalisation refers to “the ways by which the world is being knitted together.” The impacts of globalisation in economic, social-cultural and environmental dimensions have been profounding. Although the concept of globalisation ascends from the medieval days, I have come into the realization that the conception of new millennium accelerated it making it become a crucial driving force in social, economic and political realms; while reorienting the existing societies educationally. In a modern context, the whole world has been illuminated with the spotlight of globalisation, and is significantly contributive to eroding the economic and social divisions that were implanted by traditions, religion, race, gender and other descriptive features of existence (Singer, 2004).

Social Justice for Global Citizenship (Fraser’s 3 Dimensions)

As the process of globalisation resonates the world, Fraser (2014) realizes that national citizens engaged in globalisation space are deficient of political citizenship; such that globalisation has been established beyond the reach of accountability. Fraser presents three aspects (Fundamentals dimensions of justice); if met will constitute parity of participation. Equality of participation postulates that for there be justice in the corridors of globalisation, individuals affected ought to participate as peers in social life. For individuals to participate as social peers; three dimensions must play in place. The first dimension (Dimension of Distribution) suggests that economic structures and guiding the distribution of resources ought to be open to everyone; such that people have independence (Fraser, 2010).

Secondly, the dimension of recognition postulates that every individual should be granted equal status in the social fabrics and has their cultural uniqueness accorded respect in social interaction. Otherwise, the result will be cultural dominance by a more powerful group. Thirdly, the dimension of representation suggests that all stakeholders must be given equal opportunity to contribute to the basketry of decision making on issues that affect them and cultivate the autonomy and independence of the people. The three dimensions of justice have been widely accepted and constitute structural injustices not only in the realm of globalisation but also institutions that obstruct participatory parity (Fraser, 2014).

Sustainable Development: Complexities and Contradictionsb>

This reflection recognizes sustainable development as the construction of two main concepts; development and sustainability. Sach (2010) maintains a clear view that the two concepts are entwined, such that “there is no development without sustainability or sustainability without development” (p. 28). The foundations of sustainable development are embedded in the relationship between human development and environmental sustainability. The topic has graduated from different historical perspectives which illuminated how anthropogenic activities by man impacted the planet negatively while causing fatal crises such as climate change, pollution, desertification, extinction of species and environmental degradation. These concerns inspired the conception of “Development without destruction.”

The concept of sustainable development has however been confronted with complexities and uncertainties. There is a challenge beneath the effort to balance social, economic and environmental demands with the benefits of development on the existing and future posterities. Inevitable social conditions of people such as high levels of poverty have motivated ecological degradation, with people having limited choice but to overexploit the environment for survival. This according to me is a crisis; which imbalances development with the environmental pillar. Such that there is a dilemma concerning which component ought to be rendered prevalence (Singer, 2004).

Eco-centrism (Earth Jurisprudence)

The essence of sustainable development is to integrate development into environmental, social, and economic concerns. Ecological awareness is essential in re-orienting people’s attitudes and behaviours in line with environmental needs. In an arena where the turbulent forces of nature as caused by climate change, invasive species, over-consumerism, and environmental degradation; this reflective task poses for a moment in the comfort of eco-centrism (Phongchiewboon, 2017). The earth ought to be treated as a living ability and thus be given equal justice through substantive constitutional rights. In the realism of eco-centrism, human beings have an ethical and moral responsibility to safeguard nature. It is through earth jurisprudence as opposed to anthropocentrism that the planet can be accorded justice, dignity, and decency it is in dire need of.

Commentary: Theoretical Perspective on Development Education

This commentary invokes the need for a lifelong education process, which is need-specific and immediacy of application to save the planet against the wants of crises she is currently ailing. In this view, I do concur that the structural foundations and principles under which Global Citizen Education, globalisation and sustainable development are standing are sound and relevant not only in the production of holistic learners; but also responsible citizens (Harwood, 1990).

A touch of what Global Citizenship Education promotes is relevant and related to what sustainable development discipline advocates for. UNESCO reiterates that Global Citizenship Education must emancipate people from the chains of aggression, ignorance and racial skews; and instead enable learners competently assume the roles of building peaceful, tolerant, secure an inclusive globalised society (Davies, Evans, and Reid, 2005). By its focus on cognitive, behavioural and socio-emotional domains, the learners are provided with relevant knowledge and skills that promote sustainable development, sustainable lifestyles, gender equality, human rights, and promotion of inter-cultural peace and mutually beneficial global citizenship which appreciates differences amongst humanity (Davies, and Pike, 2008).

In a sporadically globalizing world, Fraser takes cognizance on the effects carried along with it and the infusion of new turbulence into countries. Fraser maintains a critical view concerning the abilities of globalisation. Such that, as there is elemental sharing and borrowing through trade and social media, a more balanced sense of justice and mutual understandings can be enhanced when the players can include one another and participate in the exchange process. It is through such inclusivity and participation that stakeholders will feel appreciated and no side is elevated than the other (Amin, 2002).

Motivated by information technology politics, trade amongst other factors, I am an optimist who has achieved in collecting the advantageous grains of globalisation. It has reduced the world into a global village highly interconnected; with a rapid flow of information, goods, people and services. The concept has expounded the pathways for trade, with many companies getting established in new global villages. As a result, there has also been the influx and roaming of expertise and labour from developed countries to third world countries (Andrzejewski, and Alessio, 1999). The whole idea of globalisation must, however, conform to what Fraser presented in three the dimensions, as discussed in the reflective part.

The historical development of sustainable development has been vital; and has demonstrated it is an idea whose time has indeed come. The Brundtland Commission (Our Common Future) laid the foundation and provided the standard and conventional definition of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future to meet their own needs.” Amidst globalisation, sustainable development has been an issue of contention, with the globalised world seeking ways by which to enact the concept to save the globe from ecological crises.

Scholars and its founding principles present education for sustainable development as a tool for transformation, which can transform people’s affective, cognitive and behavioural domains in favour of the environment which we, as humans share life with. The concept of sustainable development is presented through both interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches; and has been integrated into many countries’ school curriculum. Additionally, sustainable development has been branded a critical tool influencing policy formulation and international law; despite there being complexities and contradictions on how it balances the three domains (ecology, economy, and society). The principles of sustainable development such as intra and extra-generational equity, polluter pay principle, international collaboration, and partnerships have rekindled the spark for integrating environmental concerns into development. The supply of ecologically friendly practices and frameworks governing environmental friendly practices are not in shortage. Agenda 21, for instance, is a document made up of effective global programmes and objectives of sustainable development. The framework guides how socio-economic development can marry with environmental conservation. Ecocentrism doctrines equally share in the provision of basic tenets that inspire foundations for sustainable development (Rühs, and Jones, 2016).

References

• Amin, A., 2002. Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and planning A: Economy and Space, 34(3), pp.385-399.
• Andrzejewski, J. and Alessio, J., 1999. Education for global citizenship and social responsibility. Progressive Perspectives, 1(2), pp.2-17.
• Banks, J.A., 2007. Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives. Jossey-Bass, an Imprint of Wiley. 10475 Crosspoint Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46256.
• Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P., 2012. Global sociology. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Davies, I., Evans, M. and Reid, A., 2005. Globalising citizenship education? A critique of ‘global education’ and ‘citizenship education’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), pp.66-89.
• Davies, L. and Pike, G., 2008. Global citizenship education. Handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, pp.61-78.
• Education, G.C., 2013. An Emerging Perspective [Outcome document of the Technical Consultation on Global Citizenship Education] (Vol. 224115). ED/2013/PSD/PHR/PI/4.
• Fraser, N., 2010. Who counts? Dilemmas of justice in a postwestphalian world. Antipode, 41, pp.281-297.
• Fraser, N., 2014. Transnationalizing the public sphere. John Wiley & Sons.
• Harwood, R.R., 1990. A history of sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agricultural systems, pp.3-19.
• Phongchiewboon, A., 2017. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World. PSAKU International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 6(2), pp.167-168.
• Redclift, M., 2002. Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. Routledge.
• Rühs, N. and Jones, A., 2016. The implementation of earth jurisprudence through substantive constitutional rights of nature. Sustainability, 8(2), p.174.
• Singer, P., 2004. One World: Ethics of Globalisation (2Nd Edn.). Orient Blackswan.
• UNESCO, G.C.E., 2014. Preparing Learners for the Challenges of the 21st Century. France: Paris.