Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism: Comparative Perspectives 9781474235976, 9781474235969, 9781474236003, 9781474235983

Citation preview

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Also available from Bloomsbury Globalization and International Education, Robin Shields Multiculturalism and Education, Richard Race Teaching Citizenship Education, Ralph Leighton Rethinking Citizenship Education, Tristan McCowan Forthcoming Citizenship Education in Conflict-Affected Areas, Bassel Akar Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia, edited by Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball Global Citizenship Education, Ian Davies, Edda Sant and Lynette Shultz

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism Comparative Perspectives Massimiliano Tarozzi and Carlos Alberto Torres

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 Paperback edition first published 2018 © Massimiliano Tarozzi and Carlos Alberto Torres, 2016 Massimiliano Tarozzi and Carlos Alberto Torres have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-­in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN:

HB: 978-1-4742-3597-6 PB: 978-1-4742-3596-9 ePDF: 978-1-4742-3598-3 ePub: 978-1-4742-3599-0

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-Publication Data Names: Tarozzi, Massimiliano, author. | Torres, Carlos Alberto, author. Title: Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism : comparative perspectives / Massimiliano Tarozzi and Carlos Alberto Torres. Description: London ; New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. Identifiers: LCCN 2016005918| ISBN 9781474235976 (hardback) | ISBN 9781474235990 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Education and globalization. | International education. | World citizenship--Study and teaching. | BISAC: EDUCATION / General. Classification: LCC LC191 .T347 2016 | DDC 370.1/16--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016005918 Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

From Massimiliano Tarozzi To my two sons Riccardo and Federico Tarozzi, always eager in their quest for knowledge and experiences, bright young men who are curious and respectful in meeting people and enjoying the beauty of diversity. To me, they are shining examples of global citizens.

From Carlos Alberto Torres I dedicate this book to my son Pablo Sebastian Torres who has been an elementary school teacher for more than 20 years in Los Angeles Unified School District. Pablo exemplifies the ethics and commitment that every educator should have in this noble but also difficult profession and art of teaching and learning. To my wife Ana Elvira Steinbach Torres whose love nurtures and soothes my spirit and her intelligence excites my imagination. To my colleagues at the Graduate School of Education and Information StudiesUCLA, especially Wasserman Dean Marcelo Suárez-Orozco for his leadership expanding the frontiers of social justice education, his inspiring scholarship on immigration, education and multiple globalizations, and his friendship. To the Office of External Relations at GSEIS-UCLA particularly its Director Laura Lindberg and her splendid team including Amy Lassere, Sandra Aldama, Joanie Harmon, Leigh Leveen, Scott Marden, John McDonald and Sanam Khamneipur Smith deserve my gratitude. Their invaluable contributions to our academic work should be recognized and celebrated.

Acknowledgement from us both We would like to thank Peter Lownds, Cristine Malsbary and Jason Dorio for their competent and passionate support in revising and editing various drafts of this book. We are also grateful to Marcello Maneri, Greg Misiaszek and Marcella Milana for their invaluable insights and feedback on some parts of the book.

Contents Preface

1

The Priority of Global Citizenship Education

viii 1

Part One  Difference and Citizenship

2

Theoretical Conceptualization: The Challenge of Diversity

25

3

Multiculturalism: The US Perspective

39

4

Interculturalism: The European Union Perspective

49

5

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

91

Part Two  Justice in Democracies

6

Theoretical Conceptualization: The Challenge of Equality

119

7

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

145

8

Conclusion

161

Bibliography Index

177 205

Preface The genesis of this book dates from 2006–2007 at the University of California, Los Angeles, USA, when Professor Tarozzi first came as Visiting Scholar within the Education Abroad Program and then as Fulbright Fellow, and also at the University of Trento, in Rovereto, Italy, when Professor Torres taught many times as Visiting Professor. At that time, we began discussing our goal of comparing interculturalism and multiculturalism as two pedagogical approaches that contribute to debates in the new developments of Global Citizenship Education (GCE). Like many things in life, this book grew out of friendship and our intellectual dialogue over a decade on the opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean. We have both been concerned in our lifework with the connections between democracy, education and power in a diverse society. As professional educators, we have been particularly concerned in our areas of professional interest, with the political sociology of education and how we can use pedagogy and praxis to enhance people’s power. Two signposts marked this conversation. On the one hand, our interest in mapping the queries and contradictions – and also the possibilities – of further dialogue between the modes, methods, theories and practice of intercultural education, as a dominant epistemological paradigm in the European continent, with multicultural education being the dominant epistemological paradigm in the USA, but also with other connotations with a similar terminology in the rest of Latin America. On the other hand, we became interested and also active participants in the emerging discourse on globalization and its impact on education (Torres, 1998; Tarozzi, 1999, 2003) and, in particular, on GCE in the scenarios of the United Nations and particularly UNESCO. Bear in mind that the narrative about GCE is not entirely new. It has been the subject of substantial academic discussion over the past three decades. However, what is new and important today is that this narrative has reached the policy scenarios in ways that some of the most important authors with expertise on the topic may never have expected. Hence this book was conceived as a dialogue across specialities, languages, theories, epistemologies and practices linking the conversation between

Preface

ix

multiculturalism and interculturalism with the conversation about GCE. Logically, the background for both sets of conversations, which are interrelated and mutually reinforcing as we demonstrate in this book, is the question of globalization, which we present here in terms of multiple globalizations.

Globalizations and Global Citizenship Education1 The question of globalization enters into the picture with full force. There are many different definitions of globalization, and some of them have been aptly discussed in standard texts on the questions (Burbules and Torres, 2000; Torres, 1998; Giddens, 1990; Bauman, 1998; Sen, 2002; Latouche, 1989; Sassen, 1998; Ritzer, 1993; Beck, 2000; Stiglitz, 2002). Globalization is the buzzword of the day and provides the backdrop for this section. There are many definitions of globalization, as there are many faces of globalization (Torres, 2009a). For example, globalization has been defined as ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa’ (Held, 1991: 9). Another view sees globalization as ‘a feature of late capitalism, or the condition of postmodernity, and, more important . . . the emergence of a world system driven in large part by a global capitalist economy’ (Luke and Luke, 2000: 287). Others see globalization as the transformation of time and space in which complex interactions and exchanges once impossible become everyday activities (Urry, 1998). And still others see globalization as an assault on traditional notions of society and nation-­state, whereby the very nature of citizenship and social change are dramatically altered (Castells, 1996, 1997; Rhoads and Torres, 2006: 4). Globalization takes different forms and we really should talk about globalization processes in the plural (Torres, 2009a, 2009b). Here we would like to call attention to the predominant forms of globalization. One form, often seen as ‘globalization from above’, is framed by an ideology of neoliberalism and calls for an opening of borders, the creation of multiple regional markets, the proliferation of fast-­paced economic and financial exchanges, and the presence of governing systems other than nation-­states. Another form represents the antithesis of the first. This form of globalization is often described as ‘globalization from below’, or anti-­globalization. Globalization from below is largely manifested in individuals, institutions and social movements actively opposed to that which is perceived as corporate globalization.

x

Preface

For these individuals and groups, ‘no globalization without representation’ is the motto. The third form of globalization, pertains more to rights than to markets – the globalization of human rights. With the growing ideology of human rights taking hold in the international system and in international law, many traditional practices endemic to the fabric of particular societies or cultures (from religious to esoteric practices) are now being called into question, challenged, forbidden, or even outlawed. The advancement of cosmopolitan democracies and plural citizenship is the theme of this version of globalization. The fourth manifestation of globalization extends beyond markets, and to some extent is against human rights. It is globalization of the international war against terrorism. This new form of globalization has been prompted in large part by the events of September 11 and other subsequent attacks in Europe – which were interpreted as the globalization of the terrorist threat – and the reaction of the Western world to these events. This form of globalization is represented by the anti-­terrorist response which has been militaristic in nature, resulting in two coalition wars led by the USA against Muslim regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, under the auspices of the Global War on Terror (GWAT). Islamophobia is also a theme of this globalization. Terrorism and the terrorist threat were made synonymous with Islam and Muslims, and became a global norm. Yet, the overall theme of this process was not only its military flavour, but also the emphasis on security and control of borders, people, capital and commodities – that is, the reverse of open markets and high-­paced commodity exchanges. Security as a precondition of freedom is the theme of this form of globalization. The fifth form of globalization is the growing hybridity that crisscrosses the world. The world is changing, cultures are intersecting, and borders are more permeable than ever. We are facing hybrid cultures as the quintessential nature of globalizations. Hybridity is everywhere – in music and youth cultures, taste, dress and speech codes, culinary delights and aesthetic expressions. Starbucks is a global US corporation set up in Vienna so we can enjoy a cup of American coffee in one of the world’s coffee cathedrals. Hybridity is also changing identities. Migration and interracial marriage make nationality less tied to particular race or ethnicity (Rhoads and Szelényi, 2011). There is a sixth form of globalization: The Global Media. Global networks such as CNN, BBC International News or Al-Jazeera launch the same media representation of an event in all four corners of the planet, squeezing the same news into the same format everywhere, but also stimulating similar feelings,

Preface

xi

fears and hopes. On the other hand the same satellites, the same technological platforms and global net also reinforce other independent or alternative media that conquer independent information or counter-­information spaces surfing across the Internet. It is worthwhile to emphasize the implications of these forms of globalizations for education. Without any doubt, the dominant form of neoliberal globalization has affected ‘competition-­based reforms’ transforming educational policy in K-12 and higher education. These reforms are characterized by efforts to create measurable performance standards through extensive standardized testing (the new standards and accountability movement), introduction of new teaching and learning methods leading to the expectation of better performance at low cost (e.g., universalization of textbooks), and improvements in the selection and training of teachers. Competition-­based reforms in higher education tend to adopt a vocational orientation and to reflect the point of view that colleges and universities exist largely to serve the economic well-­being of a society. Privatization is the final major reform effort linked to neoliberal globalization, and perhaps the most dominant (Torres, 2013). Along the intellectual conversation that lasted a decade about the dilemmas of inter- and multiculturalism and their unsolved questions, we outlined an agenda for GCE. Our claim is that a democratic global perspective should be based on human rights and universal values, but it should also incorporate diversity and a critical analysis of power relations and global inequalities. Critical thinking at GCE about the unsolved dilemmas of inter- and multiculturalism means, first of all, providing a critical lens through which to look at the education policies and practices in the public sphere as well as at the purposes and processes of GCE, not being reduced to a mere paternalistic unexamined rhetoric.

Enabling requirements for Global Citizenship Education We have built the logic of analysis through multiple claims made in this book about the intersections but also contradictions between multiculturalism/ interculturalism and GCE. To clarify our intent to the reader, it is important to summarize our claims in this introduction while they are developed further and substantiated in the book. First claim: We need to remove ambiguities in the use of the GCE concept, which involves fundamental theoretical work in both sets of premises: citizenship

xii

Preface

building at the local and global level, and multiculturalism/interculturalism as basic fundamental pedagogical tools. This theoretical work is not only about concepts or theories but about policies and practical implications for educational reform. Second claim: GCE can be understood only within a social justice education framework. Without bare essentials, we cannot fully accomplish citizenship building and particularly GCE; and by implication the impact of multi­ culturalism and interculturalism in the life of communities, individuals, families and nations will be very limited, merely rhetorical or academic in the worst sense of the word, but not practical, political and transformative. Bare essentials include economic citizenship. This means that citizenship building cannot be accomplished without bare essentials, including the right to a job, education, health care, affordable housing and retraining over the course of life. Third claim: GCE has to deal with difference and diversity and never impose a ‘neutral’ and ‘universal’ idea of citizenship. Cultural diversity, indigenous knowledge and critical post-­colonial perspectives are embedded in our idea of GCE. There are fundamental principles that articulate the conversation between GCE and multiculturalism/interculturalism. They include respect for human rights, social justice education, planetary citizenship for sustainability, migration and diversity and enhancing the proliferation of public spheres and school reform promoting GCE. Fourth claim: There are multiple agents participating in this process of furthering GCE, multiculturalism and interculturalism; as agents they are also arenas for confrontation and negotiation and they include the international system, NGOs, social movements, national governments, local or regional authorities, school systems and non-­formal education systems – including mass media. Fifth claim: It is imperative to develop teaching methods, teachers’ education and curricula that facilitate GCE, including new models of teaching social justice education and peace education, linking these concepts with the growing theoretical and political as well as curriculum developments in the realms of multiculturalism and interculturalism. Sixth claim: As professional educators it is imperative that we use international forums to advance the institutional recognition of the topics of GCE, multiculturalism and interculturalism in the school systems. Particularly important is teacher education, which represents a strategic action to integrate GCE in formal education. Seventh claim: GCE is a way of learning.

Preface

xiii

As Werner Wintersteiner and colleagues argue in a book conceived from the Austrian perspective, GCE responds to globalization by expanding the concept of civic education to global society; adopts the ethical values of peace education and human rights education; draws upon the ‘global society’ perspective provided by global education, which not only investigates global topics, but more specifically merges the global and the local into the glocal; combines mainly these three pedagogical fields through the concept of global citizenship in terms of political participation as such, but particularly on a global scale. Wintersteiner et al., 2015

We agree with them that GCE as a way of learning is not entirely new, but builds on the pedagogies mentioned above; it combines them or some of their essential components and thereby gives them a new and unique focus. Global Citizenship Education, in any case, constitutes an original, necessary and forward-­looking mental framework, which seems to be indispensable to education in times of globalization and a global society.

As this book is the result of an intellectual journey that has lasted ten years and crossed continents, it is understandable that the reader will need a map to follow the logical path of the book through its chapters. After an introduction to the ambiguous notion of GCE, the book is divided into two main parts, which represent the two main axes on which GCE should be rooted but also a tension still unresolved by political and educational theories: Part One, Difference and Citizenship, explores the political idea of difference and diversity and the challenges that it poses to education in the post-­modern era. Part Two, Justice in Democracies, shows the implication of the notion of equality and social justice in education for citizenship within democratic societies. In particular, in Chapter 1 we introduce GCE, as it has been recently launched by the UN, as a framing paradigm, by highlighting its conceptual dimensions, its historical antecedents and some critical points. Special attention is paid to the critique of GCE for embracing a form of neoliberal global citizenship, unable to manage diversity and reinforcing an ethnocentric and paternalistic approach. After an introduction to Part One that shows the way in which, in the contemporary interconnected world, diversity has become a central political question to understand post-­modernity and its social and political crises, in Chapter 2 we describe these crises and the way in which they prevent and obstruct attempts to deal with diversity issues: crises of national citizenship, of neoliberalism,

xiv

Preface

of leftist political parties and of multiculturalism. In Chapter 3 we address the US perspective on multiculturalism by highlighting its conceptualization, its development and its forms in education policies as well as its conundrums and shortcomings. Then we suggest a distinction between normative and constructive multiculturalism. While the former can be considered dead, the latter, based on a flexible idea of culture, is a concept that better fits the challenges that difference poses in education. In Chapter  4 we outline the EU policy for managing cultural diversity in schools by presenting a few national emblematic examples of policies and practices as the forbears of intercultural education. Then we raise some criticisms about an intercultural education approach on the practical, political and cultural levels. The latter critical point, in particular, raises a very crucial issue: the risk of culturalism, the narrow-­minded ideology considering cultures as separated universes, compact and stable over time and space that encapsulates univocal individuals. Chaper 5 compares two intertwined political and pedagogical discourses, multicultural and intercultural education, prevailing respectively in the USA and in the EU. From this comparison, equality and difference emerge as conceptually alternative and mutually exclusive in political discourse. This impasse should be assumed in its controversial complexity and never reduced in simplifying positions. At the same time, it can be developed within the theoretical notion of democratic, plural and active citizenship, which is conceivable only on a supranational level. Part Two starts in Chapter 6 with a theoretical conceptualization of the key notion of equality and its social interpretation as social justice. Education is one of the most important fields of application for social justice, so it is here delineated in its various theoretical references. Following Freirean suggestions, we argue for a theory of diverse and equitable citizenship, against the backdrop of democratic theory. This section ends with a discussion of theories of cosmopolitanism in education. In Chapter 7, starting from the political and theoretical crises of (normative) multiculturalism worldwide and the emergence of neo-­assimilationist standpoints, we reaffirm the need for an epochal global shift in dealing with difference, equality and citizenship in education. In the Conclusion (Chapter  8), after having recalled the crisis of national citizenship, we stress the need to move towards a new paradigm to deal with difference: a transformative social justice education, promoting an idea of education for multiple, diverse and socially just citizenship that can only be possible on a global scale.

Preface

xv

A final word to conclude this Preface, just to highlight the multicultural and global scholarly milieu in which the authors live, work and think. While we are aware that a large part of the world is not represented in the authors’ cultural identities, we should observe that one unique feature of our book is the plurality of scholarly traditions at its basis: American, continental European and Latin American, and drawing from bibliography in several languages (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian). Very few books on these themes have this plural linguistic dimension and US and European traditions in political theory have scarcely talked to each other. Very rarely, non-English speaking European scholars make systematic reference to American literature and vice versa. This is paradoxical in dealing with issues relating to the global dimension of education and the role of cultural difference in it. While normally in scholarly research and textbooks ‘local’ literature, especially in intercultural versus multicultural education, digs a huge gap between Europe and North America, here we refer to a wide range of scientific literature, scholarly discourses and languages. Obviously digging a linguistic and cultural gap has been a challenge for us. Another challenge has been the spatial distance separating the two authors. The linguistic and geographical distance separating the authors often made it difficult to homogenize the styles, standardize the arguments, and systematize the structure of the text. However, we had a precise intention to keep our analysis fragmented and discursive, rather than force complex, misleading and elusive issues into clean, univocal arguments. We did not want to over-­simplify a reality that requires instead a rough ability to coexist with the chaos and the complexity of multiple gazes, confusing experiences and unfinished analyses.

Note 1 For a more detailed analysis, see Torres (2015).

1

The Priority of Global Citizenship Education

Diversity and hybridity Diversity and hybridity are the trademarks of our contemporary globalization. Citizenship has always been about unity and homogeneity, which are almost the exact opposites of diversity and hybridity. Yet, citizenship education at the local and global levels can contribute to solving some of the dilemmas of national citizenships dealing with particular questions of diversity that have proven elusive. Immigration, global border crossing of legal and illegal commodities, capital and labour, and the changing nature of cosmopolitan democracies add more complexity to the secular dilemmas of governability of nation-­states. Within democratic states, national citizenship’s troubles in dealing with diversity are due to two interrelated reasons:

1. Because national citizenships tends to define citizens from an assimilating perspective, i.e. the sole possession of a national passport or identity papers. In particular, this notion of citizenship strongly centered on the membership of a nation-­state marks a clear boundary between those who have formal or legal membership and those who do not. Therefore, a national citizenship is a status and role which includes and excludes rights and responsibilities at the same time (Figueroa, 2000; Torres, 1998). An emblematic example that makes this conventional idea of citizenship problematic and a defence of the privileges in the Western world, is provided by the condition of foreign-born migrants. They are required to fulfil certain duties in the nation-­state (respect the laws, pay taxes) without being entitled to all its rights (to be able to vote, be able to be elected). 2. In addition, modern liberal citizenship is characterized by a strong individualism resulting in a weak social bond regarding cultural diversity. This neoliberal idea of citizenship has been widely criticized from a holistic perspective by, among others, Charles Taylor (1989, 1991), and more

2

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

recently by Aiwha Ong (2003, 2004); and on grounds of gender diversity by Young (1990) and Nussbaum (2002). Therefore, many would argue that the concept of liberal or republican citizenship is not suitable to meet the needs of growingly diverse societies (Kymlicka and Norman, 2000). Global Citizenship (GC) and Global Citizenship Education (GCE) have recently emerged in the international development discourse, offering a new perspective for understanding by helping to reframe old problems in a new educational perspective making new sense of the dilemmas of citizenship in diverse globalized societies.1

The United Nations Global Education First Initiative Currently, the special emphasis given to GCE has a precise origin, easily traceable and directly linked to the Global Education First Initiative (GEFI), launched by the secretary of the UN Ban Ki-­moon in September 2012.2 In launching this initiative, the UN Secretary General has set three priorities: First, putting every child in school. Since 1990 Education for All (EFA), UNESCO’s movement, had the ambitious goal of expanding access, and the global community pledged to achieve universal primary education by 2015. The recent Incheon meeting showed that this goal has not been achieved, and new developmental goals have been set for the period 2015–2030 within the so-called Incheon Declaration.3 In this spirit, UNESCO underlined the need to make all the necessary investments to ensure that every child has equal access to schooling. Second, improving the quality of learning. Access to education is critical but it is not enough. We must make sure that people acquire relevant skills to participate successfully in today’s knowledge-­based society. The quality of schools that children, youths and adults attend is paramount in achieving the goal of access to quality education. Third, fostering GC. Education is much more than securing entry to the job market. It has the power to shape a sustainable future and a better world. Education policies should promote peace, mutual respect and environmental care – hence GC. This third priority in particular construes global education in terms of GC. Educating the global citizen poses serious challenges. Is it possible to imagine a non-­national ‘citizenship’, not bestowed by a nation-­state? Many wonder if this goal simply means promoting a supranational, cosmopolitan or trans-­national concept of citizenship (Standish, 2012). According to its

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

3

proponents, under the GCE umbrella we find basic values of our civilizations including peace, mutual respect and a sustainable environmental education. In setting these priorities, one can immediately observe the theoretical, political and pedagogical compromises typical of the majority of international documents on education. There is a clear tension between education quality and efficacy. Likewise, there are serious tensions between quality and equity, between basic competences and the way in which they should be evaluated. There is also the aspiration to achieve simultaneously equitable, inclusive, socially just and environmentally responsible educational systems. In particular, the second priority of quality of education for all seems to follow the latest trend of a competences approach and standardized evaluations. Quality stresses the need to avoid teaching by rote and highlights the inadequacy of evaluation systems and their misuse: ‘Testing is too often inappropriately used to influence major financing decisions such as closing schools or firing teachers or eliminating students who cannot progress to the next level rather than as a means to identify ways to help students improve their learning.’4 Our book focuses on the third objective or priority of the GEFI. It is primarily the third priority that underlines the challenges for an education able to form democratic citizens, who know their rights and are able to exercise them. In this chapter we emphasize GCE because it shifts on a global level the possibility to face challenges which originate on a national level. In particular, not only addressing the vital challenges of an equitable inclusion within diverse societies, but also caring for the natural environment in a sustainable way for the planet. There is no doubt that achieving these lofty and pragmatic goals will require powerful educational strategies. According to the GEFI’s operative recommendations, the implementation of educational policies and practice based on GCE and the promotion of respect and responsibility across cultures, countries and regions will require a number of structural changes:

1. new curricula and textbooks, that neither endorse stereotypes nor exacerbate social divisions between nationals and others; 2. capable teachers and teacher training for GCE; 3. a new emphasis on universal values such as peace, human rights, justice and respect for diversity; 4. less focus on the academic performance of students and more on a holistic education.

4

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Schools are especially concerned with cognitive learning and this may contribute to reinforcing inequalities, social pathologies and exacerbating social divisions. On the contrary, according to GEFI, the promotion of GCE means focusing more on values and a paideia based on ethos of active citizenship and social commitment. Moreover, GCE may force schools to deal with politically sensitive issues.

What is GCE Since it has been formalized within the Global Education (GE) first initiative, GCE appears as a part of the broader GE approach. Thus, a terminological and semantic clarification is necessary to avoid possible overlap between the two approaches. Following the line adopted by the UN General Secretary in launching this initiative, we must observe that GCE represents a subset of GE, a special focus emphasizing global themes such as peace, a sustainable future, human rights, addressing poverty, by reading them through the meaningful lenses of citizenships as the key educational goal. In many of our public lectures the authors are confronted by two questions: First what are the contributions of educational systems to humanity? Secondly what defines the world of education? Our responses are simple. If one considers the discovery of DNA as one of the key contributions of biology to humanity, or considers the theories of relativity as key contributions to physics – perhaps the Queen Science – one must consider that the creation of a unified, mandatory, free and public system of education is the central contribution of education to humanity. By the same token, we have argued that citizenship building is the essence of educational systems as the quintessential force to create organized forms of solidarity and social cohesion in our modern societies. In the world system, questions such as the social role of education, its general purposes, its responsibility in the training of future generations of citizens need to be reframed on a global scale, since national citizenship is still an essential part of the educational process, although it is not all-­embracing.

GCE and global education GE is an educational concept with a rich academic tradition. Leaving aside here the classical roots of the cosmopolitan visions rooted in ancient Greece (i.e.

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

5

Hellenistic cosmopolitism), or the origins of the modern thought (e.g. Kant and the Enlightenment),which enhanced aWestern idea of‘universal’cosmopolitanism, GE imposed itself in the aftermath of the tragedy of World War Two. Not by chance the most complete formulation of public education responsibilities is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), a document issued after World War Two when the international community, shocked by the recent tragic events, sat around a table to find the ways to prevent the disaster ever being repeated. The Universal Declaration states in Article 26: Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

More recently, another historical circumstance which has mainstreamed GE is the new global scenario which, starting from the last two decades of the twentieth century, has marked societies, economies and politics worldwide. The new global order, created by the development of information and communica­ tion technologies by the new opportunities to travel the world thanks to relatively reasonable costs and by the new financial capitalism has also reshaped the role of education and has redefined new challenges and presented new problems. In this sense Fernando Reimers defined GE as the new civics of the twenty-­first century (Reimers, 2013). The goal is to prepare the new generations and to renew adults’ education, to reshape their lives in a closer, interconnected and interdependent world. It is nowadays necessary to learn the knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviour, and values that enable them actively to live in this world. The UN established the global relevance and function of education, and the new global scenarios have reinforced the urgency of this shift. Many other international educational agencies have further promoted and developed the semantically and epistemologically weak concept of global education, among them UNESCO, Agenda 21 and Council of Europe made a fundamental contribution:

1. UNESCO played a vital role in this effort from the early 1970s (UNESCO, 1974) and then again the mid-1990s (UNESCO, 1995). The recent Incheon Declaration affirmed principles included by the Assembly of the UN in its post-2015 development goals, and reaffirmed this commitment.

6

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

2. The Agenda 21 document after the Rio de Janeiro UN Conference on Environment (Agenda 21, Chapter 36: Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Training, United Nations Conference on Environment and. Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992), has been decisive for further developments of GE and for prioritizing questions relating to the global environment and a sustainable future. Then following the sustainability approach, a number of initiatives, projects and conceptual elaborations were brought to the launch of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005–2014, which in turn followed the Decade of Human Rights Education, therefore promoting and consolidating countless educational projects worldwide. 3. The Council of Europe also embraced a similar definition of GE. Not differently by UNESCO the 2002 Maastricht Global Education Declaration enhanced an education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the globalized world and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all. North South Centre of the Council of Europe, 2003

GE is a much broader concept than GCE, a sort of referential horizon but lacking precise specificities from theoretical, political or educational points of view. This is because GE brings together the agendas of different fields of education including Development Education, Human Rights Education, Education for Sustainability, Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention, Intercultural and Interfaith Education, and the global dimension of Education for Citizenship.

GCE antecedents The 2012 GEFI launched by the UN is definitely the start of a new global sensitivity, although it is rooted in previous traditions and emerging from them. While, according to many scholars, GCE has recently become prominent in Europe and the Americas in government, civil society and educational discourses (Andreotti and de Souza, 2012), the global or international perspective in education has a much longer, although non-­linear, record. This is evidenced by a number of conferences organized around the theme, accompanied by an increasing amount of academic publications about global education and related

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

7

topics. Growing interest in GC has also resulted in increased attention to the global dimension of citizenship education, and the implications for policy, curricula, teaching and learning (Banks, 2004; Peters, Britton and Blee, 2008; Richardson and Blades, 2006; O’Sullivan and Pashby, 2008; Abdi and Shultz, 2009, 2011; Dower, 2003). However, the sensitivity towards GCE is different worldwide and the approach from Europe and North America is far from being accepted as a worldwide standard. For example, there is a different situation in Africa where, due to the conflicts and post-­conflict situations, GCE is seen in the rubric of peace education (UNESCO, 2014). Civic education, as a premise of democratic participation prevails in those contexts (like Latin America or the Middle-East) which experienced totalitarian regimes or dictatorships. Also slightly different is the case of the Asian Pacific continent where regional cooperation mechanisms have placed much emphasis on other critical elements of GCE such as civics and citizenship, democracy and good governance, as well as peace and tolerance (UNESCO, 2014: 18). In this section we will address some key antecedents of GCE, namely global education in its different meanings worldwide, cosmopolitanism and development education or education for sustainable development, which became established in scholarly debate and in educational practices well before 2012.

Global education A global perspective in education is not a new idea. While the debate about global education has increasingly involved political theorists, activists and scholars throughout the 1990s, its origin can be traced much earlier. A working definition of global education in the USA was compiled in the early 1990s, when it was defined by Tye and Tye (1992: 5) as follows: Global education involves learning about those problems and issues that cut across national boundaries, and about the interconnectedness of systems – ecological, cultural, economic, political and technological. Global education involves perspective taking – seeing things through the eyes and minds of others – and it means the realization that while individuals and groups may view life differently, they also have common needs and wants.

However, GE has a long history in the USA, starting from the early twentieth century but developing mostly after the World War Two, providing students with a global perspective, including a vague and naïve understanding and appreciation of other cultures, in children’s books featuring peace and

8

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

antiwar themes, often through stories about children from other lands. After the tragedy of the World War Two, a worldwide movement began to promote education for ‘world understanding’ with the purpose of preventing a third world war (Xanthopoulos, 2005). Then, during the Cold War, Global education was criticized for its implicit cultural relativism, and severely condemned in the era of McCarthyism, when every effort to increase international cooperation and understanding was seen as suspicious radical leftist behaviour. By the 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Global education and world studies were introduced, with the ambiguous purpose of justifying the predominant economic position of the USA in the global market. To this end it was necessary to educate future citizens to know other political and economic situations (Xanthopoulos, 2005). Historically, Europe, with few exceptions, followed a similar path in enhancing GE, and a knowledge of other peoples’ lands and political situations was used to maintain and justify their colonial position. More recently, with the establishment of the supranational institution of the European Union, GE has become a manifold container. There is a precise history that began in 1997 with the Global Education Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe. Then, in 2002 the First European Congress on Global Education took place in Maastricht. It set out the framework for a European strategy on GE, which was expressed in the so-called Maastricht Declaration (Forghani-Arani et al., 2013). In 2001 the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) was established to facilitate the sharing of policy learning across EU member states. GENE, the network of ministries and agencies with national responsibility for Global Education in European countries, adopted a broad definition of GE, taken from the above-mentioned Maastricht Declaration: ‘Global Education is education that opens people’s eyes and minds to the realities of the world, and awakens them to bring about a world of greater justice, equity and human rights for all. GE is understood to encompass Development Education, Human Rights Education, Education for Sustainability, Education for Peace and Conflict Prevention and Intercultural Education; being the global dimensions of Education for Citizenship.’ In Britain, where ‘world studies’ were practised for decades, also in order to maintain its geopolitical and post-­colonial position in the world, global education, better known as ‘global learning’, was conceptually elaborated in more detail than elsewhere. This was demonstrated by the seminal work by Graham Pike and David Selby, whose Global Teacher, Global Learner (1988),

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

9

influenced OISE at the University of Toronto, when the authors moved to Canada. In Canada, sensitivity to global issues in education was already established among political theorists and practitioners, thanks to the activities of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the pioneering Alberta Global Education Project.

Cosmopolitanism A second theoretical key antecedent of GCE is the discussion about cosmopolitanism and its impact in education. Following Delanty (2006), Patsby defines two categories of cosmopolitanism, which have an impact on future GCE: the liberalist, and the universalist; and she adds a post-­colonialist critique of both of them (Joshee and Pashby, 2013). We will address the post-­colonial critique later in this book. Here, we briefly stress that the tension between liberal national and universal cosmopolitism (Nussbaum, 2002) created a fruitful debate about the implication of the global dimension in citizenship education. This debate has been particularly relevant to tackling questions involving the relationship between multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism or citizenship in diverse and global societies (Banks, 2004). Discussions on cosmopolitanism (Held, 2005; Delanty, 2006; Appiah, 2002) and its critics (Heater, 2002; Smith, 2003), as well as its implications for education policies and practices (Osler and Starkey, 2005; Peters, Britton and Blee, 2008) represented a theoretical root for the conceptualization of the subsequent notion of GCE which some have noted has a structural theoretical poverty.

Development education According to ongoing comparative research being carried out by one of the authors among ten European countries regarding polices for implementing GCE in the curriculum of primary schools, there are two different discourses underlying the current political approach of GCE. On the one hand, the development on a global scale of the topic of citizenship education, especially in diverse societies (Banks, 2004; Tarozzi, 2008), which has been intertwined in the EU with intercultural education and in the North America with multicultural education; and on the other hand the tradition around Development Education (Su-Ming Khoo, 2011) and Education for sustainable development, which have replaced the notion of environmental education. In the next chapter we will carefully address the former, which represents the core of this book.

10

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Here, we briefly refer to Development Education, which emerged in the early 1970s to foster cooperation projects with the global South. By aiming at bridging the gap between a rich North and an ‘underdeveloped’ South, it started to enhance an idea of planetary education based on a new consciousness centered on solidarity and interdependency among all human beings. This attitude encompasses the knowledge of North/South inequalities and the need to understand other cultures and civilizations. Over the years the same notion of ‘development’ has been widely criticized, not only for admitting different ways and different times to reach ‘development(s)’, which should be just and equitable; but also for highlighting the need to re-­establish a concept full of contradictions and conundrums. There is now a wide awareness around the need to promote polices aimed at endorsing development under criteria different from solely neo-­liberal economic developmental indexes. Hence the growing success of the notion of sustainable development or sustainability which, after the Rio Conference in 1992 and the adoption of Agenda 21 has become global. Since then the two different political and educational discourses, traditionally referring to two different institutional bodies in national states, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have recently merged in the common idea of human rights, not only for individuals but also for people and for environments where people live. In particular the notion of ‘environment’ is no longer considered as a biological objective problem, but is considered as a humanistic question, closely related to forms of coexistence and of intersubjective and intercultural relationships. That is why, under the umbrella of sustainability lie, mutually interconnected issues of environmental protection, respect for human rights, education for a planetary citizenship and world peace.

GCE at a glance As we have just shown, in light of contemporary developments, GE can be considered an important antecedent of GCE. GE aims to build and disseminate global competencies that are nourished by several approaches related to human rights, intercultural understandings, development education (international development, economic growth, poverty alleviation sustainable environment), and future studies (Reimers, 2013; UNESCO, 2015). Within this framework GCE, could have a unifying role–what UNESCO defines as a ‘framing paradigm’ (UNESCO, 2014: 9). Moreover, and especially for the purposes of this book, GCE introduces a special emphasis of the idea of citizenship to make the overly

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

11

abstract notion of GC more concrete and closely related to notions of diversity, equity and social justice. The roles and the powers of nation-­states may have considerably decreased – a topic extensively debated in the specialized bibliography – but by no means have they faded away in the new global order. Yet GCE does not necessarily endorse the idea of global governance over world politics. This is not the role of the United Nations, and no global supranational body can rise to the role of the ‘Parliament of humanity’. If ever this ideal existed, it certainly does not seem viable any longer. The call for a GC, beyond the extension of the citizenship’s concept from the national to the global level, certainly has an ethical and political value and, by implication, educational significance. GCE contributes to making sense of and framing theoretically and methodologically different types of knowledge, abilities and values. We claim in this book that GCE should be more radically politicized to become more effective in its impact on school curricula, teacher education and education policies. Nonetheless, GCE is a key notion as a general horizon or as a psycho-­social framework for collectiveness and world consciousness. GCE is an educative concept and dimension grounded in the assumption that today people in the process of learning live in a global context and, even if in an unequal way, interact at a planetary level. In a world that is increasingly interdependent, GCE promotes a sense of belonging to the global community emphasizing a shared common humanity among people (Ceruti, 2003). But the community of destiny shared by all human beings also involves the biosphere and natural environment (Morin, 2014). A GCE entails the need to enlarge the educational horizons within which to locate human identity and its belonging to a homeland – earth – hence the need also to think of citizenship as belonging to an ecological world that relies on a new environmental ethic. Looking closer, the educative attention for the universality of human nature and for the global community is as ancient as the concept of education, and it is probably constitutive of every rational educational discourse per se – forms of rabid nationalism, Nazism and religious absolutism excluded. However, a global perspective should always be deeply grounded in local communities: the place where experience makes meaning of abstract knowledge and values. Because of the exceptions just mentioned and the very nature of human beings, the inclination towards the global nature of educational processes and openness towards Otherness and intercultural dialogue cannot be taken for granted. Indeed, the flip side of confronting a standardizing globalization which

12

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

loses any sense of individual and collective identity is the return of the community, the romantic invitation to root education deeply in the traditions of local and national history (Bauman, 2001). Therefore, to stress the global dimension of education is a political and ethical choice, not a simple statement of fact – a choice promoting humanistic universality and its shared values. Moreover, and most important, a byproduct of globalization, which offers unlimited opportunities to an extremely limited number of people, is the inequality and the asymmetries ‘both between nations and within nations’ (Sen, 1992, 2002), which mark the more authentic and tragic aspect of the economic– financial globalization. Thomas Piketty, in his analysis of the capital of the twenty-­first century, has dismantled the basic thesis of a neo-­capitalist economy which claims that in advanced stages of capitalism, social inequalities are destined spontaneously to decrease. Conversely, on the basis of impressive historical data, Piketty has shown that inequalities are uncontrollably growing to extreme levels (Piketty, 2014). In sum, beyond the ideal call for a global education and the targeting of the symbolic identity of the world citizen as an educational aim, it is difficult unambiguously to define GCE. Not surprisingly after the launch of GEFI by the UN General Secretary, UNESCO has promoted several activities to specify the boundaries of this educational approach (UNESCO, 2014).5 Terminology is surely an issue (Oxley and Morris, 2013), partly because different languages and cultural traditions have established and consolidated various terms to define this same educational area promoted over the years by various NGOs worldwide. Despite its apparent semantic ambiguity and conceptual vagueness, GCE is not as vague as it might seem, and in 2015 UNESCO arrived at a single and shared definition: ‘Global citizenship refers to a sense of belonging to a broader community and common humanity. It emphasizes political, economic, social and cultural interdependency, and interconnectedness between the local, the national and the global’ (UNESCO, 2014: 14). In some countries, for example, a big step forward has been taken to develop the global dimension in the school curriculum of primary and, sometimes, secondary education. In the UK, where global education or ‘world studies’ has been practised for 40 years, clear guidelines have more recently been provided to implement the new concept of GE and GCE according to National Curriculum and citizenship education programs (DEF, 2005). Here, the global dimension can be understood through eight concepts, which provide a quite clear and all-­ encompassing conceptual framewok for building into the curriculum: GC,

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

13

conflict resolution, diversity, human rights, interdependence, social justice, sustainable development, and values and perceptions. It explores the interconnections between the local and the global. In general, GCE objectives are related to: l

l

l

l

invite people into the process of learning to think of themselves as global citizens; promote mutual understanding among individuals and cultures and by implication models of conflict resolution; promote a set of common principles based on the human rights regime; promote active participation at every level: local, regional, state, provincial, national and global.

These goals refer to the idea of participation embodied in a concept of active citizenship stressing the importance of learners’ empowerment and of the transformative, rather than reproductive attitude. Its themes can be related to four main areas (Tawil, 2013): l

l

l

l

human right issues (children, gender and culture rights); environmental issues (sustainability, patterns of production and consumption, climate change, biodiversity); social and economic justice (poverty, health and well-­being, inequality and discrimination, migration); intercultural issues (identity, cultural diversity, world heritage, indigenous knowledge systems, peace).

Tawil also indicates a fifth theme, more linked to learning processes, that has to do with the definition of GCE core competencies and with the ways to integrate new competences in school curricula delivered by skilled and committed, well-­trained teachers. Not surprisingly, this aim of equipping learners with the skills needed to work in a global world hides two different and eventually opposing perspectives. One of these could be described as neoliberal, and the other as emancipatory. The former emphasizes the need to form human capital with knowledge and skills needed for facing the new challenges imposed by a global labour market – which demands a very selective education of the new global elite. The latter considers the development of skills as a means for the emancipation of the oppressed and marginalized and thus for ensuring a more equitable and just society where everyone has the same educational, social and political opportunities to develop this potential. The prevailing aspect, or at least the one we most want to defend in this

14

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

book, relates to democratic deliberation, participation, active engagement and political commitment. These aspects cannot be summarized in a single competence, but they require a multidimensional and transversal approach to the disciplines and traditional knowledge. Moreover, they force us to focus more on values and attitudes rather than exclusively on cognitive contents and skills.

Global and National Citizenship GC does not provide any legal status. Lacking a ‘legal bite’ represents its weakest condition and is a sort of contradiction in terms. Global Education advocates a condition of participation that presupposes – though they are not formally legally recognized – the holding of rights for every individual. However, GC should not be seen exclusively from a legal point of view. Without a ‘legal bite’ it could be seen just as an ideal abstraction. In our view, however, it is an ethos, an educational paideia, a framing paradigm that embodies new meaning for education and its role in developing knowledge, values, attitudes for securing tolerance, diversity recognition, inclusion, justice and sustainability across the world and in local communities. As such, it requires an ethical status as much as formal membership which may impact legal frameworks. Its symbolic value is meaningful from an educational point of view. GC provides a sense of belonging to a common humanity; it provides a broader and global vision, and is based on no other principle than respect for others as individuals, groups, communities and cultures, always in a relationship with the natural environment. Moreover, GC provides a set of ethical principles underscoring the connection between democracy, social justice, equity and solidarity, recognized within the human rights regime and representing the ideal and ethical heritage of humanity. Reference to this common heritage is essential when education is located in the global scenario of a planetary citizenship. Human rights are the social contract of today as long as they are not taken in the abstract and uprooted from human experience. Therefore, a citizenship rooted in human rights makes sense only if it is active citizenship, based on active participation and civil engagement. One of us has argued that GCE should add value to national citizenship (Torres, 2015). GC is an ethical call that provides us with a sense of humanity preceding formal citizenship, and yet enriching citizenship’s responsibilities towards other people outside the borders of the nation-­state and towards those

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

15

who are different from us. Genetically, culturally and socially there is a common linkage in the concept of GC, related to a common tradition, a shared history, a sense of living in a community of destiny on the planet – our only home. In the face of the emergence of post-­national forms of citizenship, like the supranational membership of the EU, which must be observed with great interest as an experiment of post-­national citizenship, still the State remains the most important location for citizenship. National citizenship is a legal, normative and political pre-­condition, essential to ensuring the existence of democratic systems. Citizenship means the effective ownership of rights that makes real the ethical recognition of equal dignity for all human beings. In this light, the power of the nation-­states does not fade away but changes. GC does not eliminate nation-­states, but rather reframes their role, assigning new legitimations because nation-­states under the umbrella of the United Nations are actually the sole institution that can guarantee the promotion and protection of human rights. The United Nations could intervene as a last resort to re-­establish the necessary legal frameworks and peaceful solutions, but only when states dramatically fail in their role of promoting human rights, such as in cases of resounding events such as genocides, ethnic cleansing and the like. Global trends invite us to recognize the concept of citizenship education in its global dimensions (Kerr, 1999; Banks, 2003). These trends include increasing migration flows, the impact of global economics and finance, growing cultural diversity and heterogeinity in schools, ease of communication and global movements, the presence of the global family and income transfers across borders, the creation of new forms of sociality and global social networks (even if virtual), the change of patterns of work and career prospects, global information, the perception of being included in a common destiny regarding the choices of foreign policy, of peace and disarmament, and especially the environment. These phenomena, among others, punctuate the global sky under which individuals and peoples live, work and study and foreshadow the need to develop processes of citizenship education on a global scale. But there are also other dramatic political trends in Western countries, such as increased voter apathy, the erosion of the welfare state and the public sphere, gender differences, and the emergence of environmental policies that require citizens’ cooperation to be effective. Hence the traditional idea of citizenship education appears obsolete considering the effect of globalization. Traditional republican approaches to civic education, rooted in a patriotic vision where citizenship means belonging to a common nation-­state and a shared history, though deeply ingrained in

16

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

some societies, appear as definitely outdated in the context of multiple globalizations. In the traditional republican model, citizens are entitled to rights on condition that they perform the duties that civil society requires. The civic sense is built upon a shared historical and juridical heritage (knowing rules and respecting them). As a consequence, full membership of the political community requires citizenship education to help develop moral bonds between members of society. Not surprisingly, this idea of national citizenship and the model of citizenship education are nowadays outdated, since they are rooted in an idea of the nation-­state which is not as autonomous as previously thought and has been largely overtaken by more complex and networked processes of governance. GCE goes well beyond the idea of education as a process of learning contents and skills, which, through the knowledge of constitutional principles and the laws of the state, can bring new generations to know and then automatically to enjoy their rights and fulfill their duties. Here citizenship is not related to a precise territory or a single nation or tribe. It is not a status but a normative function, a principle of individualization which defines individuals as entitled to rights (Tarozzi, Rapanà and Ghirotto, 2013). This liberal idea of citizenship, where being citizens means having political, civil, and, perhaps, social rights offers a global perspective for education policies and practices. Even liberal approaches to citizenship education focused on understanding knowledge and skills that enable individuals to exercise their rights and responsibilities are criticized on many grounds (Taylor, 1989, 1992; Tarozzi, Rapanà and Ghirotto, 2013). Namely, within a liberal pedagogy, the citizen is viewed as single, atomized, deprived of networks in which he or she is always located. The individual seems, in a non-­natural way, detached from contexts in which he or she usually lives and with which he or she has a meaningful relationship. Moreover, being focused mainly on procedural, deliberative aspects, it ends up in educational practices as politically neutral and culturally indifferent. As a consequence, it tends to overshadow dimensions such as active engagement, global solidarity, or social criticism – dimensions representing fundamental characteristics of models of GCE. In synthesis, GCE seeks an active citizenship education developed on a global scale and grounded on universal principles of a humanity based on the regime of human rights. Not being based on the abstract cosmopolitism of the Enlightenment, neutral and indifferent to social inequality, GCE is a model of political education promoting critical thinking of society, injustice and inequality, as well as diversity totally ignored by the Enlightenment.

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

17

Critiques of Global Citizenship Education Despite the wide global consensus surrounding the idea of GCE, there have also been criticisms. First, it can be argued that GCE, since it is detached from real contexts, communities or nations, is an abstract utopia without an authentic meaning. In other words, it can be a perspective so far removed and unreachable that it becomes insignificant for individual development. It is very easy to find a broad consensus around the idea that at some level we are all citizens of the world. But if GCE is conceived as a utopian dream of a global ethical state in perpetual peace, governed by human rights as new constituent principles of humanity composed of individuals of equal dignity, it fails to accomplish its critical scope. Such empty global utopianism also makes very little sense for the redefinition of individual identity or to empower marginal people, and for the education processes that can favour them. It is therefore essential that GC is always rooted in national citizenships and, from an educational point of view, within local communities. This is to make sure that it can both give meaning and substance to an empty cosmopolitan utopianism, because communities are the space for acquisition and subjective organization of knowledge, and to avoid communities becoming closed in on themselves, and in their traditional conservativism. Second, related to the previous point, GCE is blamed for its naïve internationalism, aiming at pursuing a vague ‘international awareness’, if not even the expression of a disguised colonialism (Abdi, Shultz and Pillay, 2015; Andreotti and de Souza, 2012). Not surprisingly, some scholars have observed that it is unclear whether the very notion of ‘global citizenship’ is a metaphor, a paradox, or simply an oxymoron (Davies, 2006). Since it is not a real citizenship but a fiction, it is in the end a fancy way to express a contradiction, an oxymoron at best. GCE risks socially reproducing inequalities and global injustice, and thus losing the critical dimension that enables it to be rooted in social justice. In other words, we advocate a GCE with a strong emancipatory and critical aim, and not an ineffectual call for an abstract ethical dimension, claiming the dream of a shared humanity based on the utopian idea of human rights as global values. Third, GCE was also attacked from a traditional and vaguely conservative perspective (Standish, 2012). According to this standpoint, the attention to the global dimension misses the important reference to communities and nations. Within these are traditions, moral values, beliefs where educational processes must be located, without wasting time and money in claiming for global values that do not belong to the nation.

18

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

In the current state of crisis of responsibility and political leadership, GCE fills the moral void and takes over the national curriculum, imposing a perilously new global rationale for schooling that has degraded traditional education. Fourth, and finally, GCE, by enhancing human rights and global values, can be conceived as a universalitsic moral direction, unable to manage diversity, difference and otherness, which are key notions of the contemporary social world. This is a very important issue for the purposes of the present book. In the following section, we will argue, following Appiah, that GCE should be supplemented by diversity.

Global Citizenship Education and diversity Diversity is the most important conundrum of the new global scenarios, contributing to undermining the idea of national and social citizenship as defined by Marshall in the 1950s: How can states educate their citizens to be at simultaneonsly equal, from an individual rights and opportunities point of view, and diverse with regard to identity and collective rights? This dilemma is one of the main reasons for the crisis of modern liberalism and of contemporary democracies founded on its principles having an immediate impact on the modern definition of citizenship. The new global scenario helps to design a new cultural horizon, set in new terms regarding otherness and diversity. This gives shape to new challenges for politics, as well as for education. Our argument is that unlike the traditional citizenships and the educational models inspired by them, GCE may offer a possible response at the same time to the equality of universal rights and respect for individual and collective differences. GCE highlights the universality of being a member of a world community of human beings with the same dignity and sharing the same humanity and the same planet. According to Antony Appiah (2008), GCE emphasizes universality and equality for all, but this must be supplemented by pluralism and difference. Hence, Appiah and others prefer to talk about ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ instead of GC, which could be seen as ‘universality plus difference’: ‘It could be therefore argued that “cosmopolitan citizenship”, rather than “global citizenship”, may be a more accurate and appropriate way of capturing the transformation of citizenship in the context of globalization’ (Tawil, 2013: 3. Italian in the text). We will return later in the book to the concept of cosmopolitanism, but here we will simply state that the challenge is to consider some universal premises such as common

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

19

humanity, interdependence, human rights, social justice, a sustainable future and intercultural respect within a perspective sensitive to collective and individual differences. Some scholars believe that the need for diversity in universality, critical to decline at the global level of citizenship education, is best guaranteed by the label ‘cosmopolitan citizenship education’ (Tawil, 2013). We argue that the terminological debates are not particularly relevant. It is instead relevant to promote the GEFI initiative to launch worldwide a very promising educational perspective, which can match the challenges and dilemmas that traditional approaches to citizenship education have left unsolved or unanswered. Therefore, it makes little sense to embark on useless debates and definitional sophism.

Global Citizenship Education and the post-­colonial tradition To continue with Appiah’s argument about the risk of colour-­blind universalism, is central to the position expressed by post-­colonial scholars. The most substantial criticism of the mainstreaming idea of GCE currently undertaken by governments, organizations, NGOs and schools lies in its implicit ‘colonial’ approach. Related to this, GCE has been criticized for its failure to critique or address neo-­liberal agendas and economic growth models. While originally global education (or its antecedent, development education) in most industrialized countries emerged in response to the de-­colonization process, GCE risks being assumed and applied as a new wave of colonialism, by un-­ critically embracing a form of neoliberal new GC (Ong, 2004). The sharpest criticism, from a post-­colonial view, has been raised by Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti (Andreotti, 2006, 2010, 2011; Andreotti and de Souza, 2008; de Souza and Andreotti, 2009; Andreotti et al., 2010; Andreotti and de Souza, 2012) and others (Abdi, Shultz and Pillay, 2015; Jefferess, 2012; Odora Hoppers, 2011). Andreotti claims that, due to the lack of critical analysis of power relations and global inequalities, GCE often results in educational practices that unintentionally reproduce and reinforce an ethnocentric, ahistorical, paternalistic, approach (Andreotti and de Sousa, 2012a). And this is particularly serious for the purposes of this book, because this unexamined and ethnocentric attitude tends to trivialize cultural differences and to ignore inequality. To avoid such a missionary and superficially benevolent attitude towards difference, post-­colonialists stress the need for GCE to challenge global hegemonies and not take for granted the unequal distribution of wealth, power and labour in the world.

20

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Another reason to endorse a radical post-­colonial tradition that confronts GCE is the issue of indigenous rights and knowledge, and the need to preserve local languages against the hegemony of English. Lynette Shultz argues that indigenous knowledge systems will be undermined by proposing a GCE that is ‘racist, imperialist and paternalistic, all destructive to civilizations’ wellbeing’ (Schultz, 2015). Therefore, she claims that a Global Social Justice Framework provides a de-­colonial and anti-­colonial lens on the processes, objectives and aims of GCE.

The need of Global Citizenship Education in diverse and unequal societies The current state of affairs in the globalized world driven by technological change, internecine wars, waves of immigration, economics and finance have resulted in deep inequalities between and within nations (Piketty, 2014; Sen, 2002; Stigliz, 2002). We have no illusions. These growing inequalities can only be solved by a model of equitable globalization driven by education and politics articulated through interventions of collectives and social movement through public policies. GCE offers a response that improves upon traditional nation-­state based citizenship education. GCE speaks of both active citizenship (teaching to exercise rights and not only teaching their entitlement), and multiple citizenships (since we all simultaneously belong to several citizenships including local, regional, national, supranational and planetary, and we wrestle with a full understanding of our multiple identities). GCE cannot be merely global civic education. It is much more, becoming a learning space where students can absorb a world citizen’s knowledge and competences as well as effective training to acquire skills required by an increasingly global labour market. This active GCE offers critical and political education to active citizenship aimed at learning how to exercise rights. This means emancipation and empowerment, becoming committed to the local community while also aware of the global conditions of our life. Vanessa Andreotti has distinguished two forms of GCE, a ‘soft’ form and a ‘critical’ one (Andreotti, 2006). The soft model is based on the recognition and enrichment of a common humanity and a global world ethic as a moral point of view. In the ‘critical’ approaches, the core concept is of social justice underscoring an ethical premise framed by a regime of human rights. Moreover, nation-­state

Priority of Global Citizenship Education

21

citizenship education is too often conceived as a tool of social reproduction or as an effective way to pass on the legacy of a common tradition, history, language and values of a population that has been traditionally portrayed as culturally homogeneous. GCE is based on a strong and explicit emancipatory commitment. As far as ethics is concerned, Tawil (2013) has divided the approaches to GCE into three main groups encompassing different ethical approaches based on different emphases:

1. humanistic – based on the principles of common humanity, universality in diversity; 2. environmental – based on the principles of sustainable development; 3. political – based on the principles of social justice and equal rights. From our perspective, GCE comprises all of these emphases, particularly when connected to education for sustainable development. However, it is relevant to the political emphasis as a framing concept or paradigm that could interrupt inequality. It addresses the social, civic and especially political function of education. It is conceived as an ethical and political angle to look at education at all levels, and multiple teaching and learning domains. More precisely, the technical development of its core competence to be translated into measurable cognitive as well as social and affective objectives for school curricula, is a complex project which is ongoing in several UN institutions, governments and civil society organizations. In the first part of the book, we will deal with the major challenge of contemporary society: the quest for diversity. GCE should be able to manage diversity in a reasonable way in order to accomplish the unfinished business of traditional citizenship education within nation-­states. This challenge has produced several social and political crises. In the next chapter, we will discuss the appropriate questions raised by multiculturalism traditions as well as its weak responses.

Notes 1 The 69th session of the United States Assembly set 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets demonstrating the scale and ambition of a new universal Agenda of the post-2015 development agenda. For the purposes of this book, goal 4.7 is the most relevant:

22

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism 4.7 By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-­violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.

2 3

4

5

Retrieved 6 October 2015 from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc. asp?symbol=A/69/L.85&referer=/english/&Lang=E http://www.globaleducationfirst.org (retrieved 27 August 2015). Incheon Declaration. Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. UNESCO, 2015. Retrieved 27 August 2015 from: http://en.unesco.org/world-­education-forum-2015/incheon-­declaration UNESCO Global Education First Initiative, Priority #2: ‘Improve the Quality of Learning’. Retrieved 27 August 2015 from: http://www.globaleducationfirst.org/219. htm Technical consultation of GCE, September 2013, Seoul; International Forum on Global Citizenship Education, Bangkok, December 2013, then published in UNESCO, 2014.

Part One

Difference and Citizenship

2

Theoretical Conceptualization: The Challenge of Diversity Within the new global scenarios in which we live, everything moves rapidly: goods, capital, and people. This reminds us of the argument that Karl Marx made in the Communist Manifesto when he argued that all that is solid melts into air. In the post-­capitalist economy, nothing should remain firm: everything has to be constantly on the move to produce development, wealth, and jobs. Even people move: among them we find tourists, managers, academics, and mostly masses of economic immigrants and asylum seekers – desperate people fleeing hunger and war, and the collapse of nation-­states. The movement produces encounters, contacts, and proximities more than in any other epoch of human history. Add to this the ease of transport and communications and the lowering of costs, today guaranteed by the technological development of ICT, and we get the impression of a contraction of living space, the perception of living in a narrow global environment, in which distances separating individuals, communities and peoples are dissipated. As one of us wrote elsewhere: ‘Along with antinomy “near/far”, which places us in relation to places and people, it has also cancelled the one “identity/ otherness” that traditionally was based on it’ (Tarozzi, 2005: 22). The notion of otherness is no longer built on spatial distance, and even less on linguistic membership or a national language. Otherness comes very often in the form of the personification of an ‘enemy’. An enemy with the dark face of a menace to our economic well-­being or to our democracy and liberal values; an enemy from which we must protect ourselves by raising walls, and that we represent as ‘terrorist’ if it threatens us from the outside, or as ‘illegal’ if the threat comes from within our territory. To construct the other as an enemy generates identification resolution, armed conflicts and fundamentalism, or even social conflict and strife for recognition. Therefore, we can say that in our Western societies, diversity is the political face of otherness: It is the flag of the quest for recognition, rights and opportunities.

26

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Difference is not a novelty in Western societies, but the current global scenarios have deeply changed its social meaning because diversity has become a political quest, and this necessarily has a huge impact on the idea of global citizenship (GC). Within so-­called post-­modern societies, old interpretive paradigms (those called illuminist or encyclopaedic) seem no longer to make sense in light of the transformations generated by the different globalizations that we are confronting (Torres, 2009a). Social and conceptual categories such as egalité above all, through which modern societies have been described and interpreted, are too general to help us understand and manage the notion of otherness. In the West, ‘equality’ has become a form of conceptual flatness that social and political sciences impose on their analyses of society, and to some extent education has played a major role in promoting widespread cultural homologation. In the new global scenario, diversity has assumed different characteristics that point out new political realities, new ways of seeing and acting – and this has created new and seemingly intractable challenges for education. Therefore diversity, as a political facet of the otherness in the current post-­modern world, needs to be conceptually clarified. For some, it represents a sort of epochal category that explains the political discourse of post-­modernity and the key to interpreting the social world (Derrida, 1967; Vattimo, 1980). We do not agree with that vision, which was quite popular a couple of decades ago. Diversity was predicated by Charles Taylor in his defence of multiculturalism (Taylor, 1992) as a political quest for recognition. This is undoubtedly a new and meaningful notion, but it is not the core and unique concept that defines our modernity. As we will show in the second part of the book equity and justice should be put alongside diversity as key concepts to promote education policies in the new global scenario. Our argument is that the new social (dis)order has brought diversity to the forefront of the doubts, producing new questions concerning ‘otherness’. However, new narratives are unable and/or unwilling to offer robust theoretical, political and educational responses. Global Citizenship Education (GCE), which is an intervention in search of a robust theory, is perhaps one of the possible answers. The post-­modern theory of the post-­modern condition has not offered an answer because, though this may sound too harsh, post-­modernism itself is a sub-­product of the new social (dis)order. Otherness has several faces across the world, but it found its form of social and political representation in the notion of ‘culture’ forged as an anthropological concept (Tarozzi, 2005). Each face is different from the others in terms of its

Theoretical Conceptualization: Diversity

27

origin, nature and political as well as educational consequences: migrants, indigenous people, minority groups or People of Colour, religious groups and also women, LGBT, disabled people and the environment are perhaps the most visible faces of otherness nowadays. Not surprisingly, when otherness becomes a political quest, it stiffens cultural diversity by assigning to it a pure, predetermined, and closed value. In this short list, we included the environment as a new form of natural (and not only human) otherness because, within the framework of a sustainable future perspective, the notion of otherness has been re-­conceptualized in order to encompass the relationship with the natural environment. The background has moved to the foreground. The natural word is no longer seen as an objective problem and biological question. In an ecological planetary perspective, nature becomes a humanistic issue related to the question of coexistence and intersubjective and intercultural relationships. Before his death in 1997 Paulo Freire confided to one of us that he thought the environment was now one of the most oppressed entities in the world, the missing chapter of Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The social and political paradigms as well as the conceptual categories of Western modernity seem no longer able to understand, interpret and guide the new processes of social coexistence within societies more and more complex, globalized and marked by various forms of otherness. The analyses and politics of classical liberalism, based on universal principles and on single individuals, are not able to understand otherness. For this reason – but also for the simultaneous crisis of several universal concepts, of ethical principles, of institutions on which is founded the modern Western society – the notion of difference, turned into political quest, has become a key to understanding post-­modernity. In this section, we will discuss those crises that mark the inability to make sense of the social life, of the political dimension, of daily life, and the new responses attempting to put the dimension of difference at the very centre, starting with multiculturalism. It should be added, however, that alongside the necessary enhancement of the concept of diversity as an essential dimension of current policies, we believe that an exclusive attention to this concept, defined in a rigid and essentialist form would be a mistake. In the second part, we will emphasize another notion, namely that of equity declined as social justice, essential to establish policies and educational practices. The crises affecting the contemporary world show the failure of conceptual tools, forms of political representation, and of the political devices for understanding and intervening in the contradictory dimensions of otherness,

28

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

and what they have to do with social and political changes that also mark the new global scenarios. First, the crisis of the nation-­state and the emergence of new post-­national citizenships that put in jeopardy even the principles and values, as well as the rights, on which, in modern times, those citizenships were founded. Second, the crisis of classical liberalism, the founding political doctrine of modern Western democracies and, especially nowadays, of its neoliberal declination which, in the face of the new challenges of globalization, and especially the emergence of otherness, is unable to provide adequate answers. However, third, there is also the crisis of alternative political doctrines; the traditional leftist and post-Marxist parties demonstrate that they are equally unable to interpret social challenges and cultural difference. Finally, the same multiculturalism, as emerged in the last two decades of the past century, shows signs of the crisis and its failure to address concretely the challenges that it has contributed to prefigure. We will address the crisis of multiculturalism very briefly here, and we will fully address it in the next chapter. This chapter offers theoretical arguments followed by specific discussion of how multiculturalism deals with diversity, and how interculturalism does so as well. Thus, theories, approaches and different intercultural stages of citizenship can be constructed through multicultural and intercultural paradigms, analyzed here in theoretical terms. But before this, we focus on the issue of diversity as seen in the light of multiple crises that affect our contemporaneity, and their impact on education policies and the debate surrounding the crisis of multiculturalism.

The crisis of traditional citizenship: Immigration and human rights Traditional citizenship, related to nation-­states and a set of rights bestowed on all residents in the territory of the state, is now in deep crisis. The crisis of the nation, due to the processes of economic and financial globalization, and the displacement of large numbers of people who choose or are forced to live in countries other than where they were born, contribute to debate as to its future. The dispersion of production processes and the globalization of markets are regulated and governed by global economic powers, or by formal or informal institutions that rule over flows and processes autonomously, guided solely by the search for profit without social control. Hence the separation of politics and economics that characterizes

Theoretical Conceptualization: Diversity

29

our era and that has led to the progressive emptying of the nation-­states in which the political – democratic and representative – power still resides. Nation-­states, less and less able to regulate and guide the market, are gradually emptied of their power. Consequently, we see the separation of state and nation. Hitherto, modern states had based their sovereignty, their institutions and their citizens, rights and opportunities on the unity of state and nation. Hence, also, the crisis of traditional citizenships that no longer find their political and legal foundation in the nation-­ states, in the solid union between state and the people, between demos and ethnos (Habermas, 1992). Traditional citizenships, moreover, are threatened from another by-­product of globalization: migration. The question of immigration related to multiculturalism and citizenship has taken central stage everywhere: Immigration represents the emerging aspects, probably the most evident, of the wide process which characterizes more and more the whole planet – globalization. Migrations represent more than an ephemeral phenomenon, a historical certainty that can be found today, though with different features, in all countries and, in particular, in the most developed. In particular migration phenomena are becoming more and more important within the Mediterranean basin, but also in the US Fondazione Laboratorio Mediterraneo, 1997: 551

Migration(s) is not a collateral damage of globalization; yet the USA and Europe tend to portray immigration as an isolated problem. Immigration is structurally connected and necessary to contemporary global interdependence. Among the oppressed groups, the people from immigrant backgrounds are those who represent the most emblematic condition of the present era. Through his/her kaleidoscopic gaze one can see, organize and understand the critical situation in our societies. The immigrants’ conditions vividly reveal the contradictions and shortcomings of the new planetary economy and culture and is the greatest challenge to the democratic models of social engineering. Migrants move along the fault lines of the global economy in their localities, and along the simultaneous information flux that can be easily read in the margin of the globalized cities. However, unlike capital, which has achieved the right to cross every border due to technological transformation of the digital culture and the deregulation of the world’s financial system, the immigrant has no right to move across borders; but they still do so and in great numbers. The same boundaries that are so permeable for consumer goods, financial capital, or men and women of the world of business, block the migrant. Those immigrants

30

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

without passports, which would allow them to be rights-­holders, become not only non-­citizens but also ‘non-­persons’ (Dal Lago, 1996; 1999). These undefined figures can also encompass the dual status of refugee and of asylum-­seeker, who should be protected by international laws, but too often are considered and treated as undesirable economic immigrants. Such laws should systematically protect millions of people fleeing wars around the world. Ironically, refugees are condemned to ask for protection in the very countries that more often than not generated these same wars, and that often repel them from their borders. The immigrant appropriately embodies and summarizes paradoxes of the new global scenario and its crises. The widespread growing hostility towards his/ her extraneous otherness reveals the urgency to deal with cultural diversity in a new way. The question of otherness is also predicated in terms of race and ethnicity, as well as religious beliefs, that cut across politics of culture and education and that have particular configurations according to the politics of struggle in different locales and social formations. Migrants make ‘obsolete’ the traditional notion of social and political citizenship bestowed by nation-­states, which clearly defined insiders and outsiders of a given community deeply rooted in a shared history, traditions, or a common ethos. This obsolete citizenship does not take into account the transnational dimension of today’s citizenship (Milana and Tarozzi, 2013), which raises new issues. Yasimin Nuhoglu Soysal’s analysis of the limits of citizenship in an era of globalization highlights some of these issues. She argues that ‘. . . the logic of personhood supersedes the logic of national citizenship [and] individual rights and obligations, which were historically located in the nation-­state, have increasingly moved to a universalistic plane, transcending the boundaries of particular nation-­states’ (Soysal, 1994: 164–5). Soysal’s analysis has implications at three levels: first, at the level of citizenship, where notions of identity and rights are decoupled; and, second, at the level of the politics of identity and multiculturalism, where the emergence of membership ‘is multiple in the sense of spanning local, regional and global identities, and which accommodates intersecting complexes of rights, duties and loyalties’ (Soysal, 1994: 166). Finally, given the importance of the international system for the attainment of democracy worldwide, Soysal highlights the emergence of what could be termed cosmopolitan democracies; that is, international political systems divorced from the prevailing codes of the nation-­states in terms of origin and constitutive dynamics.

Theoretical Conceptualization: Diversity

31

A cosmopolitan democracy poses the question of human rights, which in education, through both frameworks of interculturalism and multiculturalism, has become a central question for citizenship and democracy. A ‘transnational citizenship’, based on human rights, is a perspective emerging from the crisis of national citizenship. It should be noted that this perspective does not eliminate nation-­states, but rather redefines their role and powers, and gives them a new legitimacy as the only institution currently able to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights and those where there are supranational institutions based on them. Without this national protection, the internationalism of human rights would be reduced to utopian or neo-­colonial Enlightenment cosmopolitanism. Of course their exclusively Western scaffolding is undeniable, as noted by Johan Galtung (1994). Behind that table of values, one can find values of classical Greek civilization, the natural law tradition, the Enlightenment’s thinking and even instances of Marxist socialism and the Christian message of solidarity. It is well known that some feminists have criticized the concept of human rights as Western, male, individualistic and focusing on the political rather than economic rights. Yet, despite these criticisms, human rights are seen as ‘. . . a powerful term that transforms the discussion from being about something that is a good idea to that which ought to be the birthright of every person’ (Bunch, 2001: 139). If the agenda for human rights is reconfiguring the boundaries of nations and individual rights of citizens so that they are seen as a precondition to attain basic equality worldwide, educational systems and programmes will increasingly reflect the tension between human rights as a globalized ideology of cosmopolitan democracies, and the upsurge of nationalistic feeling in educational systems that were originally a tool of the Enlightenment. This tension is also projected to question identity and the rights of cultural and religious values independent of the ideology of human rights and their demands upon educational systems. Once again, educational policies and programmes have a major role to play vis à vis identity, multiculturalism, human rights and citizenship.

The crisis of neoliberalism Diversity(-ies) and cultural groups who represent themselves within them are an unsolved challenge for classical liberalism, particularly its educational applications. Its neutral and colour-­blind attitude towards education policies

32

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

does not allow liberalism to interpret new social change in education where diversity is at the very centre. Even progressive, rights-­based liberalism is unable to understand or to enhance the social ties based on religion, language and local traditions, as it presupposes single individuals and not groups, and it is based on an ethics of ‘possessive individualism. Hence the crisis of liberal universalist, neutral and individualistic thinking, dealing with instances of diversity, which is local, value-­ bound and collectivistic. The communitarian critiques of John Rawls’ liberal progressivism (Etzioni, 1995; McIntyre, 1981; Sandel, 1982; Taylor, 1991) are well known; but today the major sign of its crisis is neoliberalism, which also became the dominant discourse in education policy worldwide. Neoliberalism is not only an ideological agenda, based on an economic perspective, but it has also become, especially in education policy, a new architectural design for civilization (Torres, 2013). Neoliberal models of deregulation promote notions of open markets, free trade, a reduction of the public sector, a decrease in state intervention through economic regulations and the de-­regulation of markets. This agenda includes a drive towards the privatization and decentralization of public education, a movement towards national educational standards based on decontextualized definitions of the quality of education, and the testing of academic achievement (usually) through multiple-­choice exams that determine the quality of education at the student, school and teacher levels. Accountability, operationalized more as a means of social control than as a pedagogical device, is another key tenet of the model (Torres, 2009a, 2009b; Afonso, 2010). Accountability, however, was introduced as a key feature in the No Child Left Behind Act, and in almost all education reforms in the Western world, under pressure from global bodies such as the OECD. Overall, it is a model of regulation. Thus here we have an important paradox: while neoliberalism expanded deregulation of markets and capital – though it has a selective model of deregulation – it occasionally brings new regulations to other spheres of social life. This is prominent particularly in education as a way of producing what neoliberals consider to be the foundations of a good quality of education for the training of labour that could successfully compete in globalized and highly internationalized markets. The financial and policy prescriptions of de-­regulation models are now being challenged by a reorganization of the world system and, predictably, this challenge will impact upon the politics of culture and education.

Theoretical Conceptualization: Diversity

33

Critics of current regulatory models and their global trends support educational alternatives that will preserve local languages and cultures, ensure progressive educational practices that will protect the poor against the rich, promote socialization in school, continue striving for gender parity in education, consider models of equality, equity and fairness that are appropriate in the social context of people’s lives, and protect the environment and human rights as the bedrock of citizenship. In sum, even if the neo-­liberal goal to pursue a good quality education for all seems to favour the distribution of more opportunities and to extend rights to all, contributing to social harmony and in fact extreme individualism, the erosion of public education, the imposition of standardized tests and a decontextualized learning not only reproduces inequalities but also creates new ones. But above all, this approach to education policy is not able to understand and to interpret the demands posed by cultural diversity, which are absorbed within standardized and mono-­cultural processes spread worldwide.

The crisis of leftist political parties When faced with neo-­liberalism, left-­wing political parties, particularly in Europe but also the Democratic Party in the USA, seem to have lost their political identity and their political appeal with reference to the theme of diversity combined with inequality. There are two main reasons for this: first, in the post-­industrial society (Touraine, 1971), the working class is no longer the political subject at the very centre of the political scene for mass progressive parties, and in particular large communist parties in Europe. Therefore, post-­communist parties are nowadays targeted at the same social class as other moderate parties. Second, in Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall, the Left moved towards a progressive liberalism, leaving behind their most radical leftist traditions. In doing so, they have come to share a common political culture with the other mainstream political parties represented in the European Parliament. Following the defeat of different authoritarian regimes over the past 60 years, liberalism, in all its various manifestations and legacies, has seemingly become the dominant political theory on which most political parties in a democratic society are based. Liberalism, more than a precise ideology and a political theory, is nowadays also a sort of koiné, an a priori category wherein almost all the main political ideologies of Western societies are grounded. This notion refers to one political

34

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

system and one economic model, today’s winners of the Cold War confrontation. The dominant political system is the one that defeated Nazism first and Communism later, and the economic model is the post-­capitalist market economy that has westernized the entire world. In other words, liberalism as political thinking sustains the Western democratic systems that, after having defeated the main political opponents either through war or with the market economy, dominates the international community as the standard of the modern nation-­state. A word of clarification is necessary here. While in US everyday language ‘liberal’ means progressive, left-­wing – opposite to conservative – in the European context ‘liberal’ refers to a moderate political position – opposite to socialist and aiming at limiting the power of the state to interfere in the political sphere of individuals. The fine treatment of liberalism as the foundation of modern political thought in the work of Harold Laski (Laski, 1936) should teach us that despite the use of ‘liberalism’ by US neoconservatives and populists as an epithet to disqualify enemies (e.g. the tax-­and-spend liberals) liberalism emerged as the antithesis to authoritarianism consolidating itself in the past two centuries as the dominant political philosophy in democracies. Its varieties, from neoliberalism to radical liberalism, offer the two extremes of a social and intellectual ideological pendulum. Liberal analytical foundations are visible both in the moderate and in the radical progressive parties, such as socialist or social democrat. Indeed, this is evident in the awkward attempt to establish a so-­called ‘third way’, advocated by the Democratic and Labour governments of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair respectively (Giddens, 1990), and in the post-Communist and post-Socialist Democratic parties that are becoming even more moderate. Because of its historical crisis, the post-Marxist and post-Social Democratic Left is becoming more and more moderate all over Europe. For certain countries in continental Europe, this has meant cancelling out a well-­established tradition represented by huge Communist mass parties that were perfectly integrated within democratic systems. Certainly, this is a remarkable change for the Western New Left (Hobsbawm, 2005), particularly visible in the political action fields that are our interest here – education and the politics of diversity. There is therefore, nowadays, a transition from the Marxist foundations that with few exceptions (such as Gramsci’s work) subordinated the political to the social and to some extent the individual to the collective. The liberal foundations subordinate the political to the economic, and the collective to the individual (Rorty, 1991, 1998). There are significant consequences of this change for the question of educational

Theoretical Conceptualization: Diversity

35

diversity. In fact there are two interrelated phenomena highlighting the crisis of traditional leftist parties with reference to diversity: on the one hand the declination of Marxist roots, the class struggle and the priority of social justice for marginalized and oppressed social groups; on the other hand, even the traditional Marxist parties fail to interpret the political challenge of diversity. The liberal democratic Left usually defends the welfare state seeking to protect workers’ civil, political and social rights, as well as equal opportunities. However, they do not always work along a perspective of social emancipation. Those are undoubtedly fundamental fights, but the idea of diversity as otherness cannot be reduced to bridging the economic gap, or to class war. On what basis, for instance, is it possible to discuss educational reform to promote a diverse school? Or defend public schooling as all-­inclusive and not merely a device for social selection? What about school vouchers as a founding strategy for school reform? How can we link education to job training and job creation if the dominant model in the society is the outsourcing of jobs to less-­ developed, low-­income countries? How should we deal with cultural diversity in schools? How should we include immigrants and refugees in schools? These are key questions to which the traditional leftist parties have demonstrated their inabilty to produce unequivocally coherent and convincing political responses, especially in immigration policies and diverse schools. The crisis of the European Left has been accelerated by its inability to understand the political challenges posed by the question of diversity and the need to combine social justice with diversity. From this point of view, the protest march organized by the French Communist party in the winter 1980/1981 against immigrants was prophetic of its failure (Wrench, 2000). The European left-­wing failed to recognize the new social actors – foreigners and immigrants, women, gay, lesbian and transgendered people, and persons with disabilities. As a result, the Left was unable to understand the new phenomena and to suggest effective political solutions in education. They only advanced minor procedural changes, resulting in their loss of popular consensus and, conversely, a coherent front of conservative parties gained substantive social and electoral ground. Not surprisingly, the silence or stuttering responses from the Left cannot counteract the more convincing and effective authoritarian populist solutions of the New Right or anti-­immigrant parties (Wodak, Khosravnik, & Mral, 2013) such as the National Front in France, the Northern League in Italy, the German Republicans, the UK Independence Party led by Nigel Farage, the Dutch Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders, the anti-­immigrant Swedish Democratic party led by Jimmie Akesson, the ultranationalist and explicitly anti-Islamic Danish

36

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

People’s Party, and Golden Dawn in Greece. All these extreme-­right parties, whose voting consensus is dangerously increasing, invoke a simple message of ‘assimilation versus separation’, ask for deportation of illegal immigrants and strive to limit immigration flows. The Left has advanced simple and pragmatic responses that disregard the complexity of the phenomena, and therefore easily mirror the populist consensus brought about by the coalition of NeoConservative and Neo-Liberal forces. The crisis of traditional leftist parties facilitates the emergence of a new social actor, e.g. an alternative form of globalization, the transnational social movement, and a form of globalization from below (Santos, 2006; Torres, 2011). Any critical appraisal of the new educational policies of social democratic governments and social movements should show a response to the declining power of leftist traditional parties, and the increasing role of new social movements. This new actor will play many roles in our discussion of citizenship. The Arab Spring immortalized this collective activism striving to create democracy as a new form of collective social action that toppled authoritarian and totalitarian governments. By the time this book is printed, many other important experiences of transnational social movement must surely have emerged, and will continue to impact the lives of communities, people, and nation-­states. The problem with national and transnational social movements is that they can veto models of citizenship that are implemented from the top down, but the majority of them cannot produce a new programme for citizenship building – and this is the case with independent populist parties like ‘Podemos’ in Spain or the ‘5 Stars Movement’ in Italy. We are very surprised that these national and transnational social movements have not embraced the concept of global citizenship as a lynchpin concept for social transformation.

The crises of multiculturalism and interculturalism? Why do we address the crises of immigration and multiculturalism as the bedrock of citizenship in this book? Because a number of voices in powerful governments in Europe and intellectuals of the right in the USA have decreed that multiculturalism as a state policy has utterly failed, and that these policies need to be revised and replaced (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010; Korteweg and Triadafilopoulos, 2015). In advancing this discussion, in the following chapters we will compare and contrast the models of multiculturalism and interculturalism and see what

Theoretical Conceptualization: Diversity

37

lessons can be learned from each model. We will address this requiem for multiculturalism in our conclusion (Torres, 2002b). Multiculturalism as a social movement, a social theory, and a curriculum theory offers a fascinating but perhaps flawed answer to redressing inequalities, particularly in the USA, one of the foci of analysis in this book. Many definitions and traditions are covered by the term multiculturalism. For instance, the usage of the term is very different in the USA from what it is in Latin America, particularly in the latter with the re-­invigoration of the struggle of NativeAmerican cultures and their nations in different Latin American nation-­states, particularly after the neoliberal governments in the region were replaced by national and popular governments. It is beyond the interest and possibilities of this book to address all the nuances involved in this terminology, or to provide an heuristic analysis that will be satisfactory to all involved parties, but in the next chapter we will address the origins, the theoretical foundations, approaches and the conundrums of US multiculturalism. In comparing the USA with the EU, we have selected two terms that refer to ethnicity and race as much as they do to immigration. These are multiculturalism, used more consistently in the USA, and interculturalism, which is more prevalent in the EU. We argue that, unlike traditional models of citizenship education, GCE offers a new angle to reframe old dilemmas of citizenship in diverse societies and in a globalized world, taking into account both equality and human rights and the respect for difference. GCE emerges after the failure of the unsolved dilemma of multicultural education in the USA, as well as intercultural education in the EU. Diversity is a key notion in the new global scenario, but it will become powerful only if combined with social justice. Therefore, those education policies rooted only in the recognition of diversity or promoting cultural hybridization cannot solve the above-mentioned crises; at the same time, traditional national citizenship education, rooted in national contexts or in an abstract claim for human rights, while taking into account human values and rights such as equality and justice, fail to take into account diversity on a global scale.

3

Multiculturalism: The US Perspective

Theories of multiculturalism and education Any systematic analysis of the burgeoning multiculturalism literature in education (Banks and Banks, 1995; Banks, 2009; Grant and Portera, 2011; Sleeter, 1996; Sleeter and Grant, 1999; Nieto, 1996) will show that the major goals of multicultural education vary from developing ethnic and cultural literacy (i.e. expanding the degree of information about the history and contributions of ethnic groups that had been traditionally excluded from the curriculum) to personal development (i.e. developing pride in one’s ethnic identity); from changing attitudes and clarification of values (i.e. challenging prejudice, stereotypes, ethnocentrism and racism) to promoting multicultural competence (i.e. learning how to interact with people who are different from ourselves, or how to understand cultural differences); from developing basic skill proficiency (i.e. improving reading, writing, and mathematical skills of people whose ethnic/ racial/class background is different from the mainstream cultural capital that predominates in formal schools) to striving simultaneously to achieve educational equity and excellence (i.e. developing learning choices that work across different cultures and learning styles); to individual empowerment and social reform (i.e. cultivating in students’ attitudes, values, skills, habits and discipline to become social agents committed to reforming schools and society with the goal of eradicating social disparities, racism, gender and class oppression, and therefore improving equality of educational and occupational opportunities for all). The ethical and political range of actors of multiculturalism is, to say the least, breathtaking. In our analysis and written work we have considered multiculturalism in scientific terms as a sliding signifier. There are various forms of multiculturalism. Some of which have indeed faced a serious backlash, while others are still relevant categories that can be

40

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

useful for the interpretation of contemporary societies, representing effective practices for addressing diversity in many public spheres. Multiculturalism is grounded in different political theories such as: communitarianism (Taylor, 1992; Sandel, 1982; Etzioni, 1995), critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1997), critical theory (Torres, 1998; Torres, 2009a), critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 2004), post-­structural theory (Sleeter and Grant, 1999), anti-­ racist theory (Leicester, 1992; Gillborn, 2004), theories of subjugated knowledge (Semali and Kincheloe, 1999), post-­development theory (Morrow, 2008), or post-­colonial approach (Gilroy, 2005, 2006; Leghissa, 2002; Zoletto, 2002). There are also less radical perspectives in the wake of liberalism that can provide an indirect theoretical source, such as human capital theory, John Dewey’s liberalism, or even liberalism’s reworking in a post-­contractual viewpoint provided by John Rawls (1993; 2001). Multiculturalism has been widely developed in educational practices, and there are different approaches in multicultural education (Banks and McGee Banks, 1993; Banks 2009; Banks (ed.), 2009a; Sleeter, 1996; Sleeter and Grant, 1999; Nieto, 1996). Sleeter and Grant (1999) identify five stages of multicultural education in the USA.

1. Teaching the exceptional and the culturally different (1960s). This approach was aimed at helping students considered at-­risk to fit into the mainstream of US society by implementing strategies that remediated their deficiencies. 2. Intercultural Education Movement. This was further developed into the Human Relations approach. It focused on the interpersonal relationship, aiming at reducing prejudices and conflicts among people. 3. Single group studies. Characterized by attention to a single cultural group (women, Asian-American, Native-American, African-American), it stimulated social action by providing information about a group and created new academic fields and subjects (ethnic studies, women’s studies, etc.). 4. Multicultural education. Emerging in the early 1970s, multicultural education is both a specific approach and also the general term describing ‘education policies and practices that recognize, accept, and affirm human differences and similarities related to gender, race, disability, class, and (increasingly) sexual orientation’ (Sleeter and Grant, 1999: 150). The term links a wide range of issues including race, culture, language, social class, gender and disability.

Multiculturalism

41

5. Multicultural education that is multiculturally and socially reconstructionist. This approach emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s as a further development of the previous ones. It extended multicultural education from a simple classroom activity to the realm of social action. In their 5th edition, Sleeter and Grant (2008) adopted the term ‘multicultural social justice education’ as an approach focused on equity and power relations.

Conundrums of multicultural education Whatever version of multiculturalism one considers, it is clear, as Giroux argues, that debates about multiculturalism are related to new forms of theorizing about globalization, the politics of Diaspora, immigration, identity politics, and post-­ colonialism based on conservative, liberal or radical politics (Giroux, 1997). Right-­wing academics and politicians usually link debates about political correctness with the homogeneous programme of multiculturalism. Enemies of multiculturalism argue against a ‘cult of multiculturalism’, which they consider representative of the cultural politics of identity (of different ethnic or special interest groups). Moreover, these critics charge that the multiculturalism movement displays a strong Europhobia that will undermine the unity and the common culture of the USA as a nation; and in particular multicultural policies have consequences for Western and Enlightenment values, undermined particularly by Muslims (Buruma, 2010). Some even blame multiculturalism for international terrorism (Philips, 2006). These critics usually embrace a form of nationalism; ‘rather than analyzing multiculturalism as a complex, legitimate, and necessary on-­going negotiation among minorities against assimilation [they] see in the engagements of cultural difference less a productive tension than a debilitating divisiveness’ (Giroux 1997: 50). Other opponents of multiculturalism see the politics of difference as a threat to patriotism, nationalism, national unity and traditional values, while its most extreme foes see the politics of difference as a threat to the Christian values of the American nation, or to the immaculate, white, European, racial heritage of the country (Giroux, 1997). The proponents of liberal multiculturalism argue that it will: (1) increase fairness by representing the range and richness of America’s different ethnicities, and (2) increase tolerance by exposing students to multiple perspectives on the meaning of history: ‘In this view, multiculturalism pluralizes the notion of an

42

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

American identity by insisting on attention to African-Americans, Native Americans and the like, but it leaves in place a unified concept of identity’ (Scott, 1992: 13). One of the original strands of multiculturalism is based on a liberal, pluralist perspective represented in the work of James Banks and others (Banks and Lynch, 1986; Banks and McGee Banks, 1993; Banks, 1988; La Belle and Ward, 1994). Within the pluralist framework, identity ‘is taken as the referential sign of a fixed set of customs, practices, and meanings, an enduring heritage, a readily identifiable sociological category, a set of shared traits and/or experiences’ (Scott, 1992: 14). Radical theorists such as Cameron McCarthy or Michael Apple present a critical assessment of conservative and liberal, of multicultural, and of neoMarxist approaches to the problem of racial inequality in education, emphasizing the non-­synchronous and even contradictory relationships between class, race, and gender (McCarthy and Apple, 1988). In this context, McCarthy (1990) argues that multiculturalism is not a solution for the race problem. Additionally, Cornel West claims: People identify themselves in certain ways in order to protect their bodies, their labor, their communities, their way of life; in order to be associated with people who ascribe values to them; and for purposes of recognition, to be acknowledged, to feel as if one actually belongs to a group, a clan, a tribe, a community. So that any time we talk about the identity of a particular group over time and space, we have to be very specific about what the credible options are for them at any given moment. West et al., 1996: 57

Diversity, in this view, ‘refers to the plurality of identities, and it is seen as a condition of human existence rather than as the effect of an enunciation of difference that constitutes hierarchies and asymmetries of power’ (Scott, 1992: 14).1 Cornel West concurs, arguing that the ‘historical process of naming is part of the legacy not just of white supremacy but of class supremacy’ (West et al., 1996: 57). Beyond its concern for power and politics, multiculturalism is also connected to discussions on identity and difference. National identity, the most important form of territorial solidarity based on notions of a single nation-­state, feelings of patriotism and a sense of common cultural heritage, is often viewed falsely as a fixed marker, which, having been historically crystallized, is there to guide citizens in their choices of loyalties and solidarities. But national identity, as Giroux puts it so well,

Multiculturalism

43

is always a shifting, unsettled complex of historical struggles and experiences that are cross-­fertilized, produced, and transacted through a variety of cultures. As such, it is always open to interpretation and struggle. Giroux, 1992: 53

Historically, the concept of national identity is better defined in opposition to the ‘other’ (i.e. another national identity or an enemy of the nation), rather than in reference to a set of uncontested historical properties of a nation and the national experience of its people as a homogeneous group. Identities are socially constructed in a process of contestation and struggle in concrete material and historical contexts, and are consequently subject to multiple interpretations. They are based on (or, if one allows for the Althusserian lapse, are interpolated by) perceptions of knowledge, experience and power, particularly what knowledge is (or should be considered) legitimate and should count; what experience should be celebrated and studied; and how power can be negotiated among different forms of knowledge and experience. Yet, the same notion of experience that seems to underlie the notion of identity, as Joan Scott has argued, is not given but produced historically, culturally, and discursively (Scott, 1992). There are, to be sure, dominant views of national identity that ‘have been developed around cultural differences constructed within hierarchical relations of power that authorize who can or cannot speak legitimately as an American’ (Giroux, 1997: 53). Thus identity, from a social-­political point of view, is an unstable, never-­ secured effect of enunciating cultural difference(s). Scott is right when she argues that identities are historically conferred, that this conferral is ambiguous, and that subjects are produced by multiple identifications, some of which become politically salient for a time in certain contexts (Scott, 1992: 16). Taken to the extreme, however, this epistemological premise, even if shared from a scientific perspective in defining identity as mobile and flexible, may seem impractical for pedagogy and political mobilization. For this reason, according to some radical theorists like Giroux, national identity ‘must be addressed as part of a broader consideration linking nationalism and post-­national social formations to a theory of democracy’. Giroux would argue that in practical terms: educators must address critically how national identity is constructed in the media, through the politics of state apparatuses, and through the mobilization of material resources and power outside of the reach of the state . . . [and] national identity must be inclusive and informed by a democratized pluralization of cultural identities. If the tendency towards a universalizing, assimilative impulse

44

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism is to be resisted, educators must ensure that students engage varied notions of an imagined community by critically addressing rather than excluding cultural differences. Giroux, 1997: 54

It would be simplistic, however, to think of cultural differences as only the difference between dominant and subordinate cultures. Critical multiculturalism therefore addresses the ideological cleavages and differences within and across subordinate cultures, not only as the negotiation between peoples of colour and the oppressive networks of power, but also among people of colour themselves, since hegemony is strengthened through the imposition of its representation means. Representing a cultural diversity as rigid and immutable allows processes of stigmatization (Ong, 2003). Membership and experience in a given identity does not guarantee the accurate recollection of the experience. The political risks are many (Scott, 1992; McCarthy, 1990), including the fact that in many multicultural quarters: Personal testimony of oppression replaces analysis, and this testimony comes to stand for the experience of the whole group. The fact of belonging to an identity group is taken as authority enough for one’s speech; the direct experience of a group or culture – that is, membership in it – becomes the only test of true knowledge. Scott, 1992: 18

Despite the growing literature on multiculturalism, the discussion has only recently shifted to address connections between multiculturalism and citizenship in education, exploring the limits and possibilities of multiculturalism in democratic societies (Banks, 2004; Tarozzi, 1996; Tarozzi, 2005). Multiculturalism confronts a multitude of tasks, including the development of a new defensible paradigm with epistemological and logical premises based around the notions of experience, narrative, voices, agency and identity; fostering an empirical research programme linking culture/power/knowledge with equality/inequality/ discrimination; and responding to the conservative Right, which has demonized multiculturalism as an antipatriotic movement.2 But we would be remiss if we did not mention here the series of events in the years 2014–2015 in the USA, with the death of black males caused by US police that have dramatically intensified the discussions about what kind of justice a black male can have in the USA. Though not the topic of this book, there is no question in our minds that those events, or the assassination of several parishioners in a traditional African-American Church in South Carolina by a

Multiculturalism

45

white supremacist, Dylann Roof, which have followed a large number of hate crimes against African-Americans, Gays and Lesbians and other representatives of diversity in the country, exemplify instances of failed citizenship building in a country that prides itself on being the representative of liberal democracy in the world. The need to revisit citizenship building and the crisis of multiculturalism in light of the new demands of global citizenship education (GCE) and against the resurgence of neo-­conservative thinking becomes more urgent than ever.

Is multiculturalism dead? Normative versus constructive multiculturalism These multifaceted tasks and the concrete political experiences of the 1980s and 1990s in the USA, and certainly beyond the US borders with the preeminence of neo-­conservative thinking in public policy, have forced the different proponents of multiculturalism into a theoretical and politically indefensible position. Therefore they are unable fully to address the need for a theory of multicultural citizenship, a theory that should be instrumental in advancing democratic goals and bolstering theories of democracy despite a capitalist framework. From the east coast of the USA, it appears that European multiculturalism is dead. In 2004, the Washington Times ran a story entitled ‘Europe’s Failed Multiculturalism’ (10/12/2004), and two years later Forbes announced ‘Europe Backs away from Multiculturalism’ (20/11/2006, quoted in Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010: 28). US neo-­conservatives looked to Europe with renewed hope and enthusiasm, rejoicing in the political judgements that came from Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. On closer inspection, however, these obituaries are the result of a superficial debate, following neo-­conservative and populist tendencies, which have been prevalent in a Europe that is concerned with growing migration, a fear of Islam and a Nordic European historical tolerance that has been annihilated by an exceptional economic crisis. Beyond this superficial debate – dramatically amplified by the global media, which paradoxically considers the expression ‘multicultural’ politically incorrect – there are other, and sounder, criticisms of multiculturalism and multicultural education. For the past decade, post-­ multiculturalist scholars (Kymlicka, 2010; Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010; Joppke, 2004) and public intellectuals have being raising criticisms of this

46

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

approach, arguing that political theory and policies, programmes and initiatives seem to retreat consistently from multiculturalism (Korteweg and Triadafilopoulos, 2015; Alexander, 2013; Taras, 2012; Heath and Demireva, 2014; Peters and Bezley, 2014; Bloemraad and Wright, 2014). For some, multiculturalism is dead, and the 7 January 2015 massacre of Charlie Hebdo journalists seems to be the nail in the coffin of European multiculturalism and interculturalism. In this book, we analyze the crises of multiculturalism and in particular what kind of multiculturalism is dead, and therefore we will avoid characterizing multicultural discourse as something homogeneous and coherent. In fact, ideas, policies and practices that go under the umbrella of multiculturalism or interculturalism are far too heterogeneous and diverse to be considered a monolithic model. On the contrary, one of the most powerful ways to oppose multiculturalism and the recognition of diversity is to employ abstract, general and standardized arguments without making clear distinctions. We need to deal seriously with differences and find fair policies and effective practices. To do so we must make normative and analytical distinctions.

Normative and analytical distinctions As we showed earlier, there are various forms of multiculturalism. Some of them have indeed faced a serious backlash, while others are still relevant categories that can be useful for the interpretation of contemporary societies, and effective practices for addressing diversity in many public spheres. Following Seyla Benhabib’s argument (2002), we propose a fundamental distinction between a normative and a constructive multiculturalism. In this book, we hope to clarify how a distinctive model of multiculturalism could be linked to social justice education as a paradigm of thinking and practice, and how both could be an answer to the conundrums of diversity in capitalist societies in the light of a GCE.

1. Normative multiculturalism, or strong multiculturalism, born in the 1970s and further developed over the 1980s, is rooted in a rigid conception of cultures as objective, immutable and reified. This perspective freezes differences and imprisons its members within rigid collective identities. It assumes that cultures can be univocally defined and its members have identical forms of belonging within them. This multiculturalism has been used by conservatives to highlight a civilization clash or emphasize the need to protect national cultures from the dangerous hybridization caused

Multiculturalism

47

by incoming migrant cultures; but it has also been used by progressives to liberate oppressed and discriminated groups (Benhabib, 2002; Giroux, 1997). In the public sphere, this multiculturalism entails concessions, grants and privileges to safeguard minority cultures in various sectors (health, religion, welfare, political representation, etc.), and to protect traditional languages, confessional schools, religious habits and customs. It is an institutional multiculturalism, requiring a political project based on a cultural interpretation of the public sphere. 2. Constructive multiculturalism, also defined as ‘weak multiculturalism’ (Grillo, 2007) is rooted in a mobile conception of cultures, which are never conclusively defined, but which is traceable in the private sphere and across interpersonal relationships. According to this vision, cultures are dynamic processes which are always affected by contexts, circumstances and relationships. In other words, cultures are neither static nor deterministic and therefore are never an indisputable destiny for individuals and groups, as Sonia Nieto also observed (Nieto, 1996). This multiculturalism does not aim to reorganize society on the basis of the recognition of cultural groups’ rights, but seeks to establish fair rules of living together, based on cultural exchange, individual agency and intersubjective relationships in daily life, which require a rethinking of the notion of citizenship. Normative multiculturalism can be considered dead, if it was ever alive, and being able to impact public policies, institutions and practices outside the academic debate. Cultural diversity can neither be eliminated nor ignored as one of the substantive ways to define our individual and collective identities. The impact of constructive multiculturalism is particularly evident in education, where one of the conundrums of normative multiculturalism appears, i.e. the theoretical conflict between culture and equality. Constructive multiculturalism, rooted in a notion of culture as a frame of reference allowing people to make sense of their daily lives and real problems, should overcome the idea that respecting diverse minority groups means justifying social inequality. Particularly in Europe, the multicultural (normative) rhetoric has hidden the universal notion of equality coming from the Enlightenment (Barry, 2001) and therefore has weakened the social struggle to affirm social justice. This perspective of a constructive multiculturalism, based on a flexible concept of culture, widely elaborated by European cultural anthropologists and post-­colonial intellectuals coming from the global South, seems to indicate the

48

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

European approach of intercultural education as a step forward, allowing them to overcome the crises of American normative multiculturalism. To some extent this makes sense. Intercultural education is not grounded in a view that imprisons members of a cultural group within rigid collective identities, nor does it negotiate with communities their quest for recognition, resources and power – but it encourages hybridization and metissage (a cultural mix). However, intercultural education, which was explicitly born to overcome the limits of multiculturalism, is too often based on a cultural assumption. People ask for dialogue and metissage because they belong to cultural collective identities. The cultural normative assumption is still there; only the aims are different (Zoletto, 2002). In the next chapter, we will outline sources, theories and strategies of European interculturalism, and we will conclude by indicating the deep practical, political and theoretical limitations of such an approach. Once again, diversity’s recognition as well as intercultural dialogue are two fundamental issues to interpret post-­modern societies. But they are not enough: in education policy, it is also necessary to take into consideration issues of equality and justice that are related to the post-­national citizenship’s rights.

Notes 1 On difference as a process of enunciation, see Bhabha, 1989: 111–32. 2 Examples of this relentless critique from the Right are, for instance, Bloom, 1987 and d’Souza, 1991. For a very insightful response, see Graff, 1992.

4

Interculturalism: The European Union Perspective

Introduction Eurocentric rationality was dominated for centuries by an homogenizing sameness, while simultaneously creating an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality, in which modernity obliterated the notion of difference. With the post-­modern debates, difference has become a core concept in today’s Western discourse (see among others, Derrida, 1967; Vattimo, 1980), even if this approach, as we show, ends up in diversities within essentialist cages such as ‘culture’, ‘ethnicity’ or ‘community’. The modern European historical era started at the end of the eighteenth century and was dominated by the idea of sameness, with a total focus on individual identity, on the norm, and on the objectivity of the reality. This domination of rational ‘sameness’ was functional in an institutional and cultural system eager to preserve and reinforce itself by tracing the boundaries of orthodoxy. The social and political order based on this idea is forced to exclude ‘the other’ in order to preserve and empower itself. It does this by condemning, punishing, even killing the other, and accusing it of deviation, heresy and dis-­order. Every diverse subject is prejudicially imprisoned into stiff oppositions – national/foreigner, native/ immigrant, male/female, healthy/sick, heterosexual/homosexual, able/disabled; these are declinations of the fundamental opposition – self/other – functionalities for reproducing the social order, since the self socially represents the norm and the standard. In this historical context, modern education, particularly through state schooling, has played a major role in pointing out and punishing the subversive role of diversity.1 In the modern era, educational systems have done their best to dissipate difference, to flatten and homologize it. According to Piero Bertolini, the modern concept of equality, supported by education, has disseminated and fostered a

50

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism perspective of cultural homologation or flattening, which has been advanced by the transmission of basic instructional competences, throughout formal education. In this way, it has too often transformed the school into a powerful reproductive instrument of the cultural model held by the class in power. (italics in text, Bertolini, 1999: 32, our translation)

So, with few exceptions, European or Western modernity, which has been Eurocentric, Logocentric and Malecentric, attempted to eliminate difference either by including and assimilating it or by cancelling it physically. Shall we consider many educators and educational theories accomplices in this erasure of history? This was the theoretical framework and the historical atmosphere which intercultural education faced at its birth in the 1980s. That is why the intercultural model could emerge only while the idea of modernity of calculating reason was in crisis and becomes problematized. A reason elsewhere defined as ‘instrumental, procedural and simplifying’ (Tarozzi, 2005) which was also endorsed and enhanced by neo-­liberalism. The post-­modern turn which, as we have seen, produced new excesses and distortions in overemphasizing cultures and communities is certainly the cultural and social milieu within which it took shape within its social, political and educational approaches to deal with diversity. In this theoretical context, Europe has developed various responses to the increasing presence of diversity in schools, mostly stimulated by the growing number of immigrant pupils. Over the years, it has also combined these responses with its approach to education for European integration and education for historically ethnic minority groups. Although it is almost impossible to paint a uniform portrait of the European approach, given the huge difference between European countries, in this section we will attempt to discuss some of the policy models that have been developed throughout the continent. In this chapter, we first outline the European policy for managing cultural diversity in schools. Although there are some commonalities in school policy among countries in the EU, it is almost impossible to refer to the EU as having a unique approach, vision or politics for the inclusion of cultural minorities and immigrants in schools. Second, current approaches that define school policies and practices will be outlined. In particular, assimilation, multiculturalism and differential exclusion, as well as other policy models with a minor impact across Europe, will be briefly addressed as forebears of the intercultural model. We will do so by focusing in particular on specific national situations taken as emblematic examples. We conclude this part by discussing the current situation where intercultural policies and practices seem to be under attack. Finally, we will raise

Interculturalism

51

some critical points and conundrums of the intercultural education approach at praxis, theoretical and political levels.

European Union policy and politics for intercultural education Intercultural education is currently considered by the EU as the official approach to be used in school for the integration of immigrant students and ethnic minority groups. It is a model widely developed in many European documents that create a regulatory framework which shows that the EU institutions and many member states have opted for a clear political direction about the type of reception, integration and management of cultural differences to be taken in schools. It considers cultural difference as an educational resource rather than a problem to be solved and prioritizes the educational development of the cultural identity of students (not only migrant ones). Such a model is intended to overcome old approaches to the management of cultural diversity that were considered ‘no longer adequate’ (European Council, 2008: 9). On the one hand, assimilationist policies requiring migrants to adapt to the cultural model and language of the host country and, on the other, the multiculturalist (or communitarian) policies that merely promoted the recognition of cultural differences without providing full integration between cultures. In both cases, these theoretical approaches encouraged education policies and pedagogical models grounded on a statistical view of the society, focusing on the opposition of ‘majority’ vs ‘minority’. In this view ‘minority’ does not correspond to a numerical weakness, but it refers to indigenous people, the territorial or non-­territorial (e.g. nomadic) minority and to immigrants (UNESCO, 2006). According to the analysis of the Council of Europe (CoE), multiculturalism that aimed to overcome the assimilation approach, frequently shared the same schematic conception of a society based on the opposition of majority and minority, differing only in endorsing separation of the minority from the majority rather than assimilation to it. (European Council, 2008: 19). On the contrary The Opatija Declaration adopted by the European Ministers responsible for cultural affairs in 2003, rejected the idea that cultural diversity could be defined exclusively in terms of ‘majority’ or ‘minority’, ‘for this pattern singles out cultures and communities, and categorizes and stigmatizes them in a static position, to the point at which social behaviour and cultural stereotypes

52

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

are assumed on the basis of groups’ respective status. Identities that partly overlap are no contradiction: they are a source of strength and point to the possibility of common ground’ (European Council, 2008: 19). The intercultural approach poses the question in terms of fostering dialogue between cultures as a priority to establish solid social cohesion in multicultural societies. Over the years this approach has been increasingly developed and widely promoted on the basis of a consistent and coherent set of guidelines, recommendations and norms promoted by various European bodies and many other institutions and supranational organizations at international level, starting from UNESCO. The latter, in 2006 defined intercultural education (enhanced within the UNESCO theme human rights education) as follows: the existence and equitable interaction of diverse cultures and the possibility of generating shared cultural expressions through dialogue and mutual respect. It presupposes multiculturalism within the society and it promoted a dynamic exchange between cultures at local, regional, national and international level. UNESCO, 2006: 17

In this vein, Intercultural education can be defined as an approach rooted in a dynamic conception of cultures, always seen in mutual synergy aimed at improving and facilitating cultural production and relationships, starting by recognizing diversity, and then promoting dialogue and exchange. Its key concept is cultural mediation, seeking to negotiate among cultures viewpoints, assumptions, values, and beliefs (Tarozzi, 1998a, 2004). As intercultural education is, one of the sources of the current EU approach to Global education, the historical and institutional development of this notion should be explored. Europe is a very diverse area. There are 28 member states in the EU with 23 different official language, not to mention the more than 60 regional or minority language communities. Moreover it is characterized by a great variety and complexity of political, cultural and economic situations. Indeed, in different countries, different numbers of immigrants and minority groups, as well as processes of internal migration and the legacy of a colonial past affect the various policies adopted at national level. However, there are many supranational institutions which, even if they do not have a direct impact on education policies (which come from national states or provinces), nevertheless have an important indirect impact on the definition of a common European policy. In the light of the discussion initiated in the late 1970s within UNESCO on the need for an education that manages cultural diversity, the CoE has long

Interculturalism

53

dealt with issues relating to multiculturalism and to the education of migrant workers’ children and then, from the twenty-­first century, with intercultural dialogue. In 2003, 48 ministers of European countries, part of the CoE, adopted a joint declaration on ‘Intercultural education in the new European context’. In this document, they recognized intercultural education as the most suitable approach to addressing diversity across European democratic societies. They concluded by signing a joint resolution: ‘to make the necessary arrangements to take intercultural education into account as an important component of our education policies; this entails appropriate measures at the level of curricula, school governance and teacher training’ (Council of Europe, 2003: 6). Then, in a document published in 2008 and entitled ‘European year of intercultural dialogue’, the CoE Foreign Affairs Ministries issued the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue, ‘Living together as equals in dignity’. This document suggested political strategies for promoting intercultural dialogue for assigning education systems a key role in the promotion and dissemination of this approach (European Council, 2008). The document produced important debates across Europe, including among academics (Besley, Peters, and Xaioping, 2011). One of the reasons for debate was that it addressed the question of the educational performance of immigrant students in European schools, particularly because PISA data showed that immigrants’ performance is low on average compared to their autochthonous peers. The authors of the White Paper consider intercultural education to be a positive policy response and an important way of entering into a tolerant and respectful dialogue with people from different cultural backgrounds. The approach taken by the European Commission has a long history, starting with the directive of the European Council back in 1977 (Council Directive 77/486/EEC), a milestone legislative measure for European integration. For the first time, the Commission addressed the right of children of migrant workers’ to an education, and included provisions for education adapted to their special needs, as well as money for tuition devoted to instruction in their mother tongues and addressing their culture of origin (Eurydice, 2004). Over the past decade, intercultural education has been widely promoted across Europe, not only as a tool for integration of immigrant children but also as a more comprehensive educational approach to promote European integration. Some scholars have noted that ‘a second generation of intercultural education’ has developed since the 1990s (Allemann-Ghionda, 2009). During the same period, intercultural education has also been strongly promoted in order to introduce new generations to the idea of European integration. Interculturalism

54

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

is considered a meaningful tool for addressing a diverse Europe, considering diversity related to the historical relationship between majorities and minorities across the continent (Catarci and Fiorucci, 2015; Barn, 2012; Gundara and Jacobs, 2000; Silj, 2010). In addition to the European Commission, which is the executive organ of the EU, many supranational institutions and organizations, as well as scholarly associations, contributed to the promotion, development and dissemination of an intercultural education approach.2 In the past three decades, the CoE3 has played a major role among them in defining school policies and practices for the integration of immigrant children. Since the mid-1980s, the CoE has promoted numerous intercultural projects in education, including teacher training, educational research, a comparison of educational policies across Europe, and many projects addressed to school students. Its actions in promoting intercultural education in Europe were presented in the above-­mentioned declaration entitled ‘Intercultural Education: Managing diversity, strengthening democracy’ in 2003, and are as follows: l

l

l

l

l

the implementation, in the framework of Recommendation 15 (2001) of the Committee of Ministers on ‘Teaching History in the 21st Century’ of the ‘Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust and for the Prevention of Crimes against Humanity’ and the new project on the ‘European Dimension in History Teaching’, devoted to key dates in the history of the European continent; the success achieved by the European Year of Languages and the henceforth annual ‘European Day of Languages’, which each year celebrates linguistic diversity and strengthens intercultural education; the launching of the project, ‘the new intercultural challenge to education: religious diversity and dialogue in Europe’, which will make a major contribution to the shared goals of mutual understanding, respect and learning to live together; the implementation, in the framework of Recommendation R 4 (2000) of the Committee of Ministers of the project on ‘Education for Roma/Gypsy Children’, a project that highlights the principles of intercultural education; the programme on the strategies and initiatives aimed at learning democracy, pursued in conjunction with higher education institutions, and concerned with the Bologna Process, the Lisbon Convention (drawn up jointly with UNESCO), participatory governance, quality assurance and public accountability, under a life-­long learning approach;

Interculturalism l

55

the project on ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights’, a project which should be extended during the ‘Year of Citizenship through Education’ in 2005 and beyond, through the implementation of Recommendation 12 (2002) and the development of the concept of learning democracy.

Promoting intercultural dialogue within European democratic institutions has become a top priority in the CoE agenda.4 To this end, education is considered an essential field in which it is possible to practise this political goal. Therefore, addressing diversity is considered the very centre of the intercultural question in European education, not only regarding the inclusion of migrant children but also as a way of dealing with historical cultural discrimination against cultural minorities. For this reason, the CoE has massively contributed to the definition and development of education policies inspired first by multiculturalism (1970s and 1980s), and then by interculturalism (from the 1990s until the present). It can be said that to some extent the CoE has constructed the official European discourse regarding these issues (INRP, 2007). While multiculturalism in Europe never became an official policy, its discourse, in the 1970s and partly in the 1980s, certainly influenced some national policies, particularly in Northern countries and in the UK. However, as we will see in the following chapters, European multiculturalism, and above all multicultural education, is slightly different from the North American version. In the UK, multicultural education has been promoted mainly by traditional liberals (Jeffcoate, 1984) against radical anti-­ racist positions (Grinter, 1992; Stone, 1981; Troyna, 1992). In fact, unlike the USA where multiculturalism has been criticized mainly by conservatives, in the UK it was condemned from the Left, which considered it to be an overly conservative approach (Kirp, 1979). European multicultural education is considered too focused on individuals’ cultural identities, not taking into account the social dimension of discrimination, and ignoring racism (Mullard, 1984). In the next section we will provide further evidence of the shift from multicultural to intercultural education policies. Over the years, the CoE and the EU have been attempting to define a common way to deal with cultural diversity in schools throughout Europe. According to the Eurydice report, the documentation centre of the European Commission, ‘a focus on cultural diversity through intercultural education is present in the educational policies of most member states of the EU’ (Eurydice, 2004: 140). The report also states that only Iceland and Bulgaria do not mention intercultural education in their education laws and guidelines.

56

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Immigration in the European Union While there are many facets of cultural diversity in Europe, immigration is nowadays unquestionably the key challenge as well as the most discussed feature of cultural diversity across the continent, and that which has prompted more than any other the implementation of intercultural policies and practices. Cultural diversity has been informed by the multifaceted nature of migration, with refugees and asylum seekers, traditional minorities (like Roma, or religious/linguistic minorities), new immigrants (foreign born) and second-­generation immigrants (both parents foreign born). Yet among these, recent immigration (first and second generation) is a central concern that often tends to overwhelm or absorb the others. According to Eurostat data in May 2015 (Eurostat, 2015), there were 3.4 million immigrants in the EU-28 in 2013, but Eurostat estimates that only 1.7 million came from non-­member countries. Many of them, 36 per cent, are European citizens. Moreover, 33.5 million non-­national people are living in EU countries, but only 19.6 million have a non-EU citizenship (3.9 per cent of the EU-28 population). Five states (Germany, UK, Italy, Spain and France) have 76 per cent of the total number of non-­nationals in the EU-28 (and yet they have only 63 per cent of the EU’s population). Yet in current Europe, even the term ‘immigrant’ is generic and inaccurate – not to mention the fact that immigration is, statistically, a very difficult phenomenon to measure. Therefore, now more than ever, there is a need to define the types of individuals of foreign origin, until now mostly named in official documents in negative terms, such as ‘non-­nationals’ or more generally in derogatory terms as ‘immigrants’. Both terms are inaccurate and limited or no longer represent the range of cultural differences in European society. The different labels have different limitations and have different impacts on society and local communities, so it is important to define precisely most of the terms used to describe specific groups. Not to mention that behind vague definitions there could be a general and all-­ encompassing spread of prejudiced or even racist views. For instance, with ‘immigrants’ we refer to the following three different types from which we can deduce the definition that Eurostat uses to define ‘Migrants in Europe’ (Eurostat, 2011):

1. Immigrants in the strict sense: people born abroad, that at some point in their lives have migrated to the country of current residence, regardless of

Interculturalism

57

their citizenship. A particular subgroup of people born abroad can be identified in individuals born outside of the 28 states of the EU. 2. Foreigners: those who are not nationals of the country where they live, whether they are born in that country or elsewhere. They are sometimes referred to as non-­nationals. A particular subgroup of foreigners consists of people who are not citizens of another EU member state (also called third-­country nationals). 3. Second generation: refers to two distinct groups: (a) those with mixed backgrounds: people who were born in the state in which they reside (native-­born) and who have a parent born abroad (foreign-­born) and one born in the country in which they reside; and (b) those with a foreign background: people who were born in the state in which they reside with both parents born abroad. The distinction between these types is critical when dealing with cultural difference in educational settings because it is observed that type (1), immigrants, is becoming less relevant in terms of numbers and in terms of impact on European school systems. Type (2), foreigners and in particular non-EU third-­ country nationals, is a category that is very demanding for public and education policies, especially in terms of coexistence among individuals residing in the same territory but with different cultural backgrounds. Type (3), even if we disagree with the name ‘second-­generation’, further amplifies the questions posed by foreigners and requires an urgent rethinking of overall citizenship regulations. This category includes people who despite being considered foreign in the EU are almost always much more related to the culture, language and traditions of the host country, where they were born and raised, compared to those of the country of origin of one or both parents. To make the situation even more complex, we should add to the previous categorization, other types of cultural diversities that are very relevant for EU education polices: l

l

l

Unaccompanied minors: young immigrants from their country by themselves and taken into care by social services in the territory. Children of international adoptions: children who arrived in Europe for international adoption who have the right to gain the citizenship of the adoptive parents. Sinti and Roma: people with Sinti or Roma ethnicity and language; they often have citizenship of one European state, but are part of a group linguistically and culturally different from the autochthonous.

58 l

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Refugees and asylum-­seekers: people who cannot be counted within the number of immigrants since their legal status is regulated by international laws that bestow upon them different rights from those of economic migrants.

Finally it should be said that following the 2008 economic crisis and rising unemployment rates, immigration from non-­member countries in many European countries – beyond media exaggerations – is declining, while outflows both of foreigners returning to their country of origin or Europeans who emigrate are increasing. The case of Italy is emblematic. According to the 2014 Immigration Report, issued by the ONG Caritas-Migrantes, migration to Italy continues but has not increased. Increasing internal migration for family reunions and new births is almost cancelled out by returnees to home countries, or by departures to other European or world destinations. According to the Italian Minister of Education, more than half of the non-Italians in school were born in Italy. In school year 2013/14 we saw the first overtaking: foreign students account for 9 per cent of students in total, but those of them born in Italy amount to 51.7 per cent of the non-Italian students (ISMU-MIUR, 2015). Therefore, paradoxically, with different rules of naturalization (e.g. the USA ius soli), foreigners would amount to half of what we count today. The question of so-­called ‘second generation’ immigrants is now a very current and prominent issue in Europe that has to do with the population that Davide Zoletto (2012) aptly called ‘post-­migrants’. It is no longer possible to refer to non-­national students by referring to them generically as ‘migrants’, as most of them are born in the country of residence and grew up there, often without speaking the language of their parents and having very rarely visited the country of which they are legally citizens. Moreover, the notion of ‘second generation’, as noted by the Algerian sociologist Abdelmadek Sayad is particularly ambiguous and misleading (Sayad, 2002, quoted in Zoletto, 2012), since it creates a gap between the culture or better daily life and lived experiences of a first generation (parents) and the daily lives of the country where the children live, ending up in generating a double exclusion rather than a plurality of membership.

Models of inclusion and school policies Despite the attempt of the CoE (2003) to define a common policy and shared practices, each European country has developed its own approach, as evidenced

Interculturalism

59

by school policies (Catarci and Fiorucci, 2015). Thus, there is a significant gap between the EU institutional approach and national policies. This gap is evident in the policy application of non-­binding recommendations coming from the EU level and even more in school practices; but it is less evident in the theoretical definition of the approach. In sum, across Europe there are different migration flows, different historical relationships with resident minorities, different colonial pasts and several political cultures – all of which encourage different measures to deal with migrant pupils and ethnic minority groups. We will focus briefly on some alternative models that can be found in the practices of certain European countries, but they are all present at the same time at various levels. We define an ‘educational model’ as a systematic frame of reference that is politically constructed, and which is able conceptually to organize goals and methods on the basis of explicit political and cultural assumptions. These models are neither fixed nor stable, and to some extent also historically subsequent, towards a progressive discovery and/or revaluation of the diversity question. However, this development should not be considered deterministic because the historical direction of these models does not show a linear evolution. In fact, while other scholars tend to represent them in a temporal series/ succession (DES, 1985; Massey, 1991; Figueroa, 1995; Race, 2015), we prefer to present them as different theoretical models, since they are all co-­existent, at least as tacit pedagogies and general approaches prevailing in certain areas. We do not believe that the history of multi/intercultural education proceeded by progressive linear jumps with one model supplanting the other. Marx’s dictum that no social formation dies before the new social formation emerges and that they all overlap at some point and co-­exist together for some time should be remembered to explain the overlapping of several models of multicultural and intercultural education in contemporary Europe. We will take as an example policies prevailing in various countries, not because they are unique, but because they offer a repertoire of concrete examples of different policies and practices, that can be conceived as a sort of ideal­types to understand European policies. While we are aware of the risk of oversimplification, however, these conceptual instruments are useful in understanding that intercultural education in the EU was not the only possible response to managing cultural diversity in schools, but it is only one approach among many others. While it is clear that addressing policies dealing with diversity is complicated, it is also clear that various European states have often changed their policies and

60

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

their educational models over the years. Although their models have changed considerably over the years, it is possible to argue that their specific national traditions for immigrant inclusion are related to their history, their colonial past, their political culture, their immigration situation and the presence of ethnic minority groups within their borders.

Laissez faire or indifference Indifference was perhaps the initial response to the enrolment of migrant pupils in some schools in certain cities. This initial lack of response is still felt today, and possibly even more markedly than before, when the initial enthusiasm for the exotic novelty represented by the newcomers has long since passed. In some countries like Italy, indifference was a general lack of concern, evidenced by the crisis of undervalued schools and a patent disregard for the teachers’ role and training, and whose professional standing has been eroded year after year. This indifference is noticeable because of disengagement and the lack of motivation and commitment. Worse still, within this indifference the presence of foreign-­ born children in schools is seen as slowing down the learning of all students, and as a tiresome obstacle to the fulfillment of the curriculum. But there is another face of indifference, mostly diffused in the UK, and this is the conscious choice of neutrality. This kind of indifference is the laissez-­faire of a conservative liberalism, masquerading as non-­intervention, ethical (and racial) neutrality, and the de-­emphasis of differences as a way to protect equality. According to this perspective, highlighting ethnic or cultural differences would be a political mistake because it would stress differences that could in turn create inequality, segregation, and exclusion. This standpoint, which we may term racial inexplicitness, was considered the positive way to prevent immigrants from feeling excluded or discriminated against. In the UK, as well as in the USA, this has been called colour-­blind education. But it has also been called ‘ignorance and neglect’ (Lynch, 1986), which is consistent with the neo-­enlightenment position of ‘benign neglect’ (Kymlicka, 1995). This policy elicits a lack of intervention and a policy of ‘baby steps’ to deal with difference and discrimination. Colour-­blindness determines, in the best case scenario, an attitude of paternalistic benevolence. It must be said that in countries with a strong welfare state and a strong tradition of integration and socialization in school, traditionally active, engaged and therefore more inclined to intervention than Italy, France or some Nordic Countries, this phase of indifference has been very marginal, and never became the central policy component.

Interculturalism

61

Assimilation Until the mid-1990s (though in many areas it is still predominant), the prevailing reaction to foreign-­born students was an assimilationist approach. For Stephen Castles, assimilation ‘means encouraging immigrants to learn the national language and to take on the social and cultural practices of the receiving community’ (Castles, 2004). While in most countries assimilation was not an official national policy, it was indeed a practical approach and, in countries such as Italy, it was originally naïvely rooted in what many considered a noble cultural and pedagogical tradition, paying attention to the emancipative dimension of schooling, providing equal educational opportunity for all and, in particular, for the marginalized, excluded and disadvantaged. This approach was promoted and defended by militant teachers and political activists in the 1970s, aimed at closing the socio-­cultural gaps, integrating disabled students, creating active participation of the community within schools, reinvigorating curricula with new knowledge, developing more active teaching methods, and placing the children of migrant workers coming from the south of Italy in schools in industrialized northern cities. Within the new multicultural social context, this approach pointed to the important social questions of immigrants’ inclusion in schools, and emphasizing equity and equal opportunity as important aspects of school success for all. Soon advocates of this social pedagogy realized that in this case promoting (social) equality led to cancelling (cultural and linguistic) diversity. This meant creating special programmes for the new excluded, the migrants’ children who had little or no knowledge of the host country’s language. However, the special attention paid to language acquisition became a sort of ‘compensatory education’, which did not recognize the value of students’ culture of origin and ended up emphasizing their difference as a deficit to be filled, and an obstacle to integration. Integration in this sense is intended, like assimilation, to bring youth into a predominant culture and language. Here, to integrate means to obliterate and to forget one’s own culture and language in order to absorb the new one as soon as possible (for a careful analysis of the implications of the notion of ‘integration’, see Wieviorka, 2014). In addition, the host culture was uncritically viewed as homogeneous and isolated. In most EU countries there is no mention of assimilation within education law, but it is implicitly encouraged by obsessively pushing teachers to teach the host country language as the main if not the sole way to integrate children from migrant backgrounds.

62

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Even in the UK, where assimilation was a national policy in the 1960s, the social expectation of the school system was to guarantee a quick and efficacious enculturation into British heritage. Enculturation in the host ‘British’ culture at school was meant to close the linguistic gap as soon as possible. Many assimilationist scholars claimed that a poor mastery of the English language would limit students’ learning skills. In fact, other signs of assimilation practices and policies are things like the high number of special education teachers working with immigrant students, the high percentage of immigrants and minority groups in special classes, and the number of foreign-­born pupils involved in special programmes for at-­risk students. It is ethnocentric to consider foreigners’ culture as a deflection from the norm and the use of the mother tongue as limiting learning skills, which could delay the learning of a second language. Assimilation is a form of enculturation that requires newcomers to abandon or suppress their culture of origin and to absorb that of the host country. This approach is commonly called ‘assimilationist’ when it becomes an ideology of reference for education policies or is developed as a theoretical model. This biased view entails the assumption that the culture of the host county is more desirable for the development of all, and so it is superior to the others. This arrogant as well as deeply unjust assumption rests on the belief that a common, homogeneous and coherent ‘British’, ‘French’, ‘Spanish’ or ‘Italian’ culture is even possible. EU assimilation is rooted in different historical traditions. In the UK this model, which is also an attitude and a pedagogy, is rooted in centuries of colonial tradition which established the myth of the superiority of the English culture on conquered ‘natives’. In France it is linked more to the post-Napoleonic republican model. In all cases, the assimilation, including the recently re-­ emerging, is linked to an ethnocentric vision that in Europe takes the shape and the denomination of eurocentrism. Within the Italian context, assimilation was often proposed with good intentions to emancipate newcomers, and it presupposes a principle of rectification justice, which is good from a social perspective of equity. The problem is that this very rectification justice also imposes a model of cultural normality to which everyone should conform. This is like saying: all human being are equal, they are entitled to the same rights, insofar as they are similar to me. The assimilationists’ emancipatory programme was destined to fail. The high proportion of immigrants in special classes, the abuse of special needs teachers, and the separate ‘welcome classroom’ not only prevented peer socialization, but

Interculturalism

63

also created a situation where underachievement was the norm for migrant pupils. The results were increasing disparities between the pass rates of native and non-­native scholars, huge drop-­out rates, and lowered expectations for high school and university matriculation of immigrants. An emblematic case of assimilation polices is France (Castles, 2004; Barou, 2014). In France, beginning with the post-Napoleon epoch, and in particular from the Third Republique onward (after 1870), society has assigned to schools the mandate to build shared feelings of national cohesion and to build a civic national identity (Lemaire, 2009). Moreover, the tradition of secularism (laïcité), which is typical of school and other French state institutions, contributed to the reinforcement of a republican model based on French values and beliefs. Within this model, there is little or no space for ethnic or religious identity and cultural belonging which roots one’s membership to a community (Perotti, 2003; INRP, 2007). Another historical antecedent for this approach was the French politics of colonization aimed at assimilating the colonized people. Consider, for instance, the experience in Algeria, which as a laboratory of assimilation policies was a dramatic failure. It soon becomes clear that the key word of the policies towards immigrants in French schools is integration. In this perspective, inclusion is based on individual equality, not on recognition of cultural diversity (Castles, 2004). One example is illustrative. After the 2005 riots in the suburbs of Paris, a new Ministry was established – eloquently titled the Ministry of Immigration, Integration and National Identity (now disbanded). For the then French government, to integrate meant to allow newcomers to be part of the host society by accepting and sharing its values and culture. So the cost of their integration as citizens is their complete acceptance of a new culture, language, values and beliefs. State schooling plays a crucial role in promoting integration because it has the mandate to create citizens who share a common system of values and beliefs. Thus, the French language plays a major role as a tool for integration and it is considered an absolute priority within the school system. Beyond the good intentions implicit in the idea of integration, this approach is often based on two tacit assumptions: on the one hand, cultural difference is seen as a deficit, something that should be overcome in order to access integration processes. Therefore, it proposes a ‘compensatory’ approach, based mostly on learning the language of the host country as a means of accessing the national culture, which is deemed a universal system, unique and indivisible. On the other hand, culture, in particular the dominant culture, is seen as a universal. There is, here, an ethnocentric presupposition, according to which republican

64

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

culture is the expression of a universal rationality and of ethical values rooted in human rights. Hence, it follows that the school aims at allowing individuals to access this rationality and these universal values, liberating them from the ties of belonging to groups (INRP, 2007). So assimilation is a form of integration – but only social integration, concerning individuals, not groups or communities. For example, in France the successful measure of ZEP (Zones d’Education Prioritaires [Priority Education Zones]) (INRP, 2007: 51; Pretceille, 2015) for fighting inequality at territorial level is very similar to the interventions elaborated upon in the USA for urban schools or urban areas. But they also have differences, because in France these measures have primarily social purposes. They do not take into account the rights and needs of specific culturally disadvantaged groups, and address only the integration of individuals, with the risk of creating a ‘process of ghettoization’ (Mucchielli, 2006: 24–7). It must be observed that the French debate has recently grown harsher, and that over the past 30 years their education policies have not been consistently uniform (Perotti, 2003). The traditional republican model, universalist and assimilationist, has been passionately criticized and in some sense overcome since the 1970s, when the intercultural approach was conceptualized and practised by scholars like Martine Abdallah-Pretceille (1986, 1999). Then, towards the end of the 1980s, and mostly from 1993 onwards when conservative governments came to power, the intercultural approach – as a name – disappeared from the official documents of the Ministry of Education. Instead, the policies returned to republican values of national homogeneity and to the principle of the centrality of the French language.

Differential exclusion or separation The assimilation and separation (or differential exclusion) models are two different facets of the same homologous approach, which does not recognize any value in ‘difference’ nor assign any importance to collective identities and cultural belonging. Differential exclusion is a way of controlling difference by promoting measures aimed at ‘partial and temporary integration of immigrant workers into society’ (Castles, 2004: 32). Federal Germany in the 1970s and 1980s is an emblematic example which illustrates the effects of such an approach in education. In the 1970s, Germany introduced an approach used to deal with the education of immigrant workers’ children: ‘instruction for foreigners’

Interculturalism

65

(Ausländerpädagogik) (Portera, 2008; Czock, 1993; Schweitzer, 1994). This discipline became part of teacher education programmes across Germany. The number of pupils of immigrant origin in school progressively increased as the main goal of this approach was to set up specific intervention strategies exclusively for foreign students. This approach required the establishment of ‘separate’ paths for them, which were different from those of native German youth. The reason behind this was that foreign workers were supposed to be in Germany only temporarily and that their perspective would be to return to their original countries as soon as possible. So maintaining their native languages in German schools was considered to be preparation for their return to schools in their countries of origin. Requiring immigrant students to work hard to be part of the normal school pathway was considered useless, and imposing on schools students with little or no literacy in the German language was considered a waste of time and money. Separate schools or separate classes provided classes for immigrant students to learn basic notions required for their temporary life in Germany. Consequently, the core curriculum focused on improving German as a second language. Soon, however, the model garnered heavy criticism showing its practical and political limits. Those who were supposed to be temporary migrants in fact settled in Germany, as usually happens in the migratory process, and therefore their educational needs radically changed. Moreover, and most importantly, the ethnocentric and discriminatory assumptions supporting this educational model were publicly denounced (Luchtenberg, 2009; Czock, 1993; Radtke, 2006). At the core of these separate classes’ curriculum was teaching German as a second language. Teachers were trained to think of the children’s culture of origin as fixed, uniform and typically stereotyped. Migrant education programmes aimed to foster re-­emigration, and linking students to their culture of origin was seen only as a form of preparation for their return. Likewise, the curriculum left little room for any contact, exchange, or socialization with German peer groups. Strong internal criticisms and the pressure of international institutions, like the above-mentioned CoE, demanded a radical change in the German model of separate classes. As a consequence, the theoretical model of education of foreigners was modified by the end of the 1990s, with the introduction of mixed classes and the adoption of an intercultural paradigm. Nevertheless, some traces of original perspectives still persist even in today’s intercultural context. According to the Eurydice study, which compared the patterns of integration among EU member states, Germany is the only one

66

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

(together with Romania which has a very large migrant population) to adopt a separate pattern which provides both transitional measures (where immigrant children are grouped together in schools separately from other children for a limited period of time) and long-­term measures (where special classes are formed within the school for one or several school years) (Eurydice, 2004: 41).

Multicultural education Diverse types of multicultural education policies, different from those presented in the previous chapter, have been introduced in various patterns and at different times in many European countries including Sweden (Sabine and Annika, 2014), The Netherlands (Entzinger, 2014) and above all the UK (Rice, 2015 Castles, 2004). The UK has a much longer tradition of immigration than other EU countries and also centuries of colonial history which has strongly influenced the presence of ethnic minority groups in Britain. Some scholars noted that the constitution and the dissolution of the British Empire were the key factors determining the nature of immigration into the country both quantitatively and qualitatively (Mangan, 1993). After the intermediate ‘integration’ phase – when towards the end of the 1960s teachers and scholars recognized the significance of using elements of various cultures within schools, but no systematic alternative was provided – in the following decade the multicultural model emerged. It must be said that it never became a comprehensive national policy or curricular reform adequate for this multicultural society. Nevertheless, in the late 1970s and mid1980s multiculturalism was pedagogically and politically developed, until the publication of The Swann Report in 1985. This government-­commissioned report, called Education for All, represented the summit of multicultural thinking and practice in the UK (Department of Education and Science, 1985). The Swann Report is an official document of more than 800 pages representing a watershed in the debate on educational issues relating to the integration of ethnic minorities. This report, when published, was considered by most as a decisive step towards the creation of a stable, multicultural education system, even though some scholars raised some criticism by stressing the fact that this document, beyond statements of principle, did not impact the real situation and failed to promote effective change in schools (Verma, 1989). It is a compromise(d) document, drafted by a commission appointed by a Labour government in 1979 and then released six years later under a Conservative

Interculturalism

67

government. Actually, the huge expectations it had raised for a radical change in British education policy have been largely disregarded. The following conservative and neo-­liberal governments have largely ignored not only the abstract principles but also the actual guidelines in the text, because of their inner ambiguities and contradictions. For example, one can find a statement of principle about the richness of the minority cultures in a multicultural school, but also a resolute statement of the centrality of the English language in the whole education system. The Swann Report, therefore, has disappointed those who expected the first official recognition, either full or partial, of native languages in British schools. Nevertheless, Education for All was undoubtedly an important normative instrument to legitimize, for a time, multicultural grassroots projects (from Local Education Authorities and from single teachers) and to justify the funding of multiculturalist projects.

Anti-­racist education The only case in Europe of serious scholarly opposition from the Left to the intercultural model can be observed in the UK, where an anti-­racist education approach was originally developed in the early 1970s (but according to other scholars even before), and it prevailed into the late 1980s as a harsh critique of the model of multicultural education spreading in Britain. Anti-­racist scholars were mostly isolated voices, which have had little or no impact in the scholarly and political debate in Europe, but who promote an interesting perspective that is worth recalling, because it echoes the debate on North American species introduced in the previous chapter. Originally, and especially in the North American context, the two theoretical and political roots of multiculturalism are recognition of cultural diversity and the social equality of members of minorities (Castles, 2004: 37). In UK multiculturalism, as mentioned above, as in continental Europe, the second root has been largely under-­evaluated. It was in the UK that anti-­racist scholars outlined the need to overcome the simple understanding of the ‘other’ advocated by multicultural education, in order to establish justice and equity in society. Their argument is that the goal of understanding difference, a cornerstone of multiculturalism, is out of touch with reality, thus implicitly endorsing racism by ignoring discriminatory social contexts, practices and unequal distribution of power. Anti-­racist advocates start from a strongly ideological vision of society overlapping class struggle with the recognition of minority rights, henceforth

68

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

posing the question of racism as an ideology for the oppression of ethnic minorities at the very centre of their analysis of society. Class, like gender, is very a important social category for anti-­racist scholars (Fraser, 1997; Okin, 1999). Many scholars have pointed out that the intercultural approach, similarly to the assimilationist one, has dealt with minority populations in ‘de-­racialized’ terms, and so fails to see that racism and prejudices are not simply the result of ignorance or misunderstanding (Stone, 1981; Grinter, 1992; Troyna, 1992, 1993). The anti-­racist approach in education put racism at the very centre of the political analysis of schooling. It seeks to acquire awareness of discrimination against immigrant and ethnic minority groups, especially Blacks (Mullard, 1984; Brandt, 1986). Then, in the 1980s, anti-­racism became engulfed in a fight for defining public policies in education. Anti-­racist education is aimed at promoting educational activities to deepen awareness, so that one can identify implicit and explicit racist practices, carried out both at personal and institutional levels, and subsequently dismantle them. Beyond the intrinsic value of this approach, which recently re-­emerged both in Europe (Gillborn, 2008) and in the USA as Critical Race Theory (Taylor, Gillborn, and Ladson-Billings, 2009), it has contributed to encouraging people to discuss the validity of (European) multiculturalism, and showing some of its weaknesses. The multicultural approach as developed in the UK may be the expression of a liberal reformist understanding (Gillborn, 1990) because, ultimately, it does not take racism or social inequality into account. Moreover, by focusing on understanding and accepting difference, it risks endorsing racism as a practice of systematic and institutional domination. It leaves intact all the discriminatory aspects and hierarchies that society imposes in the relationship among cultures and ethnic groups. That is why advocates of anti-­racist education regard multicultural education essentially as a racist practice (Mullard, 1984; Troyna, 1993; Gillborn, 1990, 2004, 2008; Rezai-Rashti, 1995). As the British scholar Godfrey Brandt wrote: Multiculturalism is seen as the ‘spoonful of sugar’ which makes the medicine go down. (. . .) multicultural education can be seen as the Trojan horse of institutional racism. Within it resides an attempt to renew the structure and processes of racism in education . . . Multiculturalism is a racial form of education constructed by the oppressor to maintain the status quo of dominant and dominated, of oppressor and oppressed. An anti-­racist critique would indeed

Interculturalism

69

cast multiculturalism as a Trojan horse created as a proverbial peace offering but containing within it the backlash of a restructured racism. Brandt, 1986: 117–18

One cannot but think how this situation could be compared with culinary multiculturalism in the USA (to recognize the diversity of cultures by recognizing how a connoisseur could take advantage of cultures at the table) or the symbolism that covers up more than it reveals, such as the fiestas of Cinco de Mayo to honour the Latino/a cultures in the USA, or Black Month as a way of redressing inequalities built, nothing more and nothing less, through the implementation of slavery as a part of an [oppressive] model of capital accumulation. Similar comments have been discussed in several feminist traditions about the power of patriarchy linked to colonialism (Arnot, 2002). For this neo-­liberal multiculturalism, diversity is superficial and exotic: The so called ‘minorities’ will, argues Freire, ‘need to recognize that, deep down, they are the majority. The path to assume themselves as the majority lies in working with the mutual similarities and not the differences only, and in this way creating unity within diversity . . .’ Freire; 1992: 154; italics in the original

Freire is cognizant of the fact that terms like ‘minority’ or ‘majority’ population are always relative to time and space, and subject to strong historical transformations. As concepts there are sliding signifiers. There is no question that a person of Chinese ancestry, say a Chinese-American in San Francisco, is part of a minority population in the city. However, any person of Chinese origin is clearly part of a majority of individuals in the world system. Likewise, recent demographic data all over the USA show that so-called ‘minorities’ have already surpassed the traditional ‘white’ populations, showing a significant turnaround in the demographic structures of the educational system vis-à-­vis minority/ majority relationships.5 Therefore, given the racial make-­up of societies, and the history of antagonism between ethnic groups, knowledge or mutual understanding are not enough to eradicate racism. Institutional or structural racism is an ideology and an organizing principle of the social and political structure implemented as a form of domination and oppression within a given society as Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1963) carefully theorizes and documents in 1961. Moreover, the history of race relations, class relations and gender relations in a given social formation are the fulcrum of the models of domination, exploitation

70

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

and oppression implemented today. The history of oppression goes back a long way in human history (Hobsbawn, 2005).

Intercultural education Everywhere across Europe, the passage to the intercultural/multicultural phase assumed the characteristics of a paradigmatic revolution. We have already extensively described this approach, by showing its origin and development at European level (Portera, 2008; Allemann-Ghionda, 2009; Catarci and Fiorucci, 2015). Nowadays it is officially adopted within the EU as a way to overcome both assimilation and multiculturalism, which only recognized cultural diversities without aiming at social integration. We will come back extensively on the differences between the two approaches, but here we want to emphasize that Europe has proposed the intercultural approach as a new model of the management of diversity (Barn, 2012). Beyond the supra-­national level that, as mentioned, has a non-­binding impact on national education policies, many European countries have, from the very beginning, adopted the intercultural education approach – in particular those traditionally emigration countries which provided systematic responses for educating students of migrant background later than other countries. Therefore they could profit from the experience of other countries and from the educational proposal of the CoE. This is the case with Spain (Pozo Llorente, Vallespir Soler and Cabrera Perez, 2015; Aguado Odina, 2009), Greece (Markou and Parthenis, 2015), France (where intercultural education has been pioneered by Porcher, 1979, and Abdallah-Pretceille. 1986; Lemaire, 2009; Barou, 2014) and most of all Italy (Fiorucci, 2015; Allievi, 2014). Recently, the term ‘intercultural education’ has also become established, thanks to the work of Jagdish Gundara (Gundara and Jacobs, 2000) who suggests that ‘multicultural’ is better used as a descriptive term, while ‘intercultural’ is more appropriate for discussing programmes, policies and practices (Gundara, 2003: 5, cited in Catarci, 2015) – even if, outside Europe, interculturalism is not seen as an update of multiculturalism but complementary to it (Meer and Modood, 2011). The Italian case is particularly meaningful. The ‘intercultural’ turn was implemented in Italy later than in the rest of Europe. Hence, Italy was spared painful middle periods and great social conflict. The institutional intercultural turn was facilitated by the prior experiences of other countries and by the outcomes produced by the EU Commission and the CoE, even in the early 1990s.

Interculturalism

71

The Italian version of interculturalism is an ‘institutional’ turn established as a top-­down policy because, as demonstrated earlier as a main normative device both at the state and regional levels, it was clearly designed as an intercultural model to include foreigners and immigrants in schools. In Italy, political choices were legislatively neat and unequivocal: Italian schools choose to adopt the intercultural perspective – that is to say the promotion of dialogue and of confrontation between culture – for every student and at every school level: teaching, pedagogy, subject matters, relationships, classroom life. To choose the intercultural standpoint means, therefore, not to be limited to mere strategies for immigrant pupils’ integration, nor to compensatory special measures. It means, on the contrary, to assume diversity within pluralism as a paradigm of the school identity itself, and as an occasion to open up the entire system to all the differences (origin, gender, social level, school history). MPI, 2007: 8–9

The definite intercultural option in schools was confirmed not only by school law, but also in widespread school culture, as in teachers’ choice of in-­service and pre-­service training, and in the massive production of textbooks, handbooks and teaching guides. Whether one likes it or not, the adjective ‘intercultural’ has become a synonym for everything that has to do with foreigners in schools by subsuming various questions, themes and approaches that would be well worth treating separately. There is always a tension between rhetoric and reality and not only within classrooms. This is particularly evident in the case of intercultural education in Italy where national policies regarding the integration of foreign-­born students, and the public discourse about their integration, do not seem to have consistently changed over the past 30 years. The history of legislation shows us that since the early 1990s, after a brief assimilationist interlude, the intercultural education model was established. It is still in effect, having been formally confirmed (or at least not explicitly denied) by every single government, both conservative and progressive, over the past quarter of a century. Arguably, the answer to this apparent paradox may lie in the fact that this intercultural model, despite being clearly defined and consensually accepted, has not been (fully) put into operation in schools. In other words, the large national consensus around the intercultural education approach, both as a public policy and a school practice, is weak. Its weakness is revealed in light of the contradictory gap between the official policies and guidelines adopted by national governments, and what really happens within schools and classrooms. Intercultural education

72

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

has not emerged as clearly understood and widely adopted by every school. As with many other European countries, Italian school policy on intercultural education has not resulted in real instruments or tools being put into practice; nor have they received sufficient funding. Moreover, the model does not seem to be shared and coherently implemented in daily school life. Intercultural choice has often been taken as uncritical adhesion to a theoretical model, or as a cultural fashion, without the necessary reflection required to overcome the naïvety typical of educational work – naïvety that can often be seen as superficial exoticism. Far from this superficial and uncritical intercultural approach, the one we support starts with a real recognition of difference and diversity. This recognition entails a surrendering or transference of power towards the construction of a relationship between equals, assuming the unavoidable premise of dialogue, contradictions and confrontations. From this perspective, interculturalism is an umbrella term to encompass anti-­racism, school achievement promotion, human rights, active citizenship and peace education paradigms. So once understood, this paradigm represents a meaningful antecedent of GCE. This intercultural education model, if coherent, would demand a radical change which is unlikely to be accepted within state schools. As Raimon Panikkar noted: ‘One cannot deny that the intercultural attitude implies a hazard and the acceptance of the human vulnerability’ (Panikkar, 2002: 87). Intercultural mediation is not the search for compromise or just a way to accommodate harsh contrasts, but is a demanding disposition for placing ourselves in jeopardy in order to meet the other in his or her remoteness (Tarozzi, 1998b, 2004, 2006b). In fact, things have developed much more differently than the theoretical-­ norm framework of intercultural education would suggest. Activities with clear intercultural intentions, such as educating for intercultural communication, promoting the development of a relational intelligence, fostering an intercultural curriculum and subjects, and recognizing and transforming prejudices and stereotypes, have been carried out in a sporadic and occasional way across Europe. These activities have been promoted thanks to the willingness of individual communities or teachers, rather than by structural plans elaborated within a shared pedagogical outlook (Favaro, 2004, Tarozzi, 2006c). Especially in the early years of the intercultural paradigm, several projects, ranging from an undifferentiated evaluation of cultural differences to actions for receiving and including migrants or even teaching national languages, were developed as intercultural education. In doing so, these policies revealed the paternalistic and superficially sympathetic features that have always marked this

Interculturalism

73

approach. These features and attitudes have only been taken towards cultural encounters introduced by recent immigration and not towards other forms of cultural diversity. Broader dimensions, such as intercultural exchange with ethnic and linguistic minorities who are traditional residents of national states, or intercultural education for European integration, have rarely been promoted under the intercultural education umbrella. For these reasons, the intercultural paradigm seems to fail to respond to the contemporary challenge of education in a globalized world. But there are other, more relevant, reasons for calling for a global citizenship approach in education.

Intercultural backlash. A neo-­assimilation? Some criticism of cultural approaches and, above all, the emergence of new fears generated by episodes exaggerated by the media and exploited by populist parties have created a new public feeling of hostility to intercultural approaches. A new discourse, both public as well as scholarly, is spreading across Europe emphasizing, from opposite and contrasting sides, the need to give priority to the social dimension of culture, and to overcome the excesses of culturalism that marked the past two decades. The twenty-first century is marked by the 11 September 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon and the White House, heralding a symbolic beginning of a complicated new era deeply marked by the political economy of neo-­liberalism (Torres, 2009a, 2009b). The consequences of these events have had an important impact not just on the geopolitical equilibrium for what some have denominated a ‘clash of civilizations’ (Huntington, 1996; Barber, 1995). The perception of this civilizational clash between Islam and the West, or what some have called Jihad versus ‘McWorld’ (Barber, 1995), while intellectually baseless and artificially constructed has had a great impact on intercultural education activities in Italian and European schools more generally. In Europe, in particular, these events were followed by other episodes that, throughout Europe and the Western world, have generated a climate which has provoked within mass media and in political discourse new perceptions and feelings of hostility, not only against Muslims but against all immigrants across society. Then, the burst of the financial and housing bubble of 2008 made matters worse. Several episodes shook public opinion, including l

the terrorist bomb attacks on Madrid’s trains (11 March, 2004) three days before Spain’s General Elections;

74 l

l

l

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

the coordinated suicide attacks on London’s underground system (7 July 2005); the assassination first of the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 followed by the Dutch Television director Theo Van Gogh in 2004 (who made a film Submission criticizing the treatment of women and highly critical of Islam) (Buruma, 2006),6 the post-­immigrants youth riots in the French banlieues in 2005 and 2007, and then in the London suburbs in 2011 and Stockholm in 2013.

The last episode, in order of time, was the attack of Islamic fundamentalists against the offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo and the subsequent assault at a kosher store in Paris killing 12 people, in January 2015, was followed a month later by similar episodes in Copenhagen. This is without mentioning the strategic shift by ISIS that brings war and terror in distant lands, on a global scale including European countries, like the massacre in Paris of 13 November 2015, and the Brussels 2016 bombings. On a different scale, another emblematic episode identifying the cultural and political climate that has been created in Europe around the backlash against multiculturalism is the massacre committed by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway in July 2011. This extreme-­right activist first bombed government buildings in Oslo; then, on Utøya island the site of a Labour Party youth camp, he shot 77 adolescent political activists, protesting at the laxness of Norwegian immigration laws and the treatment of Islam. Before putting into action his insane plan, he posted on the internet his political manifesto, entitled ‘2083 – A European Declaration of Independence’, where he criticized multiculturalism because it Separates people into ‘tribes’ below the nation-­state level. This is precisely the situation we had in Europe in the Middle Ages. Likewise, the idea that we should ‘respect’ other cultures by not criticizing them means turning the clock back several centuries to the pre-Enlightenment era. Multiculturalism is merely a medieval ideology, and will generate medieval results (. . .).

Following on, he states on page 409: We must destroy multiculturalism; deconstruct it, delegitimize it, and acknowledge it as the Utopian self-­destructive fantasy that it is. All cultures are not equivalent. Some cultures are better than others, and some are our enemies and some our friends. This is reasonable, rational thinking.

Add to this the participation of NATO countries in military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the military actions of some European countries

Interculturalism

75

in Syria and Libya, and this massive engagement in war operations and the vigorous debates about the ‘Islamic menace’ put in doubt the fragile theoretical foundations of intercultural education, sweeping away the superficial paternalism at the roots of many pedagogical and cultural multicultural interventions in the schools. In this new scenario, there is a general rethinking of the consequences of the intercultural approach and particularly its celebration of differences. The perception that some ethnic minorities (particularly Islamic) are clustering together and refusing to integrate, and the evidence of the incompatibility of Islam within European societies, has undermined the confidence of public opinion in interculturalism. In sum, intercultural and multicultural education in Europe has been challenged decisively by a number of events with global impact and it has been declared dead. As a result, there has been a backlash against multiculturalism arising from two different perspectives:

1. On the one hand, new and explicit xenophobic attitudes and a re-­emergence of conservative assimilation have been politically and culturally legitimized in recent elections, with attitudes and practices that had been inconceivable considering the tradition of tolerance and human rights in Europe. This trend, however, towards a new assimilation is not only a European feature, but some scholars observe it also in the USA (Jackson, 2010). At the same time, conservative governments maintained or gained power at the beginning of the new century in many European countries, which indicated a change of direction of educational policies, multiculturalism included. Many European leaders, as we will argue in the following chapters, declared multiculturalism dead. 2. On the other hand, we argue that this change of public feelings towards difference, culture and immigration was not only due only to fears of terrorism and the political and social climate created at the beginning of the new century, or re-­enacted strongly after the financial crises of 2008, with undocumented immigrants being seen as taking over jobs from residents and citizens. Much earlier, and independently of the political–cultural events above mentioned, a critique of the epistemological and theoretical underpinning of the intercultural education approach had already appeared, particularly in those countries

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

76

which led with the implementation of intercultural education policies and practices. In France and in Germany, but also in Great Britain although in a different way, critiques of this approach had been emerging since the mid-1990s. As Castles (2009) stressed, many criticisms were raised towards the European approach for managing diversity in schools: the enduring social disadvantage of many immigrants and post-­ immigrants; the underestimation of racism and discrimination; the fact that intercultural education produces few graduates and those only with a low level of cultural capability; it is based on the idea of permanent settlement (which may not be the case); it supports only legal immigrants. l

l

l

l

l

At the end of this chapter we will summarize some structural conundrums of the intercultural education approach. But for now it is sufficient to note that the transformation of the political sphere, and the emerging epistemological critiques of intercultural education’s theoretical foundations, began progressively to undermine a previous consensus based on a welcoming attitude and sympathy towards ‘otherness’ represented in the migrant and, by implication, intercultural education models. The erosion of a charitable attitude towards the new challenges and social commitment represented by the newcomers, especially in some areas, gave birth to a perception that the phenomenon of immigration was not circumscribed and occasional but rather structural and functional to the new global capitalist scenario (Sassen, 1998). With public policy questioning the value of multiculturalism or interculturalism, pedagogical interventions were left to volunteer work (some called it ‘missionary’ philanthropic work) by individuals, groups, communities, churches and agencies. Thus, intercultural education has lost its ‘public’ status, and disinterest in these types of policies and programmes has grown. This sheds light on the weakness of the national and regional school laws which formally promote intercultural education but, in practice, do not supply institutional support and adequate funding coherent with the explicit normative decisions. Nevertheless, intercultural education is still the prevailing and acknowledged model in European schools, which have explicitly chosen it for addressing migrant pupils within their schools.

Interculturalism

77

In sum, after the first euphoric phase, what has remained of intercultural education? Historical change, the accumulation of meaningful experiences and best practices as well as the theoretical reflection on these issues, led to two opposite results. On the one hand, a worrying restoration of a neo-­assimilation, slightly different from the past, but still creating barriers against newcomers, especially against those less able to be integrated. Coupled with the legitimation of explicitly hostile attitudes, which tend to cultivate internal and international conflicts and to be openly hostile to immigration into Europe, this echoes its return. Many critics are growing across Europe and blaming the excessive cultivation of the inter-­ethnic relationships among groups, or the excessive attention to other cultures, for what has led to an undervaluing of Western traditions, national identities and the obscuring of universal values and rights. Hence, Europe’s great emphasis has been on inclusion aimed at establishing rights for individuals, and not for cultural groups. On the other hand, the critique of the excesses of culturalism and the need to address social issues like equity and justice has led to two closely related consequences:

1. the focus on the notion of individual identity, as a premise to build up an identity as a person and to focus on activities based on the person and intersubjective relationship; 2. the seeking of transcultural aspects, which belong to everybody, on which to build shared rules to live together in mutual respect. In western modernity, the individual dimension of identity, which precedes any cultural, ethnic or religious belonging, is closely related to the entitlement of individual rights. Both results appear to propose citizenship education in almost all European countries. The pedagogical thinking on re-­conceptualizing new citizenship rights and the educational processes embedded within that approach, are becoming the new frontier of inclusion for ethnic minority groups.

Conundrums of intercultural education Beyond instrumental political criticisms claiming the death of multiculturalism, which we will address in Chapter 7, we would like to conclude this long discussion of European approaches to diversity in education with a critical examination of the major conundrums of the intercultural approach.

78

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

There are historical and social reasons for the critique of intercultural education, including the perceived crisis of state schools almost everywhere, and above all the changed political climate (McClafferty et al., 2000). We argue that the changed political discourse following the rise of Islamic terrorism has only made explicit the hostility towards some immigrants, particularly towards those less ‘able to be integrated’, a hostility that was smouldering under the ashes and only recently becoming socially acceptable. In summary, although we advocate the intercultural education approach in its critical interpretation, and consider it the most advanced and all-­encompassing strategy among those developed across the EU for addressing immigrants and ethnic-­minority groups in schools, there is no question that its political and conceptual foundations have weaknesses. In particular, we identified three major limitations that are open to the need to overcome this approach to a more attentive perspective to issues of equity and social justice. A perspective that is based on the human rights dimension and that necessarily requires a combination of interventions at local level with a global ethos. The intercultural model, as it has been practised in Europe, is on the one hand sterile and on the other inadequate. Sterile because it is unable to generate consistent and effective practices (Tarozzi, 2006c; Donati, 2008; Bhatti et al., 2007). It seems that intercultural education is limited only to claiming principles, like abstract solidarity, proposing only superficial and vague actions, which are reduced to a folkloric cultural comparison. In fact, it does not have the ability to critically interpret situations and to provide effective actions. Inadequate because it tends to understate the very issue of equity and social equality (Tarozzi, 2012; Coulby, 2006; Gorski, 2006, 2008). Given the growth and persistence of deep social inequality between foreigners, immigrants and natives residents in terms of citizenship rights, we cannot underestimate the need to combine social–political aims, to ensure equity and social justice, with an ethical and educational intercultural dialogue. We have already noted that the intercultural approach was unable to fill the social and achievement gaps between foreign-­origin students and their native peers. As a result, wihout an equal social justice framework, intercultural dialogue becomes only an abstract myth, a rhetoric without power to change, since intercultural dialogue can take place only from symmetrical social and power positions. In particular, the new challenges that characterize today’s multicultural society require the various educational agencies, particularly state schools, to rethink their policies, pedagogies and practices for receiving and including the educational success of students of foreign origin:

Interculturalism l

l

l

l

l

l

79

the slowdown of migration flows; the phenomenon of second generations; the issue of social justice, the increasing of school failure and underachievement of migrant students; the question of the new European citizenship; the re-­emergence of worrisome phenomena of racism and discrimination; the need to involve families and migrant communities in formal education processes.

Those new challenges should help to design a new framework in European schools, where the traditional-­norm guidelines and pedagogical models used to face ‘migrants’ emergence’ need to be drastically rethought and sharpened to become more applicable and effective. The three conundrums, although related, are placed on three different levels: (1) practical: superficial and folklore, (2) political: undermining of equality and justice, (3) cultural: overemphasis of culturalism.

Superficial, ingenuous and exotic Everywhere in Europe, and particularly in Italy, intercultural education has been included and practised in schools in a superficial way. It is basically a formal label, vague and ambiguous, based on an equally formal and vague conception of difference or diversity. It is an approach consistent with the liberal perspective of neutralism, and hence equally vulnerable to liberalism’s pitfalls. The current education policy and the majority of superficial practices in schools are characterized in Europe by this interpretation of the intercultural model. It is a perspective that operates only on the surface of phenomena, leaving untouched the profound structural and social dynamics of cultural confrontation with its rich educational consequences. Martha Nussbaum calls this approach a descriptive romanticism coupled with a normative arcadianism (Nussbaum, 1997). According to Nussbaum, descriptive romanticism is the attitude of those who get carried away when facing everything that is strange, foreign or exotic. Arcadianism is a mistaken evaluation by those who glorify (from their standpoint of power and privilege) the exotic extraneousness of some cultures, avoiding any level of judgment. Here, the glorification of diversity is absolute and unquestioned, and is taken, as is the case of the world of fashion, as another wonderful addition to the aesthetics of colours. However, this romantic description of otherness is only an ideal

80

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

abstraction. Otherness is idealized and hence not grounded in real conflict. It is projected to such a generic level that it is absolutely incomparable with our own identity. It is easy to accept and give praise to other cultures if there is no real connection to them. Authentic descriptions of the other are possible only drenched in the dust and sweat of real life. Descriptive romanticism and normative arcadianism entail a euphoric multiculturalism that unconditionally celebrates other cultures, without critical reflection on the implications of cultural relativism. It is a sort of superficial xenophilia, the luxury of those whose hegemony is not challenged. It is quite common in schools to find that descriptive cultural romanticism is the background behind intercultural projects in art, music, dance and plays, where other cultures are presented in a rough, hasty, ahistorical and uncritical way. If, as we are arguing, there is to be a valuable intercultural education, it is not surprising that it is not adequately or even coherently applied in school practices as school law would requires in many parts of the EU. These policies rest on a set of intercultural laws which are vague, ambiguous and ineffective – although it is considered essential for conflict resolution and mediation in social exchanges. As we noted earlier, there is a great gap between the intercultural model practised in school, the official education policy, and the scholars who advocate this approach. In 2005–2006, one of the authors coordinated a qualitative inquiry among teachers and principals in the province of Trento (Tarozzi, 2006c). The aim of the study was not to investigate the teaching practices per se, but to highlight the way in which teachers interpret intercultural practices. The study showed the huge gap between practices and their meaning. While practice can be consistent with public policy, the meanings are imbued with visions embedded in the ‘lived’ experience. The interpretive theory that emerged from empirical data revealed that even though teachers should have an intercultural model to organize their pedagogy when teaching immigrant pupils, research revealed that they seem not to have a clear, shared frame of reference about how to promote integration and foster intercultural activities. Hence, this gap between what the law requires and what teachers and schools actually practise leads to what we have referred to above as the ghost model of intercultural education (Tarozzi, 2006c). But as teachers promote a large amount of intercultural activities, without a proper education model they act as if they had one. In synthesis, the prevailing ‘model’ of intercultural education is not properly definable, since it is not able conceptually to organize goals, methods, activities and assessments based on explicit, clear and implementable assumptions. Since it exists and is meant to

Interculturalism

81

help in organizing practices and giving them a meaning, it is somehow a model, but a ghost one. Teachers and principals have continuously created many activities without a theoretical, political or even pragmatic framework that can give real meaning to them. As such, there is a conflict between practice and meaning, which results in attitudes either of indifference (where every practice is the same as any other and they have the same value) or rigidity (where practices are unwarranted, meaningless and by implication dogmatic). In both cases, the primary consequence is that it becomes impossible to consider intercultural education as a radical approach. What remains is an ambiguous, muddled approach that generates in its practitioners a sense of frustration, bewilderment and even isolation. For these reasons, some scholars have come to the conclusion that the intercultural model is, by its very nature, inapplicable to reality, and they believe it is an ideal of cultural harmony, but it is an abstract concept not implementable into real practices (Donati, 2008, 2009). Is the intercultural a ghost model because it is not yet mature, that is not sufficiently elaborated in theory and reinforced in praxis? Or is it a constitutive limit of the model itself which is per se inapplicable and consists only of an ideal direction? The question is still open and we will address it in the following chapters. Intercultural education has been criticized for its theoretical limitations (Abdallah-Pretceille, 1999; Tarozzi, 1998a; Torres, 2009a). Its theoretical poverty is evident in the superficial approach we discussed – which is also the most widespread approach – that is cultural romanticism. Intercultural education is limited to episodic and sporadic ‘intercultural hours’ that are disconnected from a coherent model of educational planning. Intercultural education remains dramatically superficial and flattened to stereotypical and superficial aspects of the ‘culture’ of an ethno-­linguistic community. As discussed, the main impulse for this comes from exotic curiosity rather than real purposes of cultural hybridization. Without addressing here the pressing questions that hybridity poses to interculturalism, we find multi-­ethnic food parties, tattoos with henné, and superficial presentations of Islam’s culture as typical examples of this kind of interculturalism. These superficial school activities are called in France ‘la pédagogie du cous-­cous’ and in the UK the ‘3 S education’ (Saris, Samosas and Steel band – that is traditional Indian women’s attire and food, and Caribbean percussion instruments). This is the vulgata of interculturalism, teaching youth

82

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

to sew Indian clothes, to cook simple Indian recipes, or learn to keep time with bongos. The almost unavoidable consequences of these intercultural education activities are improvisation, banalization and stereotyping. These ineffective micro-­projects discredit the intercultural education approach and fail to achieve interculturalism’s radical goals. That is, this model of interculturalism does not help in restructuring the school curriculum, or drawing on a relational climate of difference taking intellectual advantage of diversity, or discussing eurocentrism, logocentrism and malecentrism in the curriculum, or making explicit forms of exclusion, and raising awareness of the ways in which domination functions.

Scarce attention to equality issues If the previous conundrum relates to the limits of the application of the approach, it is also quite easy to solve in terms of practices with more careful teaching planning. The limitations of the concept of equality underlying the notion of intercultural education as it is currently practised are political structural limits, and therefore particularly serious. The major drawback of intercultural education as it is practised today may be that it is based on a limited concept of equality. Interculturalism seems to promote cultural equality (i.e. ‘equal evaluation’) and is therefore relativistic, rather than promoting social equality (i.e. ‘equal opportunities’) which also takes into account the idea of justice and, specifically, the unequal distribution of power and resources. This is a key point since, according to Freire, education and politics are always closely interconnected and schooling has to do with political decisions that are never neutral (Torres, 2009a, 2009b; Torres and Noguera, 2009; Freire, 1972, 1978, 1985). Equality (equal dignity) and equity (equal rights) is an important policy issue that cannot be ignored by education. Otherwise, not surprisingly, intercultural practices tend to remain on the surface of things, as we have seen in the preceding section. Intercultural education accomplishes its scope when the equal value and equal dignity of every culture has (theoretically and practically) been recognized, when every superior stance that one culture takes in relation to another is abolished. But there is another equality to be accomplished within a democratic society: that which guarantees all ethno-­linguistic communities the same rights, and therefore social justice as equity.

Interculturalism

83

Limited intercultural pluralism which fails to take into account real power relations among groups can be said to be naïve, ingenuous or act in bad faith because de facto, it contributes to justifying and reinforcing the unjust distribution of resources. Recognizing the value of a different group should entail the assignment of more power to that group as well. Minority cultural groups are not recognized simply because a few elements of their culture are endorsed within curricula. They cannot be considered fully included in the polity until their right to equal access to the means of production, and the distribution of power, resources, communication and information is guaranteed. In the context of school participation, cultures will be accepted when a full possibility of school achievement and the free choice to cultivate ones’ own talents will be guaranteed. While the dominant group controls these means, intercultural education cannot be other than a pure formality; it is, rather, an actual contribution to reinforcing this power system. Intercultural education without a commitment to establish an equitable and just world can be seen as a tool – however well-­intentioned – of colonization where inequity and injustice are reproduced under the appearance of interculturalism (Gorski, 2008). At a practical level, the evident contrast between a school climate attempting to be inclusive, respectful and culturally pluralistic, and the reality of schools denying and challenging these principles daily, leads to superficial intercultural activities and the teachers who promote them being discredited in the eyes of students and their families. This is not only a political issue. The question of equality as fairness still has clear educational and pedagogical implications, and a prime example is the very issue of the academic achievement of students of foreign origin which has recently become one of the major challenges of contemporary intercultural education (Catarci and Fiorucci, 2015).‘Inequalities between immigrant students and their native peers must be addressed by an intercultural approach that is able to promote not only cultural understanding but also effective opportunities for immigrant students’ (Catarci and Fiorucci, 2015: 250). Everywhere in Europe, even in more equitable education systems such as those in the Nordic countries, students of foreign origin (both first and second generation) are disadvantaged in terms of enrolment in certain types of school, the duration of attending, drop-­ out rates, underachievement and types of diploma attained (Park and Sandefur, 2010). The OECD has also warned of immigrant students’ underachievement (OECD, 2010) and not only with reference to PISA test data. In general, international surveys show that students with an immigrant background tend to

84

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

have lower levels of performance (OECD, 2009; EU Commission, 2008; PIRLS 2006): According to the PIRLS 7 survey on literacy, migrant pupils scored less well than their non-­migrant peers by the end of primary school. The OECD PISA survey on the standard academic skills of 15-year-­olds confirms that migrant pupils in this age group tend to perform less well than their host country’s pupils in every tested subject area and, in particular, in reading. Even national indicators confirm that in almost all European countries there is an increasing incidence of leaving school early among immigrant pupils. A report by the Italian Ministry of Education, pointed out that, despite the official policy of ‘inclusion and education for all’ expressed by state education policies, underachievement, drop-­outs and ineffective schools are unresolved problems for Italy (MPI, 2013), as well as for many other European countries. In sum, intercultural education must be practised within a social justice framework, taking into account the structural elements of society which can support or thwart intercultural pedagogies. The problem of intercultural education is not what it does do, but what it does not do. That is to say, reducing stereotyping is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Interculturalism is ineffective when academic achievement is not improved, and when it fails to address social inequalities (Grant and Sleeter, 2007).

The risk of culturalism A consequence of a superficial and uncritical adoption of the intercultural approach is what we can call cultural relativism. According to extreme cultural relativistic attitudes, other cultures were praised per se, independent of any confrontation and critical exchange around the meaning of ‘otherness’. In this model, cultures can become reified, and what is lost is cultural encounter, authentic communication and dialogue. This is particularly true for multicultural education; but romanticized intercultural education, as we mention above, also faces this risk, as a consequence of its superficiality and non-­critical exoticism. However, on closer inspection, the problem is not so much relativism as an approach already considered obsolete in cultural–anthropological studies, but the very excess of culturalization (Aime, 2004; Fabietti, 1996; Sen, 2006). Culturalism per se is an attitude still prevalent not only in in the North American multicultural discourse but also implicitly in the intercultural European one, which believes that cultures univocally shape people’s values, beliefs and social behavior. As a consequence, individuals are closed within cultures understood as separate universes, incommunicable, compact and stable over time and space

Interculturalism

85

(Gallissot et  al., 2000). They are often reduced to the sphere of religion (the Islamic culture) as if this could summarize the complexity and the many facets of its members’ identity or to stereotypical and folkloric representations (the Roma culture). This attitude is at the root of what in the previous chapter we defined as normative multiculturalism. Accordingly, it leads to a rigid classification of individuals and cultures, understood as an original datum indicating the genuine roots of a subject. Davide Zoletto has nicely illustrated that this culturalist vision is not only archetypal of the multiculturalism (normative), for which society consists not only of a plurality of homogeneous cultural groups, claiming recognition of their collective identities in the name of their cultural difference (Zoletto, 2012). But also, the intercultural discourse, based on hybridization and miscegenation, is yet another variation of the same culturalist assumption because it entails the same essentialist idea of culture, except that instead of being institutionalized in society and therefore hopelessly separated from each other, they are permeable, porous and hybridized. On the contrary, Zoletto argues the need to recognize, especially in educational discourse, not only what is tied to the traditions and cultural belonging of one’s own lived experience and daily life, but also what is tied to the context in which one grows and acts: the multiple combination of all of these elements forms the rich prism of one’s multiple and shifting identity. Claiming the processual, self-­referential and interactive nature of cultures, Zoletto refers to scholars of non-Western origin, such as Aihwa Ong (2003), who propose different approaches, overcoming cultural determinism and taking into account the plurality of identities, the influence of contexts, the key role of the practices, the relational dynamics and the meaning making processes. ‘Given that analytical categories of culture have been insufficiently problematized, claims about the cultural difference of minorities seem to suggest that “culture” has remained the same despite experiences of dislocation, generational fractures, and upward mobility over time in the American nation’ (Ong, 2003: 5, 6). This idea of cultural citizenship suggests that cultural difference should be considered as if it was always built from the bottom, from belongings, and is not in any way regulated from above. This is not true, and rather ‘That naïvety ends up in supporting dominant ideologies that rank individuals on the basis of culture, race and ethnicity thereby facilitating the cultural or ethno-­ racial inscription of individual achievement and failure’ (Ong, 2003: 6). According to this view, culture is not only the most important analytical domain to construct the idea of citizenship, but also culturalism ends up in reinforcing social injustice.

86

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

The dynamics of oppression are not only provided by a stronger and dominant cultural group culture that oppresses weaker cultures, but the hegemony is also strengthened through the mechanisms of representation. Or rather through the mechanism of stigmatization that culturalism implicitly enhances. Arjun Appadurai (2006) argues something similar when he says that in an era of hegemonic economic globalization, the ‘fiction of the ethnos’ in nation-­states has become a cultural resource for the performance of full sovereignty. Paradoxically, the decline of multiculturalism has left in the public discourse excesses of culturalism maybe greater than those produced during its golden age (Lentin, 2014). As to the risk that an overwhelming idea of culture obscures important social issues, the philosopher Slavoj Zižek observed that culture has become the dominant framework for analyzing what would once have been considered problems of social inequality, exploitation and power – in short of politics. Zižek (2008) argues for a ‘culturalized politics’, which has overshadowed eminently political issues: ‘political inequality or economic exploitation are naturalized and neutralized into “cultural” differences, that is into different “ways of life” that are something given, something that cannot be overcome’ (Zižek, 2008: 129, quoted in Lentin, 2014: 1276). One of the main consequences of culturalism, by reifying the concept of culture, is cultural relativism, which is to some extent visible in intercultural education’s naïve practices. From a theoretical point of view, cultural relativism with its political implications is an approach as extreme as assimilation. It is so absolute that it runs the risk of being converted into a sort of ‘skeptical dogmatism’, thus possibly generating extremist and diehard positions as we are beginning to find in the USA vis-à-­vis immigration laws and in the populist new Right in the EU regarding the anti-­immigrant policies. The culturalist viewpoint is typical of those who attach themselves to their culture and make it a bulwark to fight an opponent culturally represented as an Other, a stranger or an enemy. Moreover, an overstatement of difference becomes fundamentalist when meaning and practice are separated. As we demonstrated earlier, this is one of the possible effects of the adoption of interculturalism as a ghost model. That is to say, when one disassociates some element of his/her culture from the meaning that members of the community give to that element, then the element becomes ahistorical and rigid. Perhaps the most important pitfall of cultural relativism is that when practised as an absolute, it leads to a segregationist vision of cultures, represented as separate and as fully encapsulated as a fortress. This perspective has two main

Interculturalism

87

consequences. On the one hand it leads to an unacceptable cultural reductionism, generating stereotypical visions, according to which every individual belonging to a culture is considered the representative of it, a sort of ambassador assuming every and each feature assigned to that culture and the individual experience of representing the culture. On the other hand, it leads to a cultural essentialism, a vision which tends to be an ethnicization of society. This claim could also result in racism, a dramatically current version of ethnicization. Indeed, behind culturalism lies a dangerous re-­emergence of racism. Nowadays, there are new forms of racism (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994), very different from the classical, pseudo-­scientific one, which claimed the genetic superiority of some races above some others (Taguieff, 1987). This neo-­racism speaks of a subtle separation of ethnicities and races. Therefore, extreme anti-­immigrant policies of exclusion are defended on the basis of protecting the ‘culture’ of the majority and the traditional, ancestral cultural practices in a given nation. Paradoxically, it is based on the same overstated recognition of the diversity’s right, which was the most powerful weapon against both the Nazis and even the evolutionist racism. For example, extreme anti-­immigrant policies of exclusion can be rooted in the right to protect the majority’s culture; as a result, advocates of these policies do not want immigrants in the country, nor intercultural education in schools, since they claim the right to protect the ‘italianity’ or ‘francesity’, or ‘germanity’ of a given country. In recent years, this political discourse has become popular in the France of the Front National or in the Italy of the Northern League and many other new Right European parties. Considering the risk of cultural neo-­racism, culturalism or differentialism, as a perverse and convoluted outcome of cultural relativism, we should discuss the overstatement of culture’s Right rooted in extreme forms of cultural relativism. However, there are some caveats. If cultural relativism, both educationally and politically, is indefensible and ethically deplorable, we are, however, more worried about the re-­emergence of absolutist, rigid, narrow-­minded universalist positions that reinforce authoritarian and anti-­democratic politics. Under a different perspective, to relativize is a way to decentralize our point of view, to prepare ourselves for an authentic listening, to welcome otherness through different ways of thinking. Here is the conundrum. The neo-­liberal and neo-­conservative growing consensus seeks a strong thinking, absolute, universal truth. Subtle arguments of progressive anthropologists, philosophers or political scientists correctly warn us against the dangers of different forms of relativism – not only cultural relativism. But, more often than not, they are instrumentally exploited as a

88

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

political discourse, very often for electioneering purposes, and spread by the mass media, in particular when they have to support a military intervention or new anti-­immigrant measures (Aime, 2004; Fabietti, 1996; Sen, 2006). Hence, we agree with the concept of an ‘anti-­anti-­relativism’, a notion proposed by the great anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who coined the concept as a way of opposing the growing wave of new anti-­relativists. Their views, in the name of renovated objectivistic ideas of Nature and Human Mind, resulted in dangerous absolutisms and scientific dogmatism (Geertz, 1984). Anti-­anti-relativism is a double negation that affirms a moderate support for a certain relativist perspective: ‘In this frame, the double negative simply doesn’t work in the usual way; and therein lies its rhetorical attractions. It enables one to reject something without thereby committing oneself to what it rejects. And this is precisely what I want to do with anti-relativism’ (Geertz, 1984: 264). In sum, considering the risk of cultural neo-­racism, culturalist or differentialist, as a perverse and convoluted outcome of culturalism, we should advocate a vision of culture as flexible, processual and interactive. Without going to the opposite extreme of a colour-­blind universalism that would tend to erase cultural differences, eliminating forms of belonging and without recognizing differences, we need to establish intercultural education practices on flexible representations of cultures such as those indicated by Appadurai and Ong. Or, according to Clifford Geertz, cultures envisaged as frames of reference that allow us to interpret the meanings of our daily life and orient ourselves in it. Such culture ‘comes to exist only within language games, communities of discourse, intersubjective systems of reference, ways of world-­ making’ (Geertz, 1986: 262).

Conclusion Considering our critique, one may ask, is intercultural education viable? From the policy point of view, the intercultural (political) model would by its nature not be implementable in real educational settings, because it is reduced to an idealistic tendency towards social harmony based on an abstract evocation of pluralism. Conversely, in terms of teaching, intercultural education is a widely desirable educational model and intercultural dialogue is a sound political direction, consistent with modern democracies. So if the intercultural dialogue remains a widely desirable political and pedagogical aim as an ethical end, the structural limit of the intercultural approach lies in the means to achieve its

Interculturalism

89

aims. Reducing prejudice and promoting understanding and dialogue are imperative educational goals but underachievement, inequality and the emancipatory role of education are current urgent priorities in state schools that are under attack in a neo-­liberal era. Intercultural relationships nowadays cannot be understood outside this framework. Intercultural education in the EU is one of the roots of GCE, together with developmental education. They are seen as distinct terms, related to different spatial orientation (national and global), but they share a common set of issues. In comparing inter- and multicultural education in the EU and USA, we aim to provide, in the following chapters, a theoretical conceptualization of these ideas and the relationship between them.

Notes 1 The irony is that the demand for mass, public, free and compulsory quality education has been a key demand in social struggles and one of the greatest achievements grasped from the ruling classes in power in Europe and elsewhere. This demand, promoted by working-­class parties, socialist, social democratic and even anarcho-­ syndicalists and trades union traditions aimed to ensure that the working class could access higher levels of quality education as a way of enhancing their representation, social mobility and income distribution. 2 For instance, OECD, UNESCO and international associations such as the International Association of Intercultural Education (IAIE), Association pour la Recherche Interculturelle (ARIC), and the European Association of Educational Research, as well as international scientific journals like Intercultural Education (formerly European Journal of Intercultural Studies). 3 The CoE was founded in 1947 and currently includes 47 European states (although the EU presently consists of 28 states). Its mission is to develop common and democratic principles throughout Europe based on the European Convention on Human Rights and other reference texts on the protection of individuals. The CoE has introduced and disseminated the idea of intercultural education in relation to immigrant integration since the mid-1970s. In the early 1970s, it addressed problems relating to the education of migrant workers, as well as the possibility for them to maintain links with their mother tongues and countries of origin. 4 See key resources for intercultural dialogue in the CoE and EU at http://www. culturalpolicies.net/web/intercultural-­dialogue-resources.php 5 There are two emblematic examples. The first concerns Latinos in California’s State Universities: ‘Out of 665,000 applicants to the California State University (CSU) system, Latino students made up 33.3 per cent of prospective freshmen and

90

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

transfer students, while 31.2 per cent of the applications came from white students’ (http://www.nationofchange.org/calif-­schools-lead-­way-preparing-­next-generation-­ workers-latinos-1324916804http://www.nationofchange.org/calif-­schools-lead-­waypreparing-­next-generation-­workers-latinos-1324916804 (retrieved 6 January 2012)). The second example concerns New York City Department of Education in which the total enrolment (2014–2015 school year) is 1,122,783; and the breakdown by ethnic groups shows the following distribution: Asian 172,268 (15.3%); Black 311,966 (27.8%); Hispanic/Latino 453,172 (40.4%); White 164,590 (14.7%); ‘Other’ 20,787 (1.9%). Demographic Snapshot 2010/11 to 2014/15, from: http://schools.nyc.gov/ Accountability/data/default.htm (retrieved 6 January 2012).   The same situation can be found in the Los Angeles school department: total enrolment (2013–2014 school year): 1,552,704; White, not Hispanic 60,915; African American, not Hispanic 59,936; Filipino, not Hispanic 12,912; Pacific Islander, not Hispanic 2,479; Asian, not Hispanic 26,649; American Indian or Alaska Native, not Hispanic 2,489; Hispanic or Latino of any race 480,580, from the California Department of Education website: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/ EthnicEnr.aspx?cChoice=DistEnrEthandcYear=2011-12andcSelect=1932276-CEA+ LOS+ANGELES+COandTheCounty=andcLevel=DistrictandcTopic=Enrollmenta ndmyTimeFrame=SandcType=ALLandcGender=B) (retrieved 6 January 2012). 6 He was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim. 7 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2006 (PIRLS, 2006).

5

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

At the lexical level inter- and multicultural education are not substantially different concepts, but they have been historically used as diverse denominations in different sociological discourses and regions of the world. While multicultural education prevails in North America, and more broadly in the Anglo-Saxon world and northern European countries, intercultural education has spread within continental European countries as well as at the institutional level of the EU bodies’ terminology. Multicultural education has also been used with a different emphasis in Latin America. Portera (2003) proposed a detailed distinction among different prefixes: multi-, inter-, trans-, and pluri-. However, this attempt is merely a theoretical exercise as the nuances of the terms are never used in the way proposed, and the concepts expressed by them always overlap, never existing in a pure form. The two most widely used terms, inter- and multicultural education, are in fact two umbrella terms subsuming a varied number of approaches (Hill, 2007). According to some European scholars, intercultural education encompasses multicultural education, as well as anti–racist education for minorities along with countless and manifold school practices that can be included under its meaning (Alleman-Ghionda, 2009). Even where multicultural education is broadly used, as in Britain, it became an umbrella-­term by the early 1980s encompassisng a variety of changing practices in schools (Tomlinson, 2009). Now, it appears more similar to the European intercultural education than to the US multicultural approach, because of the different historical roots which led one of the two expressions to prevail. British multicultural education does not echo the power struggles in society to affirm civil rights. Rather, it is a pragmatic and liberal-­democratic response to managing diversity in schools dealing with immigrants, ethnic-­ minority groups and children from former colonies. Some British scholars,

92

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

starting with Jagdish Singh Gundara – a historical scholarly figure of the University of London Institute of Education (now University College London, UCL) and now Chair-­holder of the UNESCO Chair in Intercultural Studies and Teacher Education – widely use the term intercultural education rather than multicultural education. Gundara has long been committed to spreading the use of such a term (Gundara and Jacobs, 2000; Coulby et  al., 1997; Gundara and Portera, 2008; Gundara, 2000). In the past ten years many attempts have been made to find common international ground for the various regional approaches by trying to bridge the differences between the approaches on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean (Banks, 2009). In fact, the number of those who claim the substantial sameness of both models is increasing everyday (Santos Regò and Nieto, 2000; Meer and Modood, 2012). One can observe that an international network of scholars exists worldwide. They have been attempting to design the boundaries of a unitary new discipline by defining its paradigms, goals, methods and contents, with intense research publishing, lecturing, workshops and academic congresses (Banks, 2003, 2009a, 2009b; Coulby et  al., 1997; Grant and Lei, 2001; Gundara, 2000; Gundara and Portera, 2008; Grant and Portera, 2011; INRP, 2007). Given this international framework, the lexical or semantic comparison between the two overlapping terms is not in our interest, any more than in the previous chapter. We are more interested in comparing the social and historical background and political theories, as well as the educational philosophies at the basis of public policies and school practices in the EU and in the USA, in order to provide a theoretical grounding for GCE, starting from the key socio-­educational questions they raised and the questions that they leave unanswered in the political and practical arena. As for the use of the two terms, we agree with the basic synthesis of Kahn, who stated: ‘Today, the concepts of intercultural and multicultural education remain intertwined and related but US scholars use the term multicultural education more frequently’ (Kahn, 2008: 529). There are precise historical, theoretical and political reasons for the US resistance to using the term ‘intercultural’ (McGee Banks, 2003). Intercultural education reminds many US scholars and practitioners of the partial and limited activities which were put into practice, in particular by civil rights associations, from the 1920s onward, but mostly around World War Two (American Council on Education and Taba, 1952).1 After World War Two a huge nationwide plan of relocation for jobs was set up in several regions of the USA and people were forced to meet others who were not used to being brought together. Another element, during the same period, was the expectations of returning African

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

93

American veterans who, having fought for democracy abroad, expected fair treatment at home. The increasing number of opportunities for interracial contact and the growing awareness of the rights within democratic societies, whose values won the world war against the racist powers, provided suitable ground for the introduction of new projects promoting tolerance, prejudice reduction and intercultural understandings. These projects set up from the 1940s onward, though limited and partial, were called intergroup or intercultural education. They aimed at improving knowledge of the experiences of ethnic minorities in order to reduce prejudice and racist episodes (Banks, 1988, 1993). To some extent, these activities can be considered an antecedent to the more holistic multicultural education. According to Sonia Nieto, ‘this movement was among the first educational attempts in the USA to acknowledge the multiracial and multicultural character of the nation. Its focus on democratic values as central to US life became an important contribution to what would later be known as multicultural education’ (Nieto, 2009: 84). However, from a different perspective, these activities and the reform movement behind them, which were promoted mainly by white scholars, were limited to reducing interracial prejudices and superficially improving acceptance for diverse students. They primarily stressed the importance of the relational dimension to reduce racial hostility, and combined this with conflict resolution, peer mediation, and violence prevention. While some of these pioneering activities were interesting, as a whole they always remained at the margins of the US school system. They were mostly special education projects aimed at students of colour (Banks, 1988; 1993). Hence the negative aura surrounding everything depicted as ‘intercultural’: it reminds educators of something provisional, outdated, and fundamentally conservative as compared to the further innovatory and new radical direction of multicultural education, from the late 1960s and 1970s onwards. Beyond historical reasons, there are other, more sound theoretical and political reasons why intercultural education is considered a limited and partial approach in the USA. According to Sleeter and Grant’s critical appraisal of the approaches used to deal with race and ethnicity in education presented in Chapter 3 (Sleeter and Grant, 1999), intercultural education is the second stage. Intergroup education (number 2 in their classification) is both a term and a reminder of the intercultural education approach. The purpose of both is to build respectful interpersonal relationships among students, promote positive feelings and reduce stereotyping, as well as to develop skills that enable students to recognize our common nature and, on this basis, respect differences. It is a

94

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

humanistic approach, centred on the human person (thus not surprisingly denominated human relations) that works in particular on the affective level. The human relations approach is directed towards helping students communicate with, accept, and get along with people who are different from themselves; reducing or eliminating stereotypes that students have about people; and helping students feel good about themselves and about groups of which they are members, without putting others down in the process. Sleeter and Grant, 1999: 77–8

As such the intercultural or multicultural education movement in the U.S. does not take into account social and political dimensions, but it is rooted in the general psychology and social psychology, especially referring to Gordon Allport’s general theory of prejudice (Allport, 1954). It is still widely spread across a number of teacher education programmes in the USA and it is most popular with white teachers (in particular elementary school teachers). For these reasons Sleeter and Grant raise some criticisms against this limited approach. Its main limitation is not its purpose but what it does not aim to do. As we have argued before, reducing stereotyping is a desirable goal, but it is not enough. The human relations approach seems too soft and ineffective in addressing other fundamental issues relating to the structure of the society and the structural nature of inequality, which are mostly ignored by this approach. Cultural differences are presented as necessary for students to accept, and the way that that acceptance should occur is by improving feelings towards others. In this sense, this approach leaves untouched social relationships of domination and other questions of poverty, class, power relations, racism, discrimination or inequality. That is why, for some scholars, intergroup education implicitly accepts the status quo. Sleeter and Grant (1999: 105) concluded that ‘in a very real sense, the human relations approach can be assimilationist’. The critique of the intergroup/intercultural education approach anticipates some key topics that go well beyond the terminological distinction between inter- and multicultural education. We will return to these distinctions later in this book.

Theories beyond policies in the USA and the EU We have discussed the pros and the cons of intercultural and multicultural education in the previous chapters. In this chapter we will compare scholarly discourses and practices, pointing out some similarities and differences. Apropos

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

95

of this comparison we will show strengths and weaknesses, outlining how each scholarly discourse may learn from the other particularly considering the application in diverse contexts. There are deep historical, cultural and theoretical differences in how to address cultural diversity. Multiculturalism is part of mainstream US political theory. In the USA, multiculturalism refers to ‘cultural’ claims, coming from the struggle for civil rights of African Americans and other people of colour. In Canada, it refers to the debate about the diverse citizenship of ethnic and cultural minorities (Moodley, 1992; Bouchard and Taylor, 2008). In 2008, Gerard Bouchard and Charles Taylor released an important report as Co-Chairs of the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences. The Commission was set up by the Quebec government in response to public discontent concerning ‘reasonable accommodation’ of religious and cultural practices. In the report, four delicate issues among others are examined: cultural integration, collective identity, church–state relations and the most appropriate procedures for handling cultural and religious harmonization requests. Altogether, the Co-Chairs’ positions propound a normative conception of sociocultural integration in a pluralist society. This conception, which may be called ‘interculturalism’, is conceived by the commissioners as an alternative to ‘multiculturalism’. But in fact it can be conceived as a form of multiculturalism, slightly different from the European one. We will address some of the implications of this report in later chapters. Over time, in the USA, multiculturalism has enlarged its scope by incorporating the claims of other different and marginalized voices such as women, LGBT, and the disabled within societies that are never value-­neutral or colour-­blind. By way of contrast, diversity in Europe is essentially and foremost related to the recent migration processes from the global South or Eastern Europe. Even if specific areas of ethnic-­national conflict as well as women’s emancipation movements exist in the Old World, they have never found a united political representation like the ‘New Cultural Left’ in the USA. We have seen that the intercultural model is highly problematic, and for some scholars even inapplicable because first it is impossible to transform its theoretical principles into concrete social action (Donati, 2008; 2009) and second for underestimating the issue of inequality (Coulby, 2006; Gorski, 2008). On the other hand, the multicultural model and the political theory of communitarianism that is sometimes associated with it have also been widely criticized by a number of scholars (Habermas, 1996; Touraine, 1997; Barry, 2001; Benhabib, 2002; Modood, 2007; Colombo, 2011, 2015; Fraser, 1997).

96

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Despite these criticisms, multiculturalism has had the undeniable merit of bringing the issue of diversity from the margins to the mainstream of the social and political interpretation of contemporary US society, though unfortunately offering a somewhat univocal response to manifold historical changes. It has raised basic questions to which it has been unable to offer adequate and convincing responses. As Brian Barry noted, ‘If multiculturalism is the answer, what was the question?’ (Barry, 2001). Finally, the question of how multiculturalism helps citizenship building in schools is still looming. An important claim of this book, and a problem that we address herein, is that we are at an impasse where we have to decide whether, in terms of justice, the concepts of equality and diversity are conceptual alternatives and/or mutually exclusive concepts in political discourse. The construction of the debate itself has paved the way in such a manner that the only possible choice for many is an ideological option for a one-­or-the-­other approach. Furthermore the consequences of this ideological option, which cannot reconcile justice and diversity, are dramatic in education policies and practices. We should stress that in the previous two chapters we focused only on multicultural and intercultural education because these two concepts have monopolized the political debate. However we are aware that other, very promising approaches are emerging, such as the one that promotes indigenous knowledge (Garcia, 2009; Morrow, 2008; Semali and Kincheloe, 1999; Santos, 2006). This all-­encompassing approach, which calls for keeping together various perspectives, shows that a possible way out of this impasse for educational policies can only be found at the global level. Progressive scholars and educators in Western societies face the dilemma that the response to diversity in schools either overemphasizes the cosmovision, ethos or karma of specific cultural groups, or provides abstract praises for promoting relationships and dialogue. While the former condemns different ethno-­linguistic groups to hopeless separation, the latter may result in a mere ideal invocation or exhortation to bring the best of the human condition to educational practices. In both cases, the ultimate results are unsolved conundrums and eventually window-­dressing politics. There are no definitive political solutions for this socio-­political impasse, at least at national level, but in this chapter we want to provide some useful suggestions arising from the theoretical comparison between the North American and European contexts and from educational policy’s models prevailing in the two areas. In this chapter we would like to examine what lessons can be learned from both continents.

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

97

With few exceptions, US multiculturalism and the European tradition in political theory have scarcely talked to each other, particularly in terms of political comparison of educational practices (Wieviorka, 1996; Habermas, 1996, Crespi and Segatori, 1996; Vitale, 2000). Moreover, influential scholars in Europe blame the USA for having colonized the discourse about diversity (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999). On the other side of the Atlantic, the USA has been struggling to reject or modify its European roots and to create an original multicultural tradition. For centuries the USA based its idea of ‘normality’ on its European history, and by implication oppressing other non-European communities in its name. Not surprisingly, the promotion of diversity corresponds to the rejection of the European idea, as an embarrassing past to discard, rather than a new cultural model to use as a framework. The so-­called American exceptionalism (de Zoysa, 2006) is a new blend that has emerged as a possible compromise. The translation of the provocative 1998 article by Bourdieu and Wacquant in the journal Theory, Culture & Society produced an important and well-­known academic debate. The authors underlined that several current topics coming from the intellectual debate related to the social particularity of US society, and the modus operandi of its universities have been imposed worldwide. These North American-based topics have been de-­historicized in order to be considered global problems. Some may even consider this process of adaptation simply banal or distorted. In particular, this is the case with multiculturalism, which has become a global issue as a result of a sort of ‘planetary colonization’ of the topics from the US cultural and academic industry. Despite these debates, there are sufficient studies that can throw light in theoretical, propositional terms on the mutual contributions from both contexts – North American and European – as well as what are they lacking. Even when focusing on the sociology of education or educational research beyond a descriptive comparative level, there are few systematic studies contrasting both paradigms (Grant and Portera, 2011; Gundara and Portera, 2008; INRP, 2007; Gobbo, 2004; Meer and Modood, 2011; Holm and Zilliacus, 2009; Gundara and University of London, 2003). The challenge is to have a synchronic and diachronic comparative analysis of both contexts, considering their independent though given globalization, icreasingly interdependent environments, different histories, social movements and political theories, which underscore the practice of social and educational citizenship.

98

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Just to be clear, our attempt in this book and particularly in this chapter is much more limited. We want to emphasize that to think comparatively about diversity and social justice education, we would like to highlight the strong contributions from the US experience in dealing with the question of diversity (e.g. multiculturalism) which may improve the weak implications of the European answer (e.g. interculturalism) and vice-­versa. There are clear contributions that each region can receive from the other, contributions which we summarize as follows:2

1. From the USA 1.1 Education is always political; 1.2 Multicultural education means social justice education. 2. From Europe 2.1 Immigration is a substantive issue in the intercultural arena; 2.2 Cultural hybridization is at the very centre of interculturalism.

1  From the USA 1.1  Education is always political In the USA, multicultural education has always had a clear political nature, whereas in Europe it has always been considered a generally neutral approach. This reminds us that, in the best of the Freirean dictum, the essence of education is politics or what Freire termed in many of his writings and speeches the politicity of education (Freire, 1998; Torres, 1998d, 2014). The establishment technocratic vision is that politics and education represent two clearly separated practices that cannot and ought not to be connected with one another. Education should remain objective in theoretical terms (because the truth can be presented objectively); value neutral in political terms (because politically speaking educators do not take sides) and above all a-­political, considering the normative and political options at play. Education is or should be a­political in the vision of the establishment because politics habitually involve the practice of fighting for ideological positions, in the defence of social or private interests. In contrast education is a practice that nobly seeks the common interest of all those involved. Thus, the establishment sees academics, teachers and decision-­makers divesting themselves of their political clothes (whether these be political affiliations, doctrines or ideologies, biases and even opinions) at the threshold of the classroom, or at a certain

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

99

distance from their research laboratories and policy decision ­making. Otherwise, in the vision of the establishment, mixing politics and education invariably results in the manipulation and ideologizing of the contents and practice of education. Decent, benevolent educators will practice an education that is value neutral and objective. For the establishment, education is or ought to be dispossessed of political interests and ideology, despite the fact that the normative vision of the establishment is that there are disparities and inequalities in the world and discriminatory processes. In their view, these inequities can be prevented by social engineering and the strict application of the law. As such, a ‘quality education,’ when it is documented by proof of performance and accountability and when it is understood and practised scientifically – meaning informed by standardized, quantitative empirical research – becomes a central pillar for the construction of a more efficient and equitable society through some form of social engineering. For the New Left, the story is much more complex. Politics is intimately connected with power and by implication with human interest. Politics as such refers to the control of the means of production, distribution, consumption and accumulation of symbolic resources and materials. Political activities take place in private as well as public spheres and are connected with all aspects of the human experience that involve power (Ginsburg, 1995; Torres, 1995b). That is why, following Freire and all the critical pedagogues, politics is conceived of as a group of forceful relationships in a society and it is from this perspective that we must examine the connections between politics and education. Paulo Freire taught us that domination, aggression and violence are intrinsic to human social life. Freire argued that few human encounters are exempt from oppression of one kind or another. By virtue of class, race, ethnicity, sexual preference or gender, people tend to be victims or perpetrators of oppression. Freire pointed out that classism, racism, and class exploitation are the most salient forms of domination and oppression, but he also recognizes that oppression is found in religious beliefs, political affiliation and a variety of other aspects, including attitudes about origin, size, age and physical or intellectual deficiencies. Setting out from psychoanalytical perspectives on oppression and influenced directly or indirectly by the work of psychotherapists like Freud, Jung, Adler, Fanon and Fromm, Freire developed in his pedagogy of the oppressed one of the most provocative analyses of the connections between politics and education in the twentieth century (Torres, 2009a, 2009b, 2014). Extracted from a much later book than Pedagogy of the Oppressed,

100

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

his analysis is so pertinent to the matters we are discussing that it deserves extensive quotation: Understanding the limits of educational practice requires political clarity on the part of educators with respect to their project. This demands that the educator accept the political nature of his or her practice. It is not enough to say that education is a political act, just as it is not enough to say that political acts are educative. It is truly necessary to accept the political nature of education. I cannot consider myself progressive if I believe that school spaces are neutral with a limited connection, or no connection at all, to the class struggle; spaces where students are seen as apprentices of limited domains of knowledge to which I grant a magical power. I cannot recognize the limits of the politico-­ educative practice in which I am involved if I do not know or if I am not clear about in whose favor I work. To clarify the question of in whose favor I practice education not only places me in a position which is necessarily a position of class, it also obliges me to be clear about against whom I practice and for what reason I practice education. Freire, 1998: 46

Multicultural education, in the USA is not following Freire’s path, though it has been linked with politics from the start. As we noted earlier, it was born in the late 1960s and 1970s, stimulated by the civil rights movement. Then, during the 1970s many court cases supported bilingual education and a quest for school reform by actually strengthening the political roots of a grassroots movement. Its popularity has progressively increased within schools, universities and the mass media. There is a wide awareness among professionals, laymen and laywomen that schooling has to do with political decisions that are never neutral (Nieto, 1996). In this sense multicultural education cannot be understood in a social and political vacuum. In fact, no educational theory is worthwhile unless it focuses on and helps to raise the achievement of all students. Indeed no political philosophy is useful if it does not give guidance and opportunity to the students to become full citizens. Diversity in the USA is the product of its own history as a social formation. History and stories live in the bodies and minds that circulate inside and outside classrooms. There are different ways to respond to this situation, but all of them have to face the growing documented social inequality. The recent contribution of Piketty is not only a painful reminder of how inequality has created growing gaps between the haves and the have nots, and offers useful and practical political economy prescriptions to reverse the situation (Piketty, 2014).

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

101

In the USA, diversity of race, gender, culture, disability and sexual preference make sense only in connection with inequality. Here education can play a major role in promoting equality of rights and opportunities, starting from equal academic achievement. As we saw in Chapter 3, at the basis of the multicultural education approach, in its various facets, lie several political theories such as: communitarianism (Taylor, 1992; Sandel, 1982; Etzioni, 1995), critical theory (McLaren, 1997; Torres, 2009a), critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 2004), post-­structural theory (Sleeter and McLaren, 1995; Sleeter and Grant, 1999), anti-­racist theory (Leicester, 1992; Gillborn, 2006), theories of subjugated knowledge (Semali and Kincheloe, 1999), and post-­development theory (Morrow, 2008). There are also less ­radical perspectives in the wake of liberalism, such as human capital theory, the liberal perfectionism of John Dewey, or even liberalism’s reworking in a post-­contractual viewpoint by John Rawls (1971, 1993, 2001). In all these perspectives, for example, equality is a democratic issue and public education is always considered the ‘great equalizer’, which is supposed to remove the barriers of class and to provide all students with an equal education (Dewey, 1916), including those who are culturally diverse. In Europe, intercultural education has been predominantly a technical approach or related to an abstract solidarity. It is a curricular strategy of schooling, a teaching method, or even a generic educative paradigm, related more to practice rather than to political action to confront the growing inequality. There is no political vision supporting this paradigm, either as a critical theory or as a liberal theory of justice. The multiple representational claims of interculturalism beg for political neutrality and agnosticism of ends. Unlike the USA, European progressive parties, which are becoming closer to various forms of liberalism, seem incapable of understanding the political challenges posed by diversity and the need to combine social justice and diversity. We have already claimed that European parties that are usually associated with the Left have failed to recognize the plight of the people representing diversity and difference, and in particular those created by immigration processes as new social actors. As a result interculturalism has been incapable of properly comprehending new social situations and suggesting effective and coherent political solutions in education. In terms of practice, interculturalism endorses a progressive devaluation of education by posing interculturalism as a set of techniques, or as an abstract and moralistic ethical invocation. Intercultural education, according to the prevailing European approaches, is a perspective that operates on the surface of phenomena and leaves untouched the profound

102

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

structure of social dynamics that cultural confrontation implies for education. Perhaps interculturalism could not be faulted for this, since the disparities between law and implementation, or norms and its enforcement, are prevalent everywhere, more so when dealing with diversity issues. Except for some authors, in most cases intercultural theories and practices tend to ignore or disregard the political issues of inequality. Likewise, the majority of educators and practitioners tend to implement impromptu, temporary and provisional intercultural projects instead of structural and stable activities that can ground permanently in the curriculum, and in school organizations, as well as in teachers’ competence to profile cultural diversity and inequality. Profiting from the stammering responses from the Left, the New Populist European Right invokes a simple message of assimilation or separation and calls for limiting the flow of immigration. These are simple and pragmatic responses that ignore the complexity of the phenomena but can easily garner a populist consensus and votes. In sum, intercultural education cannot be limited to a pedagogical or pragmatic approach, nor can it be a simple ethical invocation. It should be clear that intercultural education faces social and political issues which neither begin nor end within the classroom.

1.2  Multicultural education means social justice education Social justice education is a widespread concept in the USA among teachers, school authorities, scholars and social movements. The quest for recognition of diversity is always combined with the struggle for equality and justice. That is why multicultural education in the USA makes sense only within a social justice education framework. Not surprisingly, many institutions in the USA have adopted this label. For instance, the definition of the teaching education programme in a leading university programme like the Department of Education of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies (GSEIS) at UCLA is a programme of social justice education. In Part Two, we will elaborate and clarify this multi-­faceted term. Here it is enough to show its constitutive nexus with multicultural education within the American discourse. Multicultural education not only aspires to accept and respect cultures, but it aims at empowering students. Empowerment cannot be defined without specific attention to academic achievement for all, with clear indicators of access, permanence, positive graduation rates and access to jobs.

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

103

The call for an indefinite pluralism behind European interculturality, which leaves out of consideration the power relations among groups, is either ingenuous and superficial, or naïve – and certainly biased and unfair. We have argued in this book that this intercultural pluralism tends to reinforce the prevailing injustices within society. To recognize diverse cultures should endorse equality of opportunity and models of confronting growing inequality. In short, it requires a strategy of transforming power in democratic societies. Let us be clear on our position. Pluralism is a fundamental epistemological and political condition that we need to nurture and protect within our democratic societies. However, calls for intercultural pluralism (or mutually recognized cultures) falls short of its lofty goals. Minority cultures are not fully accepted unless all aspects of their cultural practices are visible within the school curricula, and equal opportunities to access production and distribution of resources are also granted. As long as only the dominant group controls the means of communication and information, intercultural education cannot be anything but mere formality. According to the European sociologist Michel Wieviorka, there is no difference without inferiorization and domination. Conversely, domination is a concept that cannot be employed with individuals, but only with collective categories (Wieviorka, 2001). As we have seen, intercultural education, like assimilation, has dealt with diversity by keeping away from social and class relations. For this reason it does not see or it does not want to see that racism is not only due to ignorance or lack of understanding. Culture without notions of domination, oppression or hegemony is a limited way to understand today’s society. We noted that intercultural education neglects socio-­economic factors. A concrete field where the struggle of inequality takes place is the academic achievement of pupils from immigrant backgrounds. Europe should pay more attention to school achievement (Park and Sandefur, 2010; OECD, 2010). Paths for migrant school students are characterized by dropouts, educational failures, ‘education predestination’ that excludes them from honour-­class high school courses, limited access to higher education and university (Tarozzi, 2014a, 2015). Considering the intersection of culture and class means that education policies, research and practice should be more focused on identifying factors that hinder or promote school achievement. Multicultural education in the USA is always combined with the idea of justice. This can be rooted in critical theory or even in the principles of liberalism, according to Rawls or, more recently to Martha Nussbaum’s theory of justice (Nussbaum, 1997).

104

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Though it could be seen as a matter of theoretical preference, bringing social justice to the forefront of the discussion has formidable value in the construction of communities of learning and political communities. As we have seen, in the USA there is greater attention given to the issue of equality regarding cultural diversity (Fullinwider, 1996). The liberal and democratic principles in the Constitution and in legislation are supposed to grant an equal education for all, based on the values of freedom, democracy and equal access. But inequalities still exist given the persistence of discrimination, racism, sexism by teachers towards their students, and more broadly, in societal expectations of students’ achievement, and in school policies and practices that can exacerbate inequities (Nieto, 1996). Alas in the USA there is a wide awareness of these incequalities among teachers, scholars, media, political activists, and grassroots movements. Continental Europe has only recently (and only after the 2006 PISA test) begun very slowly to combine the issue of diversity and inequality in school and to monitor the school achievements of migrant and ethnic minorities. All over Europe, however, inequality is only related to unequal school achievement. As we discussed earlier, the adoption of a limited concept of equality is one of the main shortcomings of intercultural education practice. The European approach can learn from the USA how to pay more attention to equality, and how socio-­economic factors impact school achievement.

2  From Europe 2.1  Immigration is a substantive issue in the intercultural arena From the very beginning intercultural education in the EU has been linked to the phenomenon of immigration. The integration of stable cultural minorities or recent European integration processes have been very marginally affected by intercultural policies and practices. Rather, very often we observe a coexistence of different pedagogical approaches to manage non-­national immigrants and national cultural minorities in the same region. Emblematic is the case of Switzerland: while it applies multicultural policies between the linguistic groups of the various cantons, it tends to severely restrict access of immigrants; while in schools an assimilation approach prevails. Everywhere in Europe, immigration is considered a key issue both at European level and by every nation-­state that requires appropriate responses even from the educational system.

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

105

There are 216 million immigrants or people who do not reside in their country of birth throughout the world. Almost 43 million are in the USA, which including refugees and asylum seekers is 13.7 per cent of the US population,3 and some estimate that by 2040 one-­third of children will be growing up in an immigrant household (Suarez-Orozco, 2008). This status represents the contradictions and conundrums related to diversity and its recognition. On a global level, demographics suggest that most of the world’s educational expansion is based on the children of immigrants. US multiculturalism, especially in education, does not deal with recent immigrants, but addresses the rights of people of colour. Will Kymlicka distinguishes two forms of multiculturalism by issuing warnings about risks of a generalization not based on a careful distinction (Kymlicka, 1995). He discusses, on the one hand, the multiculturalism of multinational states, generated by the claims of autonomy of people who consider themselves an autonomous nation within other nation-­states. Examples are the indigenous peoples of Canada, Latin America, New Zealand, Finland, Belgium and to some extent also in the USA where there is a multiculturalism of multinational states. This form of multiculturalism is further exemplified by the case of Kurds, Basques, Maori, Inuit, and Native Americans to name a few. These groups lay claim to the creation of an independent state or the concession of significent political autonomy based on cultural, linguistic and often religious diversity, considered for a long time as a collective identity. On the other hand, there is multiculturalism generated by the migrations, within a pluriethnic state which is built upon the progressive acceptance of linguistic and cultural contributions coming from minorities which originates from their immigration. Both forms produce political, cultural and educational requests issued by those interested in collective rights and diverse citizenship. Still, these are two different positions, which often stand in contrast to each other. For instance, the Turks in Germany or Afro-Caribbeans in the UK are not a ‘nation’. For them, recognition also encompasses an attempt to integrate and hold intercultural exchange. The majority of Western countries face both forms of multiculturalism, but often with mixed features, goals and policy instruments. In the USA, the multicultural approach in education addresses mostly cultural minorities including African-Americans, Native Americans, Latino/as, Chicano/Chicanas and Asian-Americans. But one could ask if the analysis is applicable in the same way to newcomers. On the contrary, quite often claims for recognition from immigrants clash with those from resident minorities, who are sometimes hostile towards the newcomers. This is not to mention the aggressive

106

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

politics attempting to block immigration, like the huge dictates of homeland security’s instructions lowering acceptance of refugees and asylum seekers. An emblematic example from the education field is the controversy over an English-­only language policy. Though our comment could be seen as an over-­ generalization, while recent immigrants strongly oppose the policy, settled communities generally support it. According to a recent report published by the Instituto Cervantes in June 2015, by 2050, the USA will be the largest Spanish-­ speaking country in the world (Instituto Cervantes, 2015). The migrant is the most realistically emblematic condition of today’s planetary economy and culture. Unfortunately the USA seems not to understand this condition very well, and it keeps tackling immigration as a local problem which starts with its permeable borders (Sassen, 1998). In the Western world, immigrants are considered quasi-­inhuman beings, ‘non persons’ (Dal Lago, 1996, 1999) exploited by everyone, sometimes massacred, living invisible lives in the silence of our democratic consciousness. The establishment tends to reject them and not consider them a public issue worthy of intervention – as if migrants were a temporary and irritating historical accident. But migration is not a collateral damage of globalization. Migrant people are not an isolated problem as mostly conservative pundits in the USA tend to portray it, claiming their ‘exceptionalism’ (de Zoysa, 2006). Migration is an event structurally connected and necessary to the global interdependence which marks the contemporary world system. Indeed, the phenomenon of migration is due to the dynamics of the global economy, and not only or exclusively to the poor socio-­economic conditions of developing countries. In this sense, measures to repel immigrants at the border and to block or deport undocumented immigrants have been proven completely useless. For the same reason, the reoccurring threat made by politicians on the Right to build a 1,000-mile wall along the USA–Mexico border, a major commercial partner of the USA, sounds an absurd dream of a futuristic Leviathan. Undocumented immigrants add a demanding question for education policies. 5.5 million children of undocumented immigrants live in the USA, and about 1.8 million of these are young people who live in poverty (Passel and Cohn, 2009). The US political system cannot turn its head and consider them purely as illegal or criminals. In particular, schools should guarantee them their right to public education as a basic human right, according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which precedes national laws. Yet, in 1994 California voted, in a ballot, for a measure named Proposition 187, which among other things prevented undocumented immigrant children from

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

107

enrolling in schools.4 In Europe this would have been impossible. Despite the crisis in public education, which has been attacked and weakened everywhere, the right to education for all is still an inviolable principle that permeates national education systems: every foreign minor even if undocumented has the right to be enrolled in public schools. This situation requires schools to improvise or find temporary solutions, as the immigration phenomenon and movements of people in search of a ‘better life’ cannot be stopped. More intriguing, however, is to note that the children of immigrants who replenish the demographic stock of the society are populating schools in the USA that mighr otherwise close their doors for lack of domestically bred students. Not surprisingly, teachers are some of the key stakeholders in accommodating the plight of immigrant households, and many states like California, a far more progressive state than the rest of the country, are advocates of the California Dream Act (https://dream.csac.ca.gov). A more sophisticated approach is required. The EU is not always a good example of coherent and unitary policies for immigration (Luedtke, 2010), yet education is an exception: from May 1999, when the Treaty of Amsterdam was approved, immigration became (at least to some extent) a communitarian policy field. In the current so-­called ‘Fortress Europe’, diversity became an issue for internal migration and a legacy of the colonial past. Not surprisingly, while immigration and refugees are currently a hot topic for European community, immigration is perceived in terms of protecting EU privileges and the scope of European operations across the Mediterranean sea, like ‘Triton’ in favour of thousands of refugees escaping from Syria, Libya or other war scenarios in Africa, is to control the borders more than rescuing castaways and offering humanitarian support to refugees. Yet, in education in particular the EU has chosen an official approach – intercultural education – based on the acceptance of newcomers, and operates in an emergency fire-­fighting mode.5 Assigning priority to acceptance of immigrants in state schools and not to guaranteeing the rights of the stable second and third generation culturally diverse communities, has limitations. Yet this acceptance has also given rise to a huge debate and school innovation as to themes like the entry of students mid-­school year, bilingualism, and teaching of a second language. One’s native language is certainly a civil rights issue (Romaine, 2009), but it assumes new meanings within the European framework, where, for the same demographic situation, multilingualism is a widely promoted asset. As Catarci (2015) observed, in the vision of the EU founding fathers, the very idea of Europe was born ‘diverse’: it arises from the fusion of languages, peoples,

108

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

traditions, as can be read in the historical document, the Ventotene Manifesto, written by the anti-­fascists Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi (Spinelli et  al., 1982), during their confinement in 1941. Regrettably the Europe of the Maastricht Treaty is neoliberal, holding a very different view from the vision of Spinelli. However, within an institution that counts 24 official languages, there is a widespread assumption that in a global society mono-­lingualism is a dangerous anachronism and bilingualism, as a means to guarantee the same rights to the non-English speakers, is only a limited response. Beyond the linguistic question, a tacit two-­fold dilemma between different purposes emerges: namely, a multicultural and plurilinguistic approach for historical ethnic groups whose native languages are praised and preserved versus an assimilationist approach for newcomer immigrants whose native languages are not recognized. Immigrants more than historical ethnic groups can challenge the traditional concept of national citizenship and the traditional forms required to educate their children in the citizenship tradition of the new country. Therefore, the entitlements of diverse citizenship rights to first and second generations of immigrants is a fundamental political and educational challenge that multicultural education has not been able to face.

2.2  Cultural hybridization is at the very centre of interculturalism There are a number of reasons why the politics of identity in the USA are so complicated. The USA is a social formation that thrived on the colonization of native people and cultures, exploitation of women and alien labour, displacement of Latinos/as from their own land, slavery of populations of African origins, internment of Japanese-Americans – the list of oppression is rather long. Thus, here is a good example of why identity, collective and individual, is so contested: People identify themselves in certain ways in order to protect their bodies, their labor, their communities, their way of life; in order to be associated with people who ascribe values to them; and for purposes of recognition, to be acknowledged, to feel as if one actually belongs to a group, a clan, a tribe, a community. So that any time we talk about identity for a particular group over time and space, we have to be very specific about what the credible options are for them at any given moment. West et al., 1996: 57

The criticism that many European scholars have made of US multiculturalism (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010) as having stiffened the cultures and the politics of identity, is related to the criticism made two decades ago by Scott when she argued that:

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

109

. . . personal testimony of oppression replaces analysis, and this testimony comes to stand for the experience of the whole group. The fact of belonging to an identity group is taken as authority enough for one’s speech; the direct experience of a group or culture – that is, membership in it – becomes the only test of true knowledge. Scott, 1992: 18

The celebration of diversity and difference does not means that we have to celebrate individual experience at the expense of analytical, methodological rigour. As provocatively denounced by Pierre Bourdieu, the debate on diversity has been monopolized by the North American approach. For this reason this debate has defended the consolidation of specific communities of colour while paying less attention to the growing phenomena of mixture, creolization, and hybridization typical of the European debate (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999). A note of caution is in order here. There is no English word which translates métissage with a positive connotation. Perhaps the emerging ‘critical mixed race studies’ could be appropriate. There is only the term ‘miscegenation’ but it is used only in a very negative sense. According to Boaventura de Sousa Santos, we need a theory of translation to transfer these concepts (like métissage, accueil) from one social and theoretical debate to the other in order to create mutual and respectful understanding (Garavito and Santos, 2005). Hybridization and métissage are some of the most powerful, and for many people terrifying metaphors of today’s European society – which is facing irreversible migration processes while it is concerned to seek a common identity without cancelling its various and diverse roots (Gobbo, 2008). According to a well-­established French tradition both in cultural anthropology and in linguistics (Alber et al., 1990) the notion of métissage has become a sort of paradigm (Gruzinski, 1999; Contini, 2009), a new perspective to look not only at the classical questions of anthropology (like acculturation), but also more broadly at questions posed by international migration. In this sense the paradigm of métissage (Amselle, 1990) or the pensée métisse (Gruzinski, 1999) represents an alternative vision to multiculturalism, where cultures coexist with the same dignity and collective rights. According to this French tradition, cultures are plural phenomena whose processes are always mobile and continuously crossed by relationships and tensions. This perspective is not far from the post-­colonial thinking or transnational anthropology and so the idea of métissage can be considered very close to that of cultural hybridization (Bhabha, 1994, García Canclini, 1995, 2009; Spivak, 1999).

110

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

The European discourse about métissage is considered a suitable paradigm to deal with immigrant identity and the question posed by emerging interethnic relationships and globalization phenomena. The migrant by definition embodies the métissage condition. The migrant always lives across cultures’ borders. His/ her experience is to cross identity frontiers, not to raise walls along them based on a substantive and permanent notion of culture. Migrants always exist in double cultural spaces and produce a hybrid culture (Bhabha, 1994). Moreover, as discussed in previous chapters, purely ethnic identities do not exist from an anthropological point of view (Hannerz, 1996; Appadurai, 1996, Gallissot et al., 2000). We criticized the idea of normative multiculturalism based on such a notion of culture and we stress the limit of culturalism behind intercultural education. We are aware that cultures never exist in their pure state; nor can they ever be objectively bounded. Ethnic identities are always ‘mestizos’, we are all mestizos. Identities are always relational, complex, multiple, intersubjective, and constantly open to otherness. For this reason, the best way to define identities is through their narrative within discursive communities. It is only in the personal account that one can find the identity thread, which links diverse representations of the self, across different contexts and historically lived situations. One can say, from the philosophical point of view, that the human condition itself is always characterized by being located in a net of relationships. According to Hannah Arendt (1958) to be human is to be inter-­human (Hwa, 2000: 148). In this sense, mixture refers to intersubjectivity, as phenomenology elaborated it, whereas collective diversity (at the basis of multiculturalism), marks a line between ‘we’ and ‘them’ that is difficult to cross. Paying more attention to negotiation exchanges and to mediation processes, rather than affirming one principle over another is a typical feature of the phenomenological stance, fitting this multi-­faceted idea of culture well. This also makes phenomenology a non-­neutral political approach. According to phenomenology it is possible to think of the public sphere in relation to intercultural living together and to establish a plural and democratic society not based only upon universal principles, but also on a negotiated exchange coming from a mutual respect for diverse worldviews and to form an empathetic effort. Actually, the ambivalent and controversial requests coming from ethnic minorities groups and multicultural debates may be negotiated and reconciled in practice (Wieviorka, 2013). The call for métissage/hybridity is not only an issue in continental philosophy. Argentine anthropologist Néstor García Canclini extensively developed the concept of hybrid cultures in the early 1980s (García Canclini, 1982, 1995). He

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

111

points to the advancement of globalization, immigration, technology, mass media and the internet, to argue that cultural interaction across local, national and transnational borders has become more fluid, more accessible and more complex and thus leads to ever-­increasing hybrid forms of culture (García Canclini, 2009). This is based on a deterritorialization of populations with a world becoming increasingly more urbanized: We have gone from societies dispersed in thousands of peasant communities with traditional, local, and homogeneous cultures – in some regions, with strong indigenous roots, with little communication with the rest of the nation – to a largely urban scheme with a heterogeneous symbolic offering renewed by a constant interaction of the local with national and transnational networks of communication. García Canclini, 1989

This deterritorialization has also formed diasporic communities inside the developed societies: ‘There is an “implosion of the third world in the first” . . . The notion of an authentic culture as an autonomous internally coherent universe is no longer sustainable’ (García Canclini, 1995: 259). He concludes his analysis by borrowing and decoding Foucault that power is decentred and multidetermined: The increase in processes of hybridization makes it evident that we understand very little about power if we only examine confrontations and vertical actions. Power would not function if it were exercised only by bourgeoisie over proletarians, whites over indigenous people, parents over children, the media over receivers. Since all these relations are interwoven with each other, each one achieves an effectiveness that it would never be able to do by itself. But it is not simply a question of some forms of domination being superimposed on others and thereby being strengthened. What gives them their efficacy is the obliqueness that is established in the fabric. García Canclini, 1995: 259

Moreover, European cultural anthropology, post-­modern thinking and post-­ colonial approaches all produced new visions that stress mixing rather than collective difference (Amselle, 1998). For example, the French sociologist René Gallissot (Gallissot et al., 2000) created the metaphor of ‘mass cultural métissage’ to describe the condition of young people living in the urban European peripheries, where they participate in, consume and invent a form of cultural bricolage capable of liberating them from their cultural origins and ethnic scripts.

112

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

For instance, the Beurs, recalling the sound of the word ‘arabes’ reversed, in the suburbs of Paris are a new ‘sub-­cultural’ group of young men and women. They are children of immigrants from the Maghreb, but they grew up in the Parisian peripheries. Nowadays, this generation has constructed its own identity, which is both French and Arab, and a political consciousness, which has been able to set up protests, sometimes violent, to affirm their right to be a double affirmative (both . . . and), rather than a double negative (neither . . . nor). The Beurs, even if victims of discrimination, racism and marginalization in the suburbs of French major cities, started new forms of cultural and artistic ways of expression through music, radio stations, figurative art, and photographs. This cultural environment is strongly marked by conflicts and is full of tensions, but is also rich and original, and cannot be encapsulated within rigid categories (like immigrant, Arab, Muslim, French, foreigner, sans-­papier, etc.). This environment is portrayed in a lively manner in the movie La haine, (The Hate: 1995) by Mathieu Kassovitz. Migrant literature is spreading across Europe. There are narratives written in the host country language, which tell stories of fragmented identities and schizophrenic lives, but also sketch a portrait of a new generation which is building a new social and cultural fabric. For them the processes of enculturation have not happened within a single community, but in the confluence of various lived experiences. The Beurs attended French schools and are French citizens who were born on French soil, but they live in an environment where Arab is the first language and quite often Islam is their religion. They found one of their identifying myths in the French soccer national team, which in the 1990s won championships, including the 1998 World Cup. The team was called ‘les bleu metìs’ (the blue mestizos), and it was a unified group that was made by quality players coming from or having roots in Africa, the Maghreb, the French Caribbean, and South America; yet, it was on the field to represent the French nation and proudly sang La Marseillaise. This national team of Zidane and friends is the most efficacious metaphor of the socio-­cultural hodge-­ podge of contemporary Europe, a continent that reveres soccer. The risks and opportunities surrounding these new subjects that challenge the traditional idea of citizenship, invoke rights and opportunities and show the signs of the crisis of neo-­liberal Western societies are well highlighted by Davide Zoletto, who cites two similar episodes, even if they occurred thousands of miles away (Zoletto, 2012). In 2008 in some north-east cities, Italian youth groups of ‘second-­ generation’ immigrants or ‘neo-Italians’ organized demonstrations to demand their rights. These were mostly young Muslims who marched waving tricolour

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

113

flags, wearing the blue shirt of the Italian national soccer team and played the Italian national hymn. Two years earlier in Los Angeles, groups of Latino migrants demonstrated, marching in the LA streets for recognition of their citizenship rights by singing the American national hymn in Spanish.6 The nuestro hymno, is a meaningful and emblematic sign of the post-­national world in which culture is a non-­effective category to interpret new complex and global western societies Likewise, something similar happens in what is referred to as ‘Tex-Mex’, the strip of land that runs along the border between the USA and Mexico. Latinos in Texas, either born there or immigrated, are no longer Mexican, but neither are they completely gringos. Many Mexicans in Texas, New Mexico and California do not feel they ‘immigrate’ because the land originally belonged to them. Therefore they do not identify with being an immigrant in the same way that a person from El Salvador or Guatemala would. Chicano/a language is neither properly Spanish, nor properly English. It is both, and the existence of Chicano/a people requires a rethinking of the sociopolitical categories with which they have been defined (Burke, 2002). For instance cultural theorist and political scientist Ray Rocco finds that Latinos, particularly new immigrants, engage in practices that fall within the notion of citizenship building: They engage in practices within relational settings of civil society that under specific conditions, can be construed as in effect making claims that are about membership in the community, about having access to institutional settings, resources, and opportunities . . . Rocco, 1997: 14

Torres has added, commenting on Rocco’s post-­colonial work: ‘Under specific conditions’ – this is the crux of theorizing citizenship from the post-­colonialist perspective of hybridity, borders, and subaltern spaces. What specific conditions would facilitate that the contestation of established boundaries, rules, and the construction of citizenship can be incorporated into a discussion of how subaltern identities in multicultural society may constitute a comprehensive, dynamic, and complex notion of citizenship. Torres, 2009b: 85

It is therefore important to look at the question of hybridity while considering the changes in citizenship building. Métissage supports the production – not only the reproduction – of difference (Wieviorka, 2001), and in doing so it evaluates creativity and invention, creates a new aesthetic background, promotes

114

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

existential drifts among cultures, and exalts mobile identities. This cultural mobility, which allows individuals to construct their plural identities always in relationship to others, is particularly lively and enriching in certain fields such as music or aesthetics, while penalizing others. In the artistic plane, métissage has always endorsed aesthetic creation since art plays a major role in constructing and interpreting the processes of intercultural creolization. But also on the educational level mixing is a crucial stance, since, as we have argued, identity is conceivable only in relation to someone else. Thus the inter-­mixing of ethnicities, languages, races, religions or cosmovisions, can enrich the educational experience of everybody. However, the métissage does not have political or juridical expression in the way that multiculturalism does. It offers political responses to demands for recognition, and in doing so it calcifies differences. Collective identities, like cultural or social ones, offer a sphere for political recognition and are a more effective instrument for political action. Collective difference offers its members instruments with which to claim cultural rights and to take social action, but are necessarily based on an absolutized concept of identity. While cultural mobility could be fascinating from an aesthetic, artistic or even educational perspective, it could also be penalizing in the daily life of individuals. The main critical point of the idea of hybridization is that the contact between cultures never happens in conditions of reciprocity or of equality. A cultural contact can be emancipatory only on condition of guaranteeing social equality. Otherwise, relationships are distorted, communication is impossible and structural inequalities are further reinforced. Hybridity has been largely celebrated in the post-­modern literature for its capability to oppose universalism and totalizing metanarratives. But it fails to accomplish any real emancipatory change if it does not pay attention to the political dimension of social stratification. This critique should not be underestimated, but as Raymond Morrow argues, the resistance of some theorists of subjugated knowledge to the notion of hybrid subject is suspect (Morrow, 2008). This resistance risks undervaluing the educational, and so also the political value of the crossing and the exchange. Freire’s notion of conscientização, according to Morrow, requires critical subjects capable of assessing multiple realities. That is why growing as a human is impossible if education focuses only on the reproduction of traditional ways of life. Growing up in a life lived through crossing borders allows us to form a more sophisticated critical consciousness and openness to otherness, rather than being trapped in narrow-­minded and dogmatic visions of our own traditions.

Comparing Intercultural and Multicultural Education

115

Hybridization has an important educational value both for those who live it and for those who come into contact with it. Being and keeping in contact with métissage, in educational contexts, allows students to mirror those who managed to construct a multiple and mobile identity. From this we can learn the art of stepping back from ourselves, from our traditions and from crippling and defensive prejudices that belong to them (Leghissa, 2002). A productive dialogue between two different discourses for managing diversity in educational contexts, i.e. the USA and Europe, is certainly stimulating. Unfortunately, very rarely non-English speaking European scholars cite and make systematic reference to American literature and vice versa. This is particularly limiting if not paradoxical in handling issues related to culture and cultural dialogue. One of the contributions of this comparative book is sharing scholarly traditions, references, and theoretical schools between the AngloAmerican tradition and the continental European one. This comparison does not reveal which perspective is better or more advanced. Fortunately we are not contrasting two incompatible moral or political philosophies – one interested in stressing diversity, the other in stressing mixing; nor are we interested in finding the Ultimate Solution for Western contemporary societies. What emerges more evidently is that the complex issue of diversity cannot be dissociated from equity and social justice. In the second part of this book, we will address the theme of social justice as a key element for dealing with cultural diversity within a theoretical framework of citizenship and democracy. We argue that a global orientation to citizenship education can encompass both issues by bridging the gap between a‘domestic multiculturalism’ and a‘cosmopolitan multiculturalism’ to quote Kymlicka (2004). As we have seen, métissage and hybridization challenge the usual idea of citizenship and national belonging. Therefore, a planetary citizenship, rooted in social justice and human rights, should take into account the debate arising from inter- and multiculturalism, and attending the reality of multiple identities and belongings (Banks, 2009).

Notes 1 http://www.worldcat.org/title/intergroup-­education-in-­public-schools-­ experimental-programs-­sponsored-by-­the-project-­in-intergroup-­education-in-­ cooperating-schools-­theory-practice-­and-in-­service-education/oclc/03951999 (retrieved 26 August 2015).

116

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

2 An earlier version of this argument was published in Tarozzi (2012). 3 Peoplemovein. Migration flows across the world. Retrieved at http://peoplemov.in (26 August 2015). 4 The law has been subsequently cancelled by the Federal Court, because it was considered anti-Constitutional. 5 It is worth noting that there is no translation for one of the key words of intercultural education: accoglienza, accueil. ‘Acceptance’ does not have the same connotation of solidarity or welcome. 6 This episode was analyzed by Butler and Spivak (2007).

Part Two

Justice in Democracies

6

Theoretical Conceptualization: The Challenge of Equality

Equality is the priority in the current multicultural education agenda as well as in global citizenship education (GCE). Its social function is complementary to the cultural function of diversity with which seeks to establish a difficult and precarious equilibrium. Because equality is a core concept of our argument, we need to address it thoroughly. Equality is a key concept as the basis of a theory of justice. The Europe of the Enlightenment dreamed of founding social equilibrium on the notion of equality. A threefold notion – equality of opportunities, of rights, and of results – represented the more ambitious project of the modernity (Callari Galli, 1996). Yet the project was left unfinished (Bertolini, 2003). Beck in his theory of risk society indicates that they resulted from the failure of modernity and the enlightenment and argues for the construction of a new modernity (Beck, 2006). In particular, the Enlightenment idea of equality has been challenged by two forces. On the one hand the emergence of diversity in the post-­modern era put equality into discussion. Absolute and universal ethical principles are no longer at the very centre of social action, and have been replaced by symbolic questions, meaning-­making modes of social reproduction and reality as a process of social construction. In this context the notion of diversity, community, culture of origin, ethnic or gender belonging, seem to respond more punctually to the need of a subject living in the social scene (Giddens 1990, Touraine, 1995, 1997). On the other hand, equality of opportunity, as a founding principle of liberal democratic societies, has been strongly challenged by the emergence of new marginalized social subjects and by the new world (dis)order which has revealed social and economic imbalances. These new and growing inequalities are so huge that Amartya Sen claimed that inequality is the key word of the globalization processes (Sen, 2002), and many other economists have demonstrated that

120

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

inequalities are growing in modern societies affected by financial capitalism (Stiglitz, 2002; Piketty, 2014). In particular Piketty maintains that the optimistic theories of most economists of the twentieth century that social inequalities in advanced stages of capitalism are destined spontaneously to decrease are unfounded. The neoliberal theory of trickle down has also proved to be unfounded (i.e. the idea that wealth and economic development of a tiny part of the population produces greater wealth for all by a process of trickling. In short Piketty criticizes the dominant idea that the solution to the crisis of capitalism would be . . . more capitalism. On the contrary, inequalities are growing uncontrollably and it is not well founded empirically that what has been traditionally claimed by neo-­liberal economists – protecting private property, favouring the free market, ensuring competition or even benefiting higher income – would lead to an economically prosperous and socially just society. The author demonstrates his thesis with an historical analysis of inequalities of income and wealth, by comparing for the first time more than two centuries of data (from the Industrial Revolution to the present day), and in several countries of the world (from the USA to France, the UK and many others). Such a detailed analysis has been possible thanks not only to computer resources but also to the collaboration of a large team of researchers; thus it should be acknowledged that when we refer to Piketty, we also refer to a wide international network of scholars, who for years collected and analyzed data. What matters here is to emphasize the author’s assertion that education and knowledge dissemination are the most effective solutions for bridging the economic and social inequality gaps. Piketty is explicit on this when he argues that the main convergence factor in favour of the reduction and compression of inequality are the processes of diffusion of knowledge and investment in skills and training (Piketty, 2014: 43). Yet, what today is widening the range of disparity is the tendency (now an established norm worldwide) of contemporary capitalism to prevail significantly upon the profit from capital over growth rates. This produces large concentrations of inherited capital, deep and growing inequalities, the end of meritocratic distribution and the demolition of the principles of distributive justice, upon which modern democracies should be based. For this reason, an equitable education does not appear spontaneously, thanks to the development of human capital generated by economic growth, but it depends on public policies in education and in facilitating access to education for all. This argument is very relevant from an educational point of view for those who are interested in the role of public education.

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

121

The example taken from Piketty reminds us that equality is not an abstract theoretical principle. As with all other human rights, equality exists only in its application. Education is one of the most important fields of the application of this principle. This is because school has the social mandate to fill social and cultural gaps among citizens, and has the possibility to offer the same education opportunities to all. Therefore, to be concrete and applicable not only in economic analysis, it is important to define the element of the individual and social identity from which one can recognize equality. To proclaim abstract principles is useless. What counts is establishing in what way we are equals, and not only declaring that we are so. Here it is important to recall Amartya Sen’s fundamental question. Human diversity requires us to respond carefully to the question, ‘equality of what?’ (Sen, 1992). This is a question that demands concrete responses from education policies and practices. In which dimensions, individual and/or collective, do we choose to ground the question of equality? Alain Touraine captured the rising contradictions and antinomies by founding justice on limited concepts: If we define ourselves on the basis of our instrumental actions, we are not equal any more, because one is strong, competent or educated and the other is weak, incompetent or illiterate. If, on the contrary, we define ourselves on the basis of our community of belonging, we are even less equal, because those who think of themselves as civil or religious judge others as barbarian or impious, and among them there is space only for cultural war or segregation. The equality principle is not located anymore above our individual existences; we are not equal because we are all creatures of God, according to Spanish theologians at the epoch of America’s conquest to oppose the Indians’ massacre; nor, even less, are we equal because we are all provided with reason. (our translation, Touraine, 1997: 54)

Touraine moves the notion of equality from the level of equality of rights and opportunities to one of results. In his analysis, equality can be seen also in its existential roots. Therefore, according to Touraine, equality does not have to be sought as an outward principle, nor in the common possession of fragments of self shared with others, but within our own existences. This argument has huge consequences from an educative point of view for showing the limitations of the liberal concept of equality, considering equality as a right because we all share the same instrumental reason which defines us as human beings (Tarozzi, 2005). The equality that interests education policies and practices most is to be sought in one’s unexpressed potential and, even more, in the effort to express it

122

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

and make it explicit. This is the equality of intentionality, which is located not in an analytic rationality, but in the consciousness. This, according to Husserl, is the site of assigning meanings to the world. Not by chance is this exactly Freire’s position (Torres, 1978a, 1978b, 1980, 2014). From another point of view, equality is not within people, in their principle of individuation, but among people. More than in individuals, equality is in the space between them, a space crossed by relationships, interconnections, and interdependences. In contrast, equality is invoked, provided or advocated as an exterior concept, like a veil, laid out above an undifferentiated mass of subjects. While it guarantees the same rights, it also flattens each and every one as part of an homogeneous and homogenizing neutrality, therefore far from any idea of interpersonal and intergroup difference. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book Democracy in America, criticized the democratic idea of equality as sameness, and complained that ‘equality poses the men side by side, without a common tie which connects them.’1 Modern democracy draws on a discouraging picture of individuals as independent and autonomous atoms, each focused on their interests, but remaining alone because of a lack of authentic ties (Pulcini, 2001). In sum, we need a notion of equality which is neither objective nor extrinsic but rooted in human existence and intersubjective relationships to overcome what we can call the equality dilemma. On the one hand, ethnic or cultural communities are based on the notion of difference expressing individuals, and their collective identities, rather than on a universal notion of equality shared by all human beings. Therefore, they definitely express an intrinsic idea of equality but they cannot produce a universal notion of equality that can be operationalized in social justice education school practices. On the other hand, it is entitled to the same human dignity as an abstract and extrinsic call and it does not guarantee us concrete equality as citizens. For this reason, political declarations and rights entitlement are not enough. Education is required to allow people to exercise their rights and not only for rights to be bestowed upon them. According to Rawls, the fundamental message of the liberal tradition should not be ignored: equality requires fairness and suitable access to opportunities (Rawls, 1971). Without them all the social and educational models of inclusion will become unrealistic mystification. However, focusing exclusively on a universal notion of equity as fairness could homogenize us and lead towards the obliteration of difference. That is why it is necessary, through emancipatory education, to strengthen an individual’s capability to exercise rights and grasp opportunities. We need instead an intersubjective and inner equality which, on the basis of the relationships among us, assigns to all real men and women the same value,

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

123

since all of us share what Touraine calls the ‘same effort of individuation’, that is to say the realization of our own potentialities and the transformation of our own needs and capabilities. This happens within an education experience essentially considered as a political act. This equality, which does not contrast with diversity, cannot be guaranteed by a state, but it is definitely an achievement that can happen in education. In this chapter we will base the concept of citizenship on the concept of social justice, which does not follow a similar legal or philosophical narrative. We turn now to the analysis of social justice and its implications for education as a foundation for citizenship building.

Social justice In this section, we will briefly address the idea of social justice based on a more social and progressive liberalism. This liberalism presupposes a theory of justice, implicit or explicit, which can regulate the distribution of resources and equal opportunities to access them all.2 In his classical work, Rawls designed a theory of justice as fairness (Rawls, 2001), typical of liberalism as a political theory (Rawls, 1971). Within this theory, the education system plays a major role in the construction of the idea of justice itself,3 a disposition which allows all citizens to share an ineludible presupposition of every theory of justice: to recognize themselves as mutually free and equal. Although the notion of justice within the liberal tradition is basically individualistic and grounded in a human rights regime, to some extent it is also possible to find some insights into the social dimension. This is particularly evident in the area of education. According to Rawls’s theory of justice, the school as institution is one of the instruments that the state can use to accomplish the second principle of justice (i.e. to give advantage to those who are more disadvantaged), or the ‘maximin principle’ or reversed equality, by intentionally favouring the less advantaged. Therefore, school plays a key role not only targeted at the social reproduction of democracy, but also in creating justice as equity for all citizens. The maximin principle, defined also as the ‘difference principle’, implies that ‘Social and economic inequalities have to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunities; and second, they are to be to the greater benefit of the least-­ advantaged of society’ (Rawls, 2001: 42–3) The way in which these principles are

124

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

formulated in Political Liberalism (Rawls, 1993) is significantly different from the one proposed in A Theory of Justice. For example, this is the original formulation of the second principle: ‘ social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greater benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunities’ (Rawls, 1971: 266). The pragmatic implications of the education equality or fair education equality principle are complex: the same (human) right to a good education should be guaranteed to everyone. That means that everybody (those who have the same or relatively similar abilities) should access higher education, regardless of their social, ethnic or gender characteristics. But it also means that a complete education should be guaranteed also to those who are less able or gifted. And, in the end, everyone has the right to learn, according to his or her ability. This second principle of justice has many educational consequences. A theory of justice as fairness would require paying more attention to the rights of the less talented in order to avoid the excesses of meritocracy typical of liberal systems, but extraneous to a sound theory of justice, especially on a social rather than an individual scale. Rawls is very clear on this point in his seminal work: Society must give more attention to those with fewer native assets and to those born into less favorable social positions [. . .] In pursuit of this principle greater resources might be spent on the education of the less rather than the more intelligent, at least over a certain time of life, say the earlier years of school. Rawls, 1971: 86

It is noteworthy that Harvard’s liberal philosopher privileges the role of education as social equalizer rather than as a mechanism to select talented people for school, at least for primary school. While this is a political and not an educational claim, however, Rawls goes further, noting that in order to accomplish its purpose school should have a more humanistic approach, rather than only productive and functional. He writes, ‘the value of education should not be assessed solely in terms of economic efficiency and social welfare’ (Rawls, 2003: 87). School has the goal of enriching individual and social life for all. From a liberal perspective one cannot expect that schools promote the emancipation of students, and oppressed social groups. Neither can we assume from a liberal perspective that the epistemology of suspicion that all social relationships conceal relationships of domination, as proposed by Freire and Paul Ricœur, should be endorsed (Torres, 2014). It will always remain related to

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

125

its institutional role of (conscious) social reproduction (Gutmann, 1987; Morrow and Torres, 1995). It could even promote autonomy and critical thinking, which are also important goals for educational fairness. These educational goals aim at making every person able intentionally to distance him/herself from his or her own system of values and beliefs in order to reconsider them, rationally, in the light of their coherence, soundness of their assumptions, and confrontation with other systems. However, to entirely accept the emancipation of students as an educative goal of school, and to recognize the normative and political role of education, goes beyond a liberal perspective. It is instead completely coherent with a critical pedagogy approach that accepts the ethical and political non-­neutrality of its assumptions (Torres and Noguera, 2009). To understand these arguments, however, requires a clarification of the notion of social justice education, which we will do next.

Social justice education There are many arguments about, and definitions of, social justice education. Social justice education is intended as a radical approach; it is widespread in North America, Latin America (Tedesco, 2012), in Anglo-Saxon countries and in continental Europe (Ayers et  al., 2009). Although it is not univocally defined, social justice education has become, especially in the USA, almost a mantra among teachers, scholars, school authorities and social movements. From a rigorous theoretical point of view, however, it is an inadequately and unambiguously developed concept, despite various attempts to conceptualize it and to ground its preconditions in various social theories relating to educational policy (Gewirtz, 1998). Let us bring insights from an empirical analysis to clarify this topic. Research conducted in Los Angeles offers important insights into the perception, aspirations and ideologies of educators who want to practise social justice education (Tarozzi, 2011, 2014b). Pre-­service teachers provided several definitions which better illustrate the meaning of a notion more closely related to practices and militant commitment, than purely academic statements. For a Latina middle-­school teacher in the Watts area, social justice education is an approach ‘that is political in nature to expose the inequalities present in institutions and the critique of current social order and empower towards transformation’. For another, a White, 26-year-­old female teaching in the

126

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

historically African-American neighbourhood of South Los Angeles, social justice education means ‘Teaching students to imagine themselves as agents of change who question the world around them’. This same teacher found this approach useful in the context in which she works because one of her major goals is to enable their students to ‘actively challenge the prevailing racism in society’. An African-American maths teacher says that social justice education ‘takes into account the backgrounds and community surroundings of students providing a focus on changing the conditions that permeate the community’. Again it is ‘a way of educating that empowers students and communities to transform social injustices such as poverty, crime, violence and racism’ (Latina teacher, 25 years old). For a young male maths teacher in a downtown Los Angeles school, ‘the purpose of social justice education is to combat inherent aspects of society that promote racism and discrimination of any and all types’. These strongly lived definitions show the engagement of practitioners in urban areas, but are also coherent with the broad educational approach of the teacher education programme in which they are participating. Social change as a purpose and community as a priority area of intervention; critical thinking as being aware of injustices and social inequalities; school both as a site of the reproduction of injustice and as a place of emancipation: these are some key words echoing across these definitions. While the concept of justice is ancient and has been deeply and broadly conceptualized since classical philosophy, rooted in the Aristotelean concept of distributive justice, its link with the social dimension is thoroughly related to modernity (Williamson et al., 2007). The first use of the term ‘social justice’ in its modern meaning seems to date back to the nineteenth century and surprisingly is attributed to an Italian Jesuit priest, Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio, brother of the Piedmontese minister Massimo, a conservative priest, one of the co-­founders of the journal La civiltà cattolica. To attribute this fatherhood in a footnote of his Law, Legislation and Liberty is precisely the philosopher Friedrich A. von Hayek, a leading critic of the ‘mirage’ of social justice. The libertarian philosopher, moreover, attributed to Antonio Rosmini the wider dissemination and conceptualization in its progressive meaning of this concept, starting with the 1848 pamphlet The Constitution According to Social Justice.4 It is difficult to find a direct legacy of the work of Taparelli (who wrote in Italian and Latin) to the current North American use of this notion. It should be recognized, however, that, thanks to Rosmini, the concept of social justice has become part of modern Catholic social teaching. In the modern USA, social justice education is rooted in the nineteenth century, in pedagogical discussions about the establishment of an educational

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

127

system, universal and at no cost, following the ‘common schools’ model founded by the Massachusetts Secretary of State for Education Horace Mann. A more sophisticated version of social justice education can be found in John Dewey, who claimed that education is a tool for social change, and that democracy is both the premise and the result of schooling (Dewey, 1916). The notions of social justice and the underlining principle of distributive justice have been sharply criticized by both conservatives and radicals. The former’s critique is grounded in the principles of liberalism taken to the extreme: the democratic state, neutral by definition, is not in any way entitled to intervene in the private sphere of citizens (such as educational choices), by indicating social, ethical purposes or proposing any educational project. The liberal state should be light or absent and it is entitled solely to govern economic and political processes in a free exchange of ideas which, as goods, are self-­regulated by the market. In addition, for Hayek (1982) and Nozick (1974), social justice would be a tricky concept because it assumes a body or a mechanism for redistributing resources to the members of a state. While such a mechanism in a neo-­liberal developed economy cannot and must not be there,5 the presence of groups or individuals giving its citizens their own choices and decisions, based on ethical principles universally considered fair or just, would destroy the very principle of freedom. On the other hand, radical or progressive criticisms are focused precisely on the ethical neutrality of a theory of justice, as well as on its basic individualism and, as a result, on its inability to understand and recognize the collective differences and individual identities. More recently, critical theory has reframed social justice education, with a radical approach, aiming at denouncing the ways in which inequalities persist in educational processes based on ethnicity, gender, social class, sexual orientation and physical abilities (Sikes and Vincent 1998). Critical pedagogy combines the contribution of the critical theory inspired by the Frankfurt School with Paulo Freire’s works and action, by binding to active politics and educational engagement related to the civil rights struggles of African-Americans against racial segregation and those for women’s emancipation in the 1970s. Therefore, it is clear that being a cultural minority is related to the question of segregation, and cultural diversity is conceived of in terms of desegregation and the fight against discrimination. Social justice education combines educational practice with a critical perspective, useful when facing the social challenges related to public education. However, even if everyone agrees that social justice education is an approach that is never politically neutral, not everyone regards it as a radical approach.

128

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Indeed the difference between critical theory and a liberal democratic approach is theoretically ambiguous. The latter considers social mobility as an essential instrument for economic development. Critical theory promotes an emancipatory philosophy, which regards education as an instrument to guarantee social mobility, allowing those who live in poverty access to the American dream. Education aims at the social and political transformation of poor communities and of the people who live in them. Social justice education, then, can be seen as an education style aiming at promoting access to higher education for all, despite their economic conditions. It can also be viewed as going beyond promotion to a tool to discuss the system in itself and its inherently deep injustices. In this view, the injustice roughly coincides with the inequality that is founded in the socio-economic structures of society. The remedy for this injustice should be the redistribution of material goods, opportunities, power to create a fair and equitable society. An emancipatory and radical social justice education calls for a soical and political investment to improve life conditions in poverty. The purpose of it is not promote escape from communities, but the improvement of academic achievement, reduction of drop-outs and guarantee of college, and the endorsement of a political commitment to study, to graduate and then to come back to one’s community and transform it (Duncan-Andrade, 2007). How can we define a transformative social justice education from a Freirean meta-­theoretical perspective? Torres (2007a) has written about the conceptual construct of transformative social justice education. While aware that this construct focuses on learning and/or education, it is clear that it needs to be enriched to reflect the diversity of oppressive situations. To begin with, one may wonder if we treat lifelong learning and education as separate constructs. One may argue that there is, to a large extent, an overlapping of both concepts. However recent research, particularly in adult learning education, has emphasized and criticized the notion of lifelong learning. Critics argue that the conceptualization of lifelong learning is part of the hegemonic discourses which are classed, raced and gendered (Burke and Jackson, 2007: 2). The emphasis on instrumental, technical and mechanical sets of skills, outcomes and competencies tend to follow ‘neo-­liberal constructions of lifelong learning embedded in a hierarchical individualism’ (Burke and Jackson, 2007: 2).Yet lifelong learning and adult learning education could be reconceptualized and reinvigorated as a democratic discourse and not merely as an instrumental one. In this book, we would like to use the notion of transformative social justice education to include any systematic learning experience taking place in institutions even if they are not schooling-­based or university-­based institutions, programmes or practices. The idea of social justice education should also encompass lifelong

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

129

learning processes. Finally, adding the transformative to the conceptual construct is an attempt to emphasize the importance of a model of education that does not simply reproduce structures – but also seeks to transform them. Transformative social justice learning as a social, political and pedagogical practice, takes place when people reach a deeper, richer, more textured and nuanced understanding of themselves and their world: ‘a reading of the world and of the word’, the fortunate phrase that Paulo Freire has predicated in countless writings. Transformative social justice learning is, philosophically speaking, an attempt to recreate the examination of rituals, myths, icons, totems, symbols and taboos in education and society. It requires an examination of the uneasy dialectic between agency and structure, and the possibilities of an agency for setting forward a process of transformation. Sociologically speaking, transformative social justice learning entails an examination of, and transformational practices upon, systems, organizational processes, institutional dynamics, rules, mores, and regulations, including prevailing traditions and customs – that is to say, key structures which by definition reflect human interests. These structures represent the core of human interests, expressing the dynamic of wealth, power, prestige and privilege in society. They constrain but also enable human agency. It follows that a model of transformative social justice education should be based on unveiling the conditions of alienation and exploitation in society. That is, on creating the basis for an understanding and comprehension of the roots of social behaviour and its implications in culture and nature. We can enhance our understanding of these findings by considering the theoretical contributions of Pierre Bourdieu on habitat and habitus, and how social capital affects and is affected by the construction of ideology in education. (Bourdieu, 1979; Apple, 2003, 2010). Likewise, one can turn to Basil Bernstein’s analysis of class, codes and controls, which offer – especially in relation to class analysis – a horizontal and a vertical modelling of social interactions in education (Bernstein, 1970; Torres, 2007).

Theories of citizenship and education The welfare state and citizenship building6 In the twenty-­first century, we cannot obtain foundational bases for an ethically valid and efficiency-­viable citizenship if we do not base the arguments on the

130

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

bedrock of social justice. Citizenship is always interwoven in a complex structure of relationships. As long as those relationships change worldwide, citizenship changes as well. Therefore, we need to constantly re-­think the usual concepts we use for defining citizenship. The most significant development of citizenship theory in the twentieth century has been the linking of the welfare state to the full expression of democratic citizenship. T. H. Marshall’s celebrated 1950 essay, ‘Citizenship and social class’, articulated the post-­war consensus around the notion of the liberal welfare state as a precondition for the exercise of citizenship in capitalist societies (Marshall, 1950; Held, 1983: 248–60). Following David Held, we could argue that Marshall sought to show that something like modern civil rights developed first in early nineteenth-­century England. Political rights developed next, although the principle of universal political citizenship was not fully recognized until the early twentieth century. The expansion of social rights began in the late nineteenth century with the development of public elementary education, but it was not until the twentieth century that social rights in their modern form were fully established. Marshall based this historical account on the emergence of the modern welfare state. The great distributive measures of the post-­war welfare state, including health services, social security, and progressive taxation, created better conditions and greater equality for the vast majority of those who did not flourish in the free market. And they provided a measure of security for all those who were vulnerable, especially if they fell into the trap of poverty. Marshall maintained that social rights mitigated the inequalities of the class system in a society that remained hierarchical (Held, 1989: 191). Marshall’s influential work has been forcefully criticized, especially for being an interpretation based on the historical development of the UK. A prominent critic is Anthony Giddens, who questions Marshall’s three stages of development as a teleological and evolutionary logic. In addition, Giddens questions what he considers Marshall’s oversimplification of politics and the state inasmuch as Marshall did not pay sufficient attention to the role of social struggles that, in their resolution, created the condition for state concession, and not vice versa.7 Despite these criticisms, Marshall was careful to show how this analysis applied beyond the boundaries of Britain, and more importantly, that the acquisition of civil, political, and social rights was not irreversible. Citizenship is about contractual law. Marshall claimed that the notion of a social pact comprising a compromise between the different social and political forces was fundamental to the full expression of democratic citizenship in the welfare

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

131

state. This claim, nonetheless, did not preclude his acknowledging that the achievement of citizenship has always been a process of struggle. Marshall cautioned that ‘some of the conflicts within our system’ may become ‘too sharp for the compromise to achieve its purpose much longer’ (Marshall, 1973: 122). Marshall was prophetic. The emergence of the New Right in recent decades has presented a serious challenge to the notion of citizenship sponsored by welfare state liberals. Their views on social and foreign policy are often referred to as ‘neo-­conservative’ due to their desire to preserve long-­standing traditions, but whose economic policies are called ‘neo-­liberal’ because of their endorsement of an extreme form of market individualism (Torres, 2011, 2013). Neo-­conservatism conceives citizenship in terms of obligation and responsibility instead of rights, whereas neo-­liberalism views citizenship in economic rather than legal or social terms, combining the logic of the market with that of the state. While the market requires able consumers to construct a viable social agreement, the state only grants citizenship status to individuals with dependable economic standing. Neo-­conservative critics complain that the permissiveness of the welfare state and the influence of its classical (not neo-) liberal advocates, particularly in culture and higher education, are responsible for the moral malaise and crises in family values of US and European cultures. Neo-­liberal critics argue that the welfare state promotes passivity among the poor, creating a culture of dependency and drawing from exhausted fiscal coffers so as to create conditions of fiscal crisis, while actually not improving the real life chances of the people on welfare. The new right’s critique of the notion of social citizenship and the welfare state has been counteracted with a set of critical observations. First, the notion of dependency as a result of the welfare state is challenged on grounds that it is the rise of unemployment, in the context of the global economic restructuring, and not the availability of welfare that should be blamed for the situation of the poor in industrial, advanced societies. Likewise, the experience of the most extensive welfare states, particularly in Scandinavia, was made possible because they have enjoyed surprisingly low unemployment rates for the past century. As a result of the neo-­liberal political economy, class inequalities have been exacerbated, the working poor and unemployed have ceased to participate in the systems, and they have, in fact, become politically disenfranchized. Claus Offe called this the ‘commodification of labour’, and showed how it led to factors of social instability and inability to govern capitalist societies facing a crisis of legitimation (Offe, 1984). Critical race theorists Ladson-Billings and Tate, following Derek Bell (1987: 239), argue that US history is replete with tensions and struggles over property –

132

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

in its various forms. From the removal of Indians (and later Japanese-Americans) from the land, to military conquest of the Mexicans, to the construction of Africans as property, the ability to define, possess, and own property has been a central feature of power in America . . . Thus, we talk about the importance of the individual, individual rights and civil rights while social benefits accrue largely to property owners (Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995: 53). Whereas, in the welfare state, education was treated as a public good that not only constituted citizens but was their fundamental right as well, with the growing emphasis on market forces in education, the citizen has become a consumer affecting social modes of solidarity and forms of political consciousness and representation. Geoff Whitty has argued that rightist reforms in education, moving toward the market and diminishing state involvement, pursue multiple goals (Whitty 1998). First and foremost, these reforms can be understood in terms of projecting changing modes of regulation from the sphere of production into other areas, such as schooling and welfare. There is indeed a compatible shift between the establishment of markets in welfare and a shift in the economy away from ‘Fordism’ towards a ‘neo-Fordist’ mode of accumulation. Second, the emergence of new schools with higher forms of specialization is also seen as the equivalent to the rise of flexible specialization in the economy, driven by the imperatives of differentiated consumption and replacing the old assembly-­line world of mass production (Whitty, 1998: 7–8). Third, taking into account the changes in the mode of production and in the symbolism of educational systems in more fragmented cultural domains, these reforms are also seen as an account of postmodernist forms of representation, choice, and diversity in the ‘new times’ – a move away from modern bureaucratized state education systems (Whitty, 1998: 92–109; Burbules and Torres, 2000). Yet, empirical evidence suggests that the emphasis on choice and school autonomy (including vouchers and charter schools in the USA and grant-­ maintained schools in England) further disadvantages those unable to compete in the market (Smith and Noble, 1995; Plant, 1990; Wells, 1983; Apple, 1997). After a detailed analysis of these policies, Whitty concludes: The growing tendency to base more and more aspects of social affairs on the notion of consumer rights rather than upon citizen rights involves more than a move away from public-­provided systems of state education towards individual schools competing for clients in the marketplace. While seeming to respond to critiques of impersonal over-­bureaucratic welfare state provision, this also shifts major aspects of education decision making out of the public into the private realm with potentially significant consequences for social justice . . . As the new

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

133

education policies foster the idea that responsibility for welfare, beyond the minimum required for public safety, is to be defined entirely as a matter for individuals and families, then not only is the scope of the market narrowed, but civil society will be progressively defined solely in market terms. Whitty, 1998: 100

Whitty suggests the need to create new forms of association in the public sphere in which citizen rights in the process of public policy formation can be reasserted against the trends of a restricted version of the state and a marketized civil society. Education policymaking should be an integral part of democratic life and a legitimate public sphere (Whitty, 1998). Thus, Whitty’s concern with the marketization of social relations in schools and the drive toward a consumer society, while advanced from a social democratic position on the Left, is nonetheless compatible with the traditional liberal notion of state schools, which help to teach responsible citizenship. This is so insofar as state schools require children of different races and religions to work together and learn to respect each other. Amy Gutmann has persuasively argued, for example, that education for citizenship should focus on the justification of rights rather than responsibilities (Gutmann, 1987), but, at the same time, schools should foster general virtues (courage, conformity to law, loyalty), social virtues (autonomy, open mindedness), economic virtues (work ethic, capacity to delay self-­gratification), and political virtues (capacity to analyze, capacity to criticize). A similar argument has been put forward by Eamonn Callan (2004) asking what is the role of political education in liberal democracies. From this liberal perspective, schools should teach children how to engage in the kind of critical reasoning and moral perspective that defines public reasonableness (Gutmann, 1987). These civic virtues will not only constitute the citizen but also enhance democracy’s chances in contemporary capitalist societies (Kymlicka and Norman, 1994).

Theories of democracy and education A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. The extension in space of the number of individuals who participate in an interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others, and to consider the action of others to give point and direction to his own. Dewey, 1916: 93

134

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

The notion of democracy that gained currency at the end of the twentieth century is liberal representative democracy, with its principle of the active citizen. As defined by Held, it constitutes: A cluster of rules, procedures and institutions permitting the broadest involvement of the majority of citizens, not in political affairs as such, but in the selection of representatives who alone can make political decisions. This cluster includes elected government; free and fair elections; universal suffrage; freedom of conscience, information and expression; the right of all adults to oppose their government and stand for office; and the right to form independent associations. Held, 1995: 116

The question, then, is how the notion of democracy became so closely associated with the notion of capitalism. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1987) offer a very persuasive argument. They argue that the dynamics of democracy rely on two logics of expansion of the capitalist system: personal rights and property rights, which are often contradictory logics. The dynamics of the conflict between these two logics (represented for instance in the proverbial clash between business ideology and social movements in industrial advanced capitalism and in dependent-­development capitalism) is over the use and appropriation of societal resources, as well as the question of setting ethical standards of social behavior. Dewey’s view of democracy may offer an intriguing paradox when coupled with Bowles and Gintis’ suspicion that there is a perpetual tension between the two logics of rights. It is well known that Dewey (despite the twists and turns of his arguments after a long and productive life) supported a notion of democracy with three principal goals, namely:

1. the protection of popular interests, 2. as a foundation for social inquiry, and 3. as the only political system of governance that may fully preserve individuality in capitalist societies. The specialized bibliography on this topic is so large that to summarize various viewpoints in a few sentences would be a disservice. Yet it is important to emphasize that, unlike Bowles and Gintis, Dewey assumed that the connection between democracy and capitalism rests on a degree of harmony and agreement among the members of the society, reconciling to some extent their divergent interests (Rogers, 2013). Unfortunately, history may not

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

135

have given enough support to Dewey’s thesis on democracy. Capitalism as an economic and social system of accumulation, production, reproduction and distribution of commodities is intrinsically conflict-­ridden and marked by internal contradictions. Claus Offe (1984) signals the emergent functional discrepancy between the economic and political substructures of advanced capitalism. He describes the structural problem of the capitalist state in the following terms: Whereas the capitalist state suffers from an ‘overload’ of demands and requirements which it cannot satisfy without destroying the capitalist nature of the economy nor ignore without undermining its own democratic institutional set-­up and the regulation of class conflict provided by it. Offe, 1984: 246

In late capitalist societies, social power is essentially heterogeneous and diffuse, and the same dynamics of democracy have created over the past two centuries several social movements that strive to change the direction or the nature of the democratic system. These movements have concerned issues of class and labour, race, gender, the environment, nuclear disarmament and global peace. Finally, the most recent social movements in the USA and Western Europe (from Right to Left) are not distributional in nature, but express moral and cultural aspirations (Morrow and Torres, 2007; Torres, 2011). If capitalism is a conflict-­ridden system, and democracy has two different logics of development, then the question is why this working relationship of politics and economics does not fall apart. For Dewey, it is the inherent need and persuasion of the population (expressed through their voting rights and their perpetual process of deliberation) which preserves the system; and, despite the fact that the system may not facilitate the pursuit of individual interests, it does preserve a collective interest. In turn, Bowles and Gintis offer a historical–structural thesis. They claim that the connection between democracy and capitalism has been made through four historical accommodations of the system:

1. in Europe, the Lockean proposal that accommodates the system by limiting the political participation of the propertied; 2. in the USA, the Jeffersonian proposal that distributing property widely among the citizenry (of Anglo-Saxon origin) re-­accommodates the system in the face of increasing political strains; 3. the political proposal of Madison to foster a sufficient heterogeneity of interest among citizens to prevent the emergence of a common political programme of the non-­propertied;

136

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

4. the Keynesian model, in which economic growth and distribution of income generate a communality of interests between the dispossessed and the wealthy. This Keynesian model is also based on the premise that productivity continuously increases as long as investments are appropriately made in state of the art technologies that facilitate such productivity. With the transition from an industrial to a knowledge- or information-based society, a productivity paradox has emerged whose dynamics have transformed the economy from demand driven to supply driven (Stehr, 2011). Among other implications, the productivity paradox produces a growing differentiation of pay for skilled and less-­skilled labour given technological change, and within the ranks of employed people growing wage inequality. Some have attributed these recent changes in the informational or knowledge society to the productivity paradox resulting from, . . . the apparent lack of measurable productivity gains in goods producing and services industries in OECD countries in response to or in conjunction with the huge investments in the decade of the 1980s and 1990s in information and communication technologies. The choice of labeling this phenomenon as the ‘productivity paradox’ results from the disjuncture between the immense economic expectations and promises that have been engendered by the ‘computer age’, on the one hand, and the apparent lack of sustainable economic payoffs resulting from the massive investments by corporations and the state in information and communication technologies on the other hand. Stehr, 2011: 8

In addition to the productivity paradox, the state of democracy and capitalism at the beginning of a new millennium can be characterized as the challenge of governance. Offe describes the inability to govern such societies in the following terms: Its connotations are ‘rising expectations’ on the part of competing interest groups and parties, disseminated by the media; a resulting ‘overload’ of the state bureaucracies which find themselves, under the impact of fiscal constraints, unable to satisfy such expectations; a breakdown of government authority which would be required for a firm resistance to proliferating demands; an increasing level of distrust, suspicion and frustration among the citizens in their attitudes vis-á-­vis the state and creeping paralysis of the foundations of economic stability and growth potential. Offe, 1984: 164

With critics on both on the Right and on the Left, Offe concludes that,

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

137

both the institutional functions of conflict articulation and conflict resolution are reduced; and the polity becomes repressive and unmanageable at the same time. Neither of the two functions which, according to liberal-­democratic theory, are to be performed by the institutional bridge linking the state and the individual can be performed. Offe, 1984: 166

What are the implications of this analysis for education? The basis for establishing the relationships between education and democracy in Western societies has been the notion of democracy as political representation, and the attempt to develop a political culture of citizenship that is based on the premises of the Enlightenment. Italian political scientist Norberto Bobbio has explained that the paradoxes of modern democracy make the connection between democracy and education more complex. Bobbio argues, first, that ‘people are constantly asking for more democracy in objective conditions increasingly less favourable to it’ (Bobbio and Bellamy, 1987; Carnoy 1984). The objective conditions of modern capitalism are increasingly less democratic, and large organizations and corporations (from state organizations to multinational corporations or large research universities) find it increasingly difficult to respect the rules of the democratic game. Additionally, the institution in charge of providing and overseeing the formal rationalization of the rules of the game, the state, has grown in size, becoming more hierarchical, technical/technocratic and certainly less democratic in terms of inviting higher participation from the citizenship. In our ‘unpolitic societies’ (Arendt, 1958) and in representative democracies, spaces of political participation of citizens are essentially reduced to the simple exercise of voting. Finally, and very importantly for education, capitalist societies have become so complex that problems require more and more technical solutions, which, in turn, can only be found through resorting to a highly skilled technocracy. Hence, governments rely more and more on technocracy, specialized know-­how and esoteric knowledge, which fall outside popular control. Bobbio puts this nicely: ‘The protagonist of industrial society is the scientist, the specialist, the expert; the protagonist of the democratic society is the common citizen, the man in the street, the quisque e populo’ (cited by Carnoy 1984, 1608). Echoing Paulo Freire, Bobbio suggests that democracy (and democratic education) presupposes the full and free development of the human faculties. The solidity of modern democracies increasingly depends not only on the justice of its institutions, or the quality of their representatives, but also on the quality of citizens. This is obstructed by ‘massification’, which suppresses the sense of

138

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

individual responsibility, the cornerstone for democratic decision making and democratic education as advocated by Dewey and many others. Drawing from Freire, and looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the Western classical political thought, one of the key arguments that we present throughout this book is that we need a theory of diverse and equitable citizenship to develop a theory of democracy that will help to ameliorate (if not eliminate) the social differences, inequality and inequity pervasive in capitalist societies. Likewise, we need a theory of democracy that will be able to address the severe tensions between democracy and capitalism on the one hand, and social, political and economic democratic forms on the other. Finally, we need a theory of diverse and equitable citizenship to respond to the neo-­conservative cry about the ungovernability of modern democracies. This must offer a theoretical and practical answer to the crisis of deregulation brought about by neo-­liberal regimes. It should be clear, however, that our argument in such a theory of citizenship can be embedded only in a global perspective, always rooted in traditional citizenships and local communities.

Social justice education and the dilemmas of democracy: Freirean insights What follows is a short exploration of the issues surrounding social justice education, and the intersections between theories of a diverse citizenship against the backdrop of democratic theory. Torres has indicated in his work that Paulo Freire addressed a serious dilemma of democracy: the constitution of democratic citizenship. His contributions resonate as the basic foundation for transformative social justice education. The notion of democracy entails the notion of a democratic citizenship in which agents are active participants in the democratic process, able to choose their representatives as well as to monitor their performance. These are not only political but also pedagogic practices because the construction of the democratic citizen implies the construction of a pedagogical subject. Individuals are not, by nature, ready to participate in politics. They have to be educated in democratic politics in a number of ways, including normative grounding, ethical behaviour, knowledge of the democratic process, and technical performance. The construction of the pedagogic subject is a central conceptual problem, a dilemma of democracy. To put it simply: democracy implies a process of participation in which all are considered equal. However, education involves a

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

139

process whereby the ‘immature’ are brought to identify with the principles and forms of the ‘mature’ members of the society (Torres, 2014). Thus, the process of construction of the democratic pedagogic subject is a process of cultural nurturing, involving cultivating principles of pedagogic and democratic socialization in subjects who are neither tabulae rasae in cognitive or ethical terms, nor fully equipped for the exercise of their democratic rights and obligations. Yet in the construction of modern polities, the constitution of a pedagogic democratic subject is predicated on grounds that are, paradoxically, a precondition but also the result of past experiences and policies of national solidarity (including citizenship, competence-­building and collaboration) (O’Cadiz and Torres, 1994, 1998, O’Cadiz et al., 1998). A second major contribution of Freire is his thesis advanced in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and reiterated in countless writings, that the pedagogic subjects of the educational process are not homogeneous citizens but culturally diverse individuals. From his notion of cultural diversity, he identified the notion of crossing borders in education, suggesting that there is an ethical imperative to cross borders if we hope to educate for empowerment and not for oppression. Crossing the lines of difference is, indeed, a dilemma of transformative social justice education. The Freirean answer to the dilemmas of democracy was originally coined in the term ‘concientização’, a term used within the ideological framework of the Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasileros (ISEB), a Brazilian think-­tank that Freire frequented in the 1950s, which predicated a developmentalist approach as has been analyzed in the controversial book by Vanilda Paiva (1980) and there is also useful information in the book by de Toledo (1977). Transformative social justice education is a teaching and learning concept that calls for concientização or concientization and calls on people to develop social and individual awareness. Reclaiming conscientization as a method and as a substantive proposal for transformative social justice education entails a model of social analysis and social change that challenges most of the basic articulating principles of capitalism, including frivolous hierarchies, inequalities and inequities. Yet, despite the fact that Freire stopped using the term when he saw that it had been employed as a ruse to mask the implementation of instrumental rationality under the guise of radical education (Torres, 2014), the basic intentionality of conscientização is not simply a process of social transformation. It is also an invitation to self-­learning and self-­transformation in their most spiritual and psychological senses. It is a process in which our past need not wholly condition our present. And it is a dynamic process which maintains that,

140

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

by rethinking our past, we can gain a fundamental understanding of the formation of our own self, the roots of our present conditions, and the limits and possibilities of being a self-­in-the-­world, individually and collectively reaching the ‘inédito viable’ that powerful concept elaborated by Freire in the 1960s.9

Conclusions: On cosmopolitan education We have outlined an agenda of GCE considering the dilemmas of multiculturalism and interculturalism. Our claim is that that democratic cosmopolitan perspective takes into account the global dimensions of human and planetary life, is based on human rights, and rests on a regime founded on universal values. However, it failed to recognize how to incorporate diversity into the mix of democratic governance and schooling, and it risks being considered a limited and superficial concept of equality. Hence, in this book we will outline a proposal for democratic diverse global citizenship that may help to address the dilemmas of democracy in the contemporary world. Torres (1998c: 421–47, 1998) argued that we are confronting a serious theoretical and political problem. The questions of citizenship, democracy and multiculturalism are at the heart of the discussion worldwide on educational reform, deeply affecting the academic discourse and the practice of comparative and international education. Cloaked in different robes, questions about citizenship, the connections between education and democracy, or the problem of multiculturalism affect most of the decisions that we face in dealing with the challenges of contemporary education. The dilemmas of citizenship in a democratic diverse multicultural society can be outlined, at the beginning of our analysis, as follows: Theories of citizenship had been advanced in the tradition of Western political theory by white, heterosexual males who identified a homogeneous citizenship through a process of systematic exclusion rather than inclusion in the polity. That is, women, identifiable social groups (e.g., Jews, Gypsies), working-­class people, and members of specific ethnic and racial groups – in short, people of colour – and individuals lacking certain attributes or skills (i.e. literacy or numeracy abilities) were in principle excluded from the definition of citizens in numerous societies. Theories of democracy, while effective in identifying the sources of democratic power, participation and representation in legitimate political democratic systems, had been unable to prevent the systemic exclusion of large segments of the citizenry. Thus, formal democracy drastically differs from substantive democracy.

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

141

Theories of multiculturalism and interculturalism, while effective in discussing the politics of culture and the differential sources of solidarity across and within specific forms of identity, had been unable or unwilling to embrace a theory of citizenship and a theory of democracy that could be workable in practical, procedural terms; ethically viable, in moral terms; and politically feasible in the context of capitalist civil societies. We need a theory of diverse democratic citizenship that will take seriously the need to develop a theory of democracy that will help to ameliorate, if not eliminate altogether, the social differences, inequality and inequity pervasive in capitalist societies, and a theory of democracy able to address the draconian tensions between democracy and capitalism on the one hand, and among social, political and economic democratic forms on the other. Critical (Abdi et al., 2015) and post-­colonial (Andreotti and de Souza, 2012) approaches to GCE go in this direction by critiquing a neo-­liberal agenda for citizenship education. GCE, according to Antony Appiah (2008), emphasizes universality and equality for all, but this must be accompanied by pluralism and difference. As we mentioned in Chapter 1, to clearly point out this need, Appiah and others prefer to talk about ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ instead of Global Citizenship, which could be seen as ‘universality plus difference’. Many scholars in recent decades make use of the notions of cosmopolitism, cosmopolitan citizenship or cosmopolitan education (Spector, 2015). It seems that this word of Greek origin represents a more accurate and appropriate term for capturing the variations of citizenship in a global sphere. Much continuing interest in moral and political cosmopolitanism derives from the philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s seminal essay Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, then slightly refined in a sort of non-­comprehensive ‘globally sensitive patriotism’ (Nussbaum, 2008). Then Nussbaum developed her liberal cosmopolitan view in an educational perspective in an extended essay on cosmopolitan education, Cultivating Humanity (Nussbaum, 1996, 2002). From a political theory perspective, David Held, has advanced the idea of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ (Archibugi and Held, 1995). While he did not develop clearly the educational implications of such a theory, the notion of cosmoplitan democracy endorses educational processes and we will return to this later. However, cosmopolitan education (as well as GCE) has also been criticized by many scholars (Waks, 2009; Heater, 2002) for shifting, at a global level, the modern idea of citizenship based on modern political institutions (Popkewitz, 2008; Smith, 2003).

142

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

While the terminological question may not be relevant here, it is possible to claim that the notion of (classical) cosmopolitanism, especially in the sense of the Enlightenment (much less in the sense of ancient Stoicism), was rooted in a deeply European idea of universalism without diversity. On the contrary, it was grounded in universal principles claiming that we can become world citizens as soon as we lose our identity roots, when we eradicate them in a flat sameness. And this position is very far from what we advocate here. Moreover, the adjective ‘cosmopolitan’ (meaning ‘world citizen’) entails the above-­mentioned risk of global education being too abstract, an ideal direction and a pure fantasy (Papastephanou, 2012) eradicated from real contexts. Gramsci for instance criticized abstract cosmopolitanism, uprooted from national culture and typical of intellectuals (Italians in particular). Cosmopolitan intellectuals lose all connections with the national popular culture and with the masses. At the same time, however, Gramsci also criticized the other vice of Italian intellectuals that is their narrow-­minded and limited parochialism endorsing the education of world citizens as the creator of civilization within a democratic cosmopolitan society (Izzo, 2009). Beyond these critics, political theories on cosmopolitan democracy lie on a different plane (Held, 2005; Archibugi and Held, 1995). Cosmopolitan democracy entails ‘a model of political organization in which citizens, wherever they are located in the world, have a voice, input, and political representation in international affairs, in parallel with and independent of their own governments’ (Archibugi and Held, 1995: 13). Here, abstract universalism is made more concrete by the political skills required for political negotiation, required to support a citizenship education programme based on such cosmopolitanism. Our idea of global citizenship dovetails nicely with the theory of cosmopolitan democracies to take advantage of the democratic strains in the world system (Beck, 2006). It is so deeply rooted in human rights, that we claim that a human rights regime and human rights education underscore the premises of our view of global citizenship. According to Ulrich Beck, the divide between a national versus a cosmopolitan vision that understands citizenship would mean being familiar with contradictions (Beck, 2006), and it represents a new way to socially manage diversities within. In this sense, the experiment of the EU, a project that becomes possible only by overcoming the concept of ethnic states, is ideally an area of possible development of a cosmopolitan aggregation (Beck and Grande, 2007). To this purpose, however, universal principles such as human rights should interact with diversity and otherness recognition, within a horizon of democratic citizenship.

Theoretical Conceptualization: Equality

143

To do so, as social justice educators, we need to expand our civic cultures, civics and civic engagement into models of GCE.

Notes 1 A. de Tocqueville (1968), De la démocratie en Amérique (1835–1840), Italian translation, ‘La democrazia in America’, Scritti politici, vol. 2. Torino: Utet, p. 593, quoted in Pulcini, 2001: 143. 2 A preliminary version of this section was published in Italian in Tarozzi, 2014a. 3 To be precise, John Rawls, being a liberal philosopher, did not directly address the implications of a theory of justice as fairness for developing educational policies, since from a liberal point of view education cannot be regulated by the state. However, it could be argued that the reference to educational issues grows in the works of the 1990s. While in A Theory of Justice (1971), the reference to education is episodic, marginal and always functional to other topics, in the works of the 1990s – such as Political Liberalism (1993) and Justice as Fairness (2001) – they increase in number and importance. 4 Friedrich A. von Hayek, 1976: 176 n. 8. 5 See Nozik’s critique of the concept of distributive justice in the first part of Nozick (1974). 6 This section is related to Torres 1998: 105–11. 7 See a summary of Gidden’s criticisms, and a defence of Marshall’s position in Held, 1989: 193–5. 8 The text was originally published in Spanish, from a lecture given in November 1983 in Madrid before the Spanish Parliament. Then it was published in Italian (1984) and in English in the collections edited and introduced by N. Bobbio and R. Bellamy (1987). 9 José Eustaquio Romão distinguishes three sociological categories associated with Freire’s notion of the ‘inédito viable’: incompletitude (incompleteness), inconclusão (inconclusiveness), and inacabamento (unfinishedness). See the work of Romão (2003) and the doctoral dissertation work on this topic by Isabel Bohorques (published in Torres and Noguera, 2009).

7

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

Considering the limits of the previous models, Global Citizenship Education (GCE) offers a response taking into account equality (based on human rights), and difference shifting the discourse to a global rather than a national dimension, as has traditionally been done for citizenship education. But before we proceed, we need to summarize our argument regarding the crises of multiculturalism, or the backlash against it.

The backlash against multiculturalism As Stephen May noted, ‘in the 1990s multiculturalism finally “won” ’ (May, 2009). In 1997, Nathan Glazer wrote his book We’re All Multiculturalists Now (Glazer, 1997). Ten years later, in the first decades of a new century, multiculturalism as a public policy has had a significant retrenchment both in the USA and in the EU. Multiculturalism has been condemned by media pundits and some political discourses, particularly in Europe, where many governments have been dropping the notion of ‘multicultural’ from their policy vocabulary (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010). In particular, in those countries which have undertaken policies considered to some extent multicultural, e.g. the UK, The Netherlands and Sweden (but real multicultural polices had never been undertaken in Europe), there is a significant backlash against multiculturalism, following growing public criticism suggesting that the multicultural ideology has failed and has produced dangerous social fragmentation. But voices against multiculturalism are rising in other non-European multicultural countries such as Canada, Australia and the USA (Buruma, 2010). The events of 11 September 2001 and their consequences on the geopolitical sphere seem to have played an important role in anti-­multicultural sentiments,

146

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

and not only in the USA. For example, in the UK multicultural education has been attacked from many directions, particularly after the London bombings in 2005 which also had an evident impact on education policies: the terrorists were four Muslim men born and educated in the UK (Phillips, 2006). By way of contrast, there is a major call for community cohesion and integration in British society (Tomlinson, 2009). For public opinion and some scholars, events like the bombings in London and Madrid, and the murders of intellectuals and journalists like Theo van Gogh (Vasta, 2007), or the massacre of Charlie Hebdo’s editorial staff in Paris as well as the riots by second–generation Arab immigrants in the Paris suburbs (banlieues) in 2005 and 2007 which then expanded to more than a hundred French cities (Lagrange and Oberti, 2006), are seen as evidence of the incompatibility of Islam with European societies. These major events, and many others, have multiplied the fear of economic immigrants, refugees and Islamic culture, and have given rise to critical voices against cultural celebration in newspapers, TV shows, public debate and, of course, in schools. As a consequence, with the exception of France, which has always tended towards integration, assimilation seemed to be on its way out everywhere by the 1990s (Banks, 2009b). But in the majority of European countries we are witnessing a re-­emerging of policies and practices which have been defined as neo-­assimilationist, and this is particularly evident in education systems and especially in some forms of citizenship education. Neo-­assimilation is prevalent mostly in those countries that previously clearly adopted a multicultural model, as in The Netherlands. The Netherlands is a prototypical example of a quick retreat from multicultural policies and of a sharp change from a traditional policy of tolerance to an inflexible repression (Prins and Saharso, 2010). It can be argued that while The Netherlands in the early stages of immigration embarked on a policy of multiculturalism, its current approach is one of the most assimilationist in Western Europe (Entzinger, 2014). The ‘New Realism’ model of policy regarding immigrants started in 2002, after the election marked by the murder of the nationalistic leader Pim Fortuyn. It had been claimed that previous integration policies failed by putting too much attention on cultural diversity. The alternative in schools was to promote civic education as a compulsory field of study, and to create compulsory programmes of language and civic integration, with little cost to the state. Second-­language acquisition and civic education programmes are offered by the state, but their costs should be mostly paid by migrant families. What is really new is that immigrants themselves are now treated as being responsible for their own integration.

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

147

Moreover, worldwide concern over data on school results, coming from international surveys, e.g. PISA or PIRLS, has further reinforced the trend toward assimilation. All over the world, school policies aimed at improving average better achievements have pointed out that in order to gain better school results, policies and practices for inclusion of immigrants should be more focused on learning the national language, rather than on social inclusion. Should we celebrate the funeral of multiculturalism and forget the idea of the recognition of cultural diversity as one of the key issues for creating social cohesion in Western countries? Should we reject or avoid the idea of cultural difference and claim common values for a national identity that can protect our golden Western world from terrorists, the poor and un-­assimilated immigrants? We do not believe so. On the contrary we believe that diversity is still a key notion for understanding the contemporary world, which should be combined with equality of rights and we deem that GCE can play a major role in promoting it. The two major approaches prevailing in the two continents are intercultural education in the EU and multicultural education in the USA. Each one has a different antecedent. While in Europe intercultural education is overcoming the assimilation approach, in the USA multiculturalism sprang up from overturning racial segregation. From the comparison of these two parallel outcomes of the two (US and EU) traditions, we have realized that they are facing an historical impasse, which we addressed in Chapter  5, between a model of integration based on promoting dialogue and exchange among flexible cultures, but unable to advocate consistent policies and (normative) multiculturalism, which is able to advocate strong political demands, though it risks isolating cultures and fostering differences.

New conservatism and neo-­liberals This antinomy has given rise to new conservatism, which, traditionally hostile to enhancing cultural pluralism, has now taken advantage of the anti-­immigrant and anti-multicultural political climate. Therefore, they urge the abandonment of the ‘dangerous’ combination of culture and post-­modern nihilist thinking and they stress the risk of post-­modern relativism. Neo-­conservatives replace multiculturalism with transcultural universalism, in order to re-­establish the central position of a unique national culture, and one not well definable common heritage, producing universal values (D’Souza, 1995, 2007; Buchanan, 2002). It is not just multiculturalism that has been blamed for terrorism; but multicultural

148

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

policies are also criticized for their consequences for Western and Enlightenment values, undermined particularly by Muslims (Buruma, 2010). Everywhere across Europe, an anti-­immigration agenda and xenophobic attitudes are gaining popularity and political success in national elections. Traditional political parties, including those on the Centre-Left, are losing consensus because they are unable coherently to address the problems of immigration, refugee arrivals and modes of integration within societies, by providing policies swinging between a generic solidarity, especially in countries with a Catholic tradition, and neo-­liberal temptations embodied within moderate Left parties in Europe. But some liberals, and some feminist scholars (Okin, 1999), especially in Europe, have also asserted the need to focus on social citizenship rather than cultural identities, and individual rights rather collective ones (Philips, 2007). They argue this in order to grant the same rights to everyone and to limit extremisms from cultural and religious groups, hostile to any form of democratic integration. The predominant conception of this new citizenship, which Banks (2008) defined as ‘assimilationist, liberal and universal’, requires citizens to give up their language and culture to become full members of a civic community. This is the political background framing the neo-­liberal idea of citizenship education, considered a further development of an undesirable multiculturalism. Both in the USA and in Europe, a ‘new assimilationism’ is emerging (Jackson, 2010), along with a trend towards social integration in a national culture, values and beliefs. In particular in Europe, states have increasingly focused on immigration limits, citizenship tests and new school programmes of citizenship education aiming at ‘civic integration’ (Peters and Bezley, 2014). ‘Integration’ seems to be the key word of the new European political trend aiming at creating, also through education, a sense of common citizenship based on shared values and policies designed to strengthen civic/national identity. This model, as we anticipated in Chapter 4 in the section on ‘Intercultural backlash. A neo-­assimilation?’, can be called a new-­assimilationism. Let us highlight what is at stake in this discussion. Both neo-­conservatives and neo-­liberals take advantage of the vagueness of multiculturalism. Critics of multiculturalism do not take into account the different perspectives and different meanings of inter/multiculturalism. As Anthony Giddens concluded, ‘multiculturalism simply does not mean what most of its critics think’ (Giddens, 2006). As we demonstrated in this book, there are many types of multiculturalism both conservative and liberal (Delanty, 2003; McGhee, 2008; Colombo, 2015), including radical (Giroux, 1994; Shohat and Stam, 1994) and critical (Goldberg, 1994; McLaren, 1997). We also showed the difference between a normative and a

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

149

constructive multiculturalism, as well as that between interculturalism and multiculturalism. Further, we underlined the significant originality of the intercultural approach, which can be made compatible with constructive multiculturalism. Therefore, to overcome the historical impasse between traditional models of integration, we argue that the same idea of a national model of integration should be overcome. Though we noted that politically this solution will be difficult to sell, solutions for policy and education policy in particular can only emerge from a global perspective, going beyond the narrow national view mostly rooted in self-­perceived political culture and traditions. This is the crux of the matter, and one of the reasons we advocate global citizenship even if citizenship education, which has been widely adopted as an educational response to promote integration and social cohesion, may be declining globally. Unlike traditional models of citizenship education, GCE offers a new angle to reframe old dilemmas of citizenship in diverse societies and in a globalized world taking into account equality, human rights and the respect for difference and diversity. GCE emerges after the failure of the unsolved dilemma of: l

l

l

national citizenship education intercultural education, in the EU multicultural education, in the USA.

At the same time, however, GCE is deeply influenced by some of the basic assumptions of the above-mentioned educational approaches. In the following pages we will recall and summarize the theoretical and political reasons beyond the historical impasse between European interculturalism and US multiculturalism. While in Europe a conservative and populist political critique (but also that of many scholars) to multiculturalism is emerging, in North America the crisis of multiculturalism seems to find an exit strategy in the idea of intercultural citizenship stimulated by the rich debate coming from Canada and Quebec in particular.

The retreat of multiculturalism in the European Union: Civic integration A statement by British Prime Minister David Cameron is very telling of the changes ahead. During a security conference in Munich, Germany, Prime

150

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Minister David Cameron declared Britain’s long-­standing, state-­sponsored policy of multiculturalism an ‘abysmal failure’. He continued: [W]e’ve allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong . . . We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.1

In 2010, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel had said to a meeting of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party on 17 October 2010 that multiculturalism had ‘utterly failed’, a remark that was greeted with a standing ovation. This comment follows in the footsteps of a report made public by the Social Democratic Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank (which is affiliated with the centre-­left Social Democratic Party), which found that more than 30 per cent of people believed Germany was ‘overrun by foreigners’ who had come to Germany chiefly for its social benefits.2 Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy joined other European leaders. In 2011, answering a question posed by a journalist, he said on French national television: ‘My answer is clearly yes, it [multiculturalism] is a failure. The problem was that in all our democracies, we were too concerned about the identity of those who arrived and not enough about the identity of the country welcoming them.’3 Then he proposed a solution to overcome multiculturalism toward a model of integration based on assimilation to a French national identity: ‘France has a culture of integration and this has been the case for the past two thousand years’ (quoted in Wieviorka, 2013). One year earlier, President Sarkozy had deported hundreds of Roma people citing their not having a work permit as a rationale. He ignored the protests of the EU and the international community that the Roma people are Romanian citizens, and so members of the EU. Thus the Chancellor of Germany, the Prime Minister of the UK, and the President of France (as well as the former Italian Prime Minster Berlusconi, the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, and Spain’s former Premier Jose Maria Aznar) have all been quoted repeatedly saying that multiculturalism has failed. As a state-­sponsored policy – which was never actually implemented in any European country as such – multiculturalism has presumably failed to fully

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

151

integrate people and to increase the richness of diversity as a contribution to the society of knowledge that is so predicated in Europe as the lynchpin of economic and socio-­political development. The attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine may have put the nail in the multicultural coffin in France. While the criticism of multiculturalism comes also from scholars and intellectuals, (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010; Joppke, 2004, 2010; Banting and Kymlicka, 2013), the naïve idea prevailing in public opinion is an oversimplifying concept of multiculturalism. It summarizes the fears of uncontrolled and wide immigration of people, mostly not very compatible with local values and especially with the European Judeo-Christian tradition, who are received indiscriminately with no possibility of integration. Openly xenophobic parties and populist movements have built their electoral success on this naïve idea and on the politics of fear. Moreover, moderate conservative parties, in order not to lose consensus, formed dangerous alliances with these right-­wing forces, giving rise to extremist statements such as those mentioned. Added to this fear of terrorism, the security discourse and the perceived threat from Islamic values always encompasses every discussion about integration policy. The situation is certainly much more complex than that which is framed by these oversimplifications. After the 2008 crisis, growth levels of numbers of immigrants have been declining in many countries, while there have been increasing numbers of emigrants. Therefore, more than economic immigration, refugees and asylum seekers escaping from war zones are cause for concern, and this has become a public tragedy as we see in the biannual 2014–2015 report. The EU cannot find a common policy for the reception of refugees and their distribution among the Member States and seems to take mostly defensive policies to protect what many have now defined as ‘fortress Europe’. It has been argued that there is a deep tension between the political, economic and even territorial expansion of the EU, and the increasing exclusion of vulnerable groups within its borders and the repelling of immigrants and asylum seekers outside. This is not to mention the growing presence of post-­migrant individuals, which mostly impact the very idea of a diverse European society, a multifaceted group of people consisting of second/ third generation, new nationals, internal migrants, native- and foreign-­born second generations, as well as Sinti and Roma people and unaccompanied minors. The US neo-­conservatives view the European developments in the topic with marked interest. Pat Buchanan, former presidential candidate for the Republican Party, a TV personality and true representative of the neoconservative movement in the USA, questions whether multiculturalism will end Europe? He analyzes, among other

152

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

things, the book published by Thilo Sarrazin (2010), with a title that could be translated as Germany Abolishes Itself 4 (Buchanan, 2011). In his book, Sarrazin argued that Germany’s gastarbeiters, guest workers, particularly the Islamic ones – Turks, Kurds, Arabs – are dumbing down the nation. While Germany’s birth rate fell below replacement levels decades ago, these foreigners with less intelligence and much higher dropout, welfare and crime rates are rapidly replacing the declining German population. ‘It is a matter of culture’, said Sarrazin, and ‘Islam is the culture’. This is why Muslim immigrants are ‘socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else’. Sarrazin uses the phrase a ‘genetic minus’ to describe migrants from the Middle East. He believes that certain racial groups have certain genes which mean the groups vary in their ability to learn – and in one interview he gave Jews as an example of this. Were these the ravings of a neo-­fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank. With Merkel and the German establishment howling for his head, Sarrazin resigned, unrepentant. Two-­thirds of Germans said he had a right to speak his mind, a third said they agreed with him, and Germany Abolishes Itself has sold over a million and a half copies. These debates concern both the strong presence of conservative and populist elements in Europe and the USA and the circumstance of a Continent that is undergoing one of the most severe economic and financial crises in its history. The easiest political response is to instrumentally exploit the feeling that its borders, as a European Community, are being assailed by the barbarians at the gate. The‘barbarians’ are the refugees arriving via boats crossing the Mediterranean from Africa mingled with (a few) economic immigrants. Everywhere intolerance towards immigrants that seem menacing to the well-­being of Western countries and Western values is growing. Tolerance is one of the basic principles of modern liberal democracies, but it seems no longer to be of value. Not surprisingly, this is a fundamental responsibility of education: how to analyze critically the failure of modernity while at the same time strive for social integration and cohesion. This is more important than ever, considering the large number of European youth who have joined the ranks of ISIS as foreign fighters. In addition to social integration and cohesion, educational systems have to deal with diversity, difference and identity. After all, multiculturalism and interculturalism have always been seen as models of integration of the newly arrived populations or exploited and traditionally oppressed people of colour,

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

153

taking into account the ways of merging different traditions, cultures, languages and identities in different yet purposeful ways. The analogies and metaphors are many, from the salad bowl to the melting pot, to the mosaic society; all of them call for some kind of ‘accommodation’ of immigrants and new citizens.

The retreat of multiculturalism in North-America: The reasonable accommodation One of the best examples of social engineering in North America, facing the crises of multiculturalism, is the qualified Canadian-Quebec attempt through the notion of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to deal with the unsolved dilemmas of multiculturalism. This concept of reasonable accommodation traditionally emerged from ways to find the necessary and appropriate structural modifications and normative adjustments to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy or exercise their fundamental freedoms and human rights. The famous Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor Report (2008), entitled Building the Future. A time for reconciliation, stands out as a formidable, if limited, attempt to definitively answer all the great questions of accommodating minorities and diversity (including religious diversity) by reaching out through two great Quebecan traditions: the legal–juridical tradition of Quebec, and the political tradition of citizenship rights and obligations, or what they called the citizen way (Bouchard and Taylor, 2008). They touched upon a host of issues, including in their discussion the diverse needs of accommodation and avoidance of discrimination topics as varied as controversies surrounding Christmas decorations, the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses of blood transfusions, Kosher food in a Jewish hospital, religious holidays in the workplace, or harmonization practices in universities. Bouchard and Taylor provide a systematic analysis of the need for reasonable accommodation and harmonization practices in Quebec. They assumed that there are several factors at play, from a crisis of perceptions (and hence the role of mass media), to anxiety over identity, to the presence of secularism and its impact in the diversity of Quebec. The reader should keep in mind that the Quebec Canadian province retains its right to control its immigration policies unlike the rest of the country, and therefore forcefully defends the French language. This model of accommodating diversity is one of the most substantive models designed in a North American society. While it was a source of ample debate in

154

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

Quebec and even in Canada, just the idea of finding models of accommodating differential views in ways that could be used to the advantage of citizenship building, while at the same time respecting the traditions and histories of those views and voices, is a mild though remarkable example of social engineering. Whether this model will help public policy, and will be enacted in the way that the authors of this report hoped for, is still to be seen. But there is no question that this approach has moved the political debate towards everyday, concrete intercultural negotiations in a similar way to that followed by the best intercultural education or constructive multiculturalism. Moreover, it has advanced the North American conversation and civic engagement in more productive ways than the multiple neo-­conservative laws that have emerged in the USA against undocumented immigration and immigrants, or the constant raids on undocumented immigrants and family deportation, which have accelerated under Obama’s administration. This anti-­immigrant stance of a democratic administration has in fact created a new subculture of single parenthood of people of Latino origin, having deported one parent, and perhaps fostered a new culture of poverty.5

Global Citizenship Education: Dilemmas of multiculturalism and interculturalism The focus of both concepts is related but not identical. American multiculturalism and European interculturalism are rooted in two different histories and political cultures. On the one hand, US multiculturalism emerged as a response to twentieth-­century inter-­group relations, addressing the challenge of racialization or integration, and is fully ingrained in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and the new Civil Rights Movement of the twenty-­first century (Bell, 1995; Ladson-Billings, and Tate, 1995), within a social context where coexisting groups were actually defined by their cultural and historical differences or by their ethnicities, all generated by immigration and built on the elimination of native ethnicities. On the other hand, European interculturalism is related to two issues: immigration initiated in the latter part of the twentieth century (and occasionally some ethnicities that remain in the margins, such as the Roma people) and Islam as a threat to European values (Wieviorka, 2014). Both models, however, nowadays tend to lead towards a neo-­assimilationist idea of ‘civic integration’. In the USA, exemplified in the debates about protection of the border, and the conflicts regarding Arizona and Alabama’s draconian anti-­immigration

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

155

measures, the question of multiculturalism (and ethnic studies) has been conflated with the question of the invasion of undocumented immigrants, and therefore approximates to the European situation. Moreover, the difference in granting citizenship in the USA and the European situation, with the different articulation of the jus sanguinis and the jus soli policies (that are both used in the USA but differentially used in Europe), have prompted very conservative sectors in the USA calling for a differential integration, following the example of the majority of the European countries, which do not automatically grant citizenship to the children of immigrants who are born in their territory. Both traditions confront political dilemmas. On the one hand, the question of defining what citizenship education is, and how it could be implemented in the schools is important. We have already stated our criticism to cursory or window dressing changes such as adding Cinco de Mayo to celebrate the life of Latinos/as in the USA, or Black Month to redress inequalities of Black populations to the school calendar. This ‘safe’ multiculturalism only touches the surface of the problems, and does not constitute a truly revolutionary pedagogical tool or a transformation of the curriculum. The ‘Race to the Top’ approach that the Obama administration has implemented, which follows pari passu the same model as the previous neo-­liberal approach of ‘No Child Left Behind’ of President Bush Jr., complicates matters even more. These initiatives aim to enhance learning and teaching based on models of accountability and testing which aim to be cost-­ effective by identifying which teachers and which schools are doing a good job and which are not, and which will favourably position the USA – similar to the space race – in the competition for the global knowledge society. In addition to these dilemmas, several critics of traditional multicultural approaches have emphasized the difficulty of establishing a true multicultural tradition in the context of the hierarchical, competitive-­based and unequal capitalism models. As for Europe, is it possible to define a European model of integration? Or do national models, related to national traditions tend to prevail in the political discourse? We argue that nowadays national models still prevail and this is particularly limiting for education policies, which require a supranational or even global approach. However, a common trend, if not a proper model of integration, is emerging across Europe – a common feeling against both traditional assimilation (still considered a politically incorrect word) and a ‘whatsoever’ idea of multiculturalism. As a result, a substantive shift towards a political approach emphasizing civic integration is in progress almost everywhere in Europe, an approach that some consider compatible with multiculturalism (Banting and Kymlicka, 2013). Defined by the Council of the European Union

156

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

(2004), but actually mostly adopted in Nordic Countries, this model prioritizes immigrant integration into the mainstream of society, respect for basic liberal-­ democratic values, including human rights and in particular women’s rights (in an anti-Islamic interpretation), and a full knowledge of the host society’s language, history and institutions. Conversely newcomers receive the benefit of employment policies and specific polices to reduce discrimination. Hence, we call for a model that one of us called a multicultural democratic citizenship (Torres, 2009b), and one based on human rights (Santos, 2002) and social justice, which is conceivable only globally. With the growing complexity of the world system, there is now a trend towards identifying the different models of citizenship in the world system, prompting a call for a global citizenship – which in the opinion of these writers should also include a multicultural appellate. Within this global complexity, even social and political responses, as well as educational, may not be sought in terms of national models of integration (Joppke, 2007). The French model of assimilation, the German exclusionary ethnic and the intercultural European or US multiculturalism are perhaps all outdated (Loch, 2014 and the whole special issue What Remains of the National Models of Integration? Ideal-­typical constructions and social realities of immigrant incorporation in Europe). Following Wieviorka, ‘The so-­called “models of integration” are all failing’ (Wieviorka, 2014: 633), and not only multiculturalism. The social-­political analysis that proceeds by comparison of the national models also leads to an oversimplification of multiculturalism as seen from the EU or interculturalism as seen from the USA. Essentially, what is no longer defensible in the new scenarios of the world system is the very concept of an integration model. The models that we have compared in this book and others (Castles, 2004) when elevated to ideal-­types, if they ever had an explanatory descriptive sociological foundation, as the political development of a country with respect to its immigration, are now unable to provide adequate normative responses in facing the challenge of diverse and equal societies. Following Beck (2006) and many others, these social and political responses should be sought at the global or at least supranational level.

Multiculturalism and global citizenship It has been argued that ‘Globalization is the meta-­context for schooling in the twenty-­first century’ (Suárez Orozco and Suárez Orozco, 2009: 63). State and

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

157

private education systems cannot be read beyond this meta-­context, unless one wishes to portray limited visions of a complex system. Moreover, models of integration, like multiculturalism or assimilation or differential exclusion, make sense nowadays only in a global perspective. As noted by the French sociologist Michel Wieviorka: The sociology of integration has become conservative or even reactionary, because it does not take into account major contemporary changes which have deeply marked the contexts of peoples’ or individuals’ lives and real or ‘imagined’ relations with others. Globalization calls for forms of thought other than those which characterised the classical era of sociology and forces us to look at other objects and other issues. Wieviorka, 2014: 636

In our preface, we referred to six forms of epochal globalizations that currently impose a shift in dealing with difference, equity and citizenship in education. Zygmunt Bauman properly observed the fact that economic-­financial planetarization and the consequent unique thinking, have nothing to do with learning, but ‘it has more to do with forgetting rather than with learning’ (our translation, Bauman, 2001: 92). However, the phenomena of globalization, or the new global scenario, have a significant impact also on educational systems, particularly because the changes brought about by globalization processes force us to rethink the notion of otherness. Cultural mixing, migrations and new cultural identities at a global level generate situations even more complex and full of consequences for the role of education. There has been a fundamental change in the way we understand time and space; some would even argue that there is a politics of time (Colley, Henriksson, Niemeyer, and Seddon, 2012; Yang, 2003). Paradoxically the globalized world appears smaller and more restricted because everything seems to be at hand. However, a narrow space induces us to take away the meaning of the local, of the territory where we live, that in the collective imagination is becoming grey and insignificant. Making a space senseless means to subtract from it the possibility of making sense for one’s lived experience, and it is full of consequences on the political, cultural and also on the educational level. Some insightful analysis (Held and McGrew, 2007; Held, 2010: 43) has emphasized the deep drivers of the process of globalization. They include: l

the changing infrastructure of global communications linked to the IT revolution;

158 l

l

l

l

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

the development of global markets in goods and services, connected to the new world-­wide distribution of information; the pressure of migration and the movement of peoples, linked to shifts in patterns of economic demand, in demography and in environmental degradation; the end of the Cold War and the diffusion of democratic and consumer values across many of the world’s regions, alongside some marked reactions to this; the emergence of a new type and form of global civil society, with the crystallization of elements of a global public opinion.

The recent events in the Middle East tend to confirm the importance of this new global civil society in particular. As argued before, there are different faces of globalization (Torres 2009a, 2009b, 2013), with the most prominent being neoliberal (top down) globalization. The neo-­liberal philosophy, with its roots in an intellectual movement promoted by scholars like von Mises and Hayek, advocates the reduction of the role of the state, the opening of national markets, free trade, flexible exchanges, deregulation, the transfer of assets from the public to the private sector, and an international division of labour. There is another face, challenging the hegemonic model of neoliberal globalization that has been framed as anti-­globalization – a movement of people and social movements from different intellectual and political persuasions that challenge the hegemony of neo-­liberalism. This is a type of bottom-­up globalization. In the midst of these changes, there is a change in the cultural forms of otherness, with the hybridity resulting from merging cultures and the acceptance of different normative values and traditions. Nestor García Canclini has written extensively about this hybridity in Latin America (García Canclini, 1982, 1995).

Notes 1 http://www.michnews.com/jerry_a_kane/jak021511.shtml (retrieved 9 April 2011). 2 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/1017/Germany-­s-AngelaMerkel-Multiculturalism-­has-utterly-­failed (retrieved 9 April 2011). 3 http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/sarkozy-­admits-failure.html (retrieved 10 July 2011). 4 Sarrazin, T. (2010), Deutschland schafft sich ab wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen. München: DVA.

From Multiculturalism to Global Citizenship Education

159

5 Media reports on families that have been drastically affected, with one or both parents being deported while US-born children stay behind abound. Not only may this bring these families into a new poverty (with breadwinners being deported) but it may also break up families, with children now being taken care of by grandparents or relatives.

8

Conclusion Over the past few years we have noticed that there is an emerging argument about failing citizenship in the world of academic experts. This includes, for instance, ways to explain why so many European youth, having been failed by the policies of multiculturalism to fully integrate them, the sons and daughters of immigrants or disaffected youths connected with radical versions of Islam, have joined the forces of ISIS – 4,000 or more Europeans had joined ISIS by 18 June 2015 (Bora, 2015). The argument as to the success or failure of citizenship is predicated as two alternative outcomes of citizenship building. Failed citizenship argues that social, cultural, religious, racial or ethnic exclusion makes national identities weak or ambivalent in the life of people who became disenfranchised and alienated. For instance, in the USA, the growing movement of Black Life Matters may be, for some, a sign of the failure of US citizenship to integrate, protect, defend and respect the dignity of Black males in particular. There is no question that speaking about racial issues in the USA is like tiptoeing into a minefield. In his famous book, Race Matters, Cornel West was already hinting at the emerging problem of structural and individual-­psychological racial prejudice that cannot be eliminated simply by increasing courses of civicism with a focus on diversity, developing symbolic ephemerides like Black Month or incorporating affirmative action in universities. Though historically relevant, the election of President Barack Hussein Obama does not constitute a signpost of a post-­racial society, another important conversation in the serious press of the country. In some sense there might be an unintended outcome indicating that the hidden structural and cognitive racism and racial prejudice that have percolated US society over centuries may have been exacerbated. As a simplistic vignette, when Obama created his twitter account in 2015 the racial epithets he received were overwhelming. Though violence in a large and complex society like the USA may not be easy to control, particularly with the easy access to guns, those of us who have lived

162

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

under dictatorships and observed prima facie the annihilation of the opposition in Argentina in the 1970s through summary executions have found a number of similarities with the many instances in which police forces in the USA have used deadly force, particularly against young Black males. Thus, there are a number of questions about the way in which the nation-­state is willing and able to integrate its citizens, make them effective in internalizing the values of the nation-­state, or produce what Gramsci defined as the process of social conformism (Morrow and Torres, 2004). Proponents of the concept of successful citizenship-­making imply an acquired allegiance to the symbols and values of the nation-­state. Citizens are not in general disenfranchised, and they actively participate in the res publica, deliberating and participating democratically in the political system. A logical conclusion of this successful citizenship is that citizens are ready to defend the nation in its moment of peril even at the risk of their own lives. Logically, failed citizenship is the polar opposite of successful citizenship making. Successful citizenship implies that once citizenship building has succeeded, the degree of alienation of people vis-à-­vis the nation-­state is limited. One may confront this simplistic affirmation about alienation considering what Marcuse so brilliantly drawing from Freud reminded us, ‘Alienation is the constant and essential element of identity, the objective side of the subject – and not as it is made to appear today, a disease, a psychological condition’ (Marcuse, in Feenberg and Leiss, 2007: 53). For its proponents, the concept of successful citizenship suggests that society is more integrated, people have more access to goods and services that they deserve for their rights as citizens or legal residents and not as charity, and therefore people are more willing to be law abiding and less prone to violence. When citizenship building fails, there is growing disaffection in marginalized groups as to their lack of full integration in the polity and, by implication, there are weak national and patriotic identities in terms of how they perceive themselves as citizen in their status and role vis-à-­vis their rights and obligations. Moreover, some people may feel themselves excluded from civic minimums, the public sphere and the actual practice of democratic citizenship because of racial, ethnic, gender, sexual preference, class or other forms of identity discrimination. This being the case, other identities take over, and they feel more allegiance to their religion, class, race, ethnicity, cultural communities (very often based on immigration and language) and other group identities, rather than a national identity.

Conclusion

163

We are not convinced that this polar opposition is a practical way to explain the dilemmas and conundrums of citizenship making in contemporary societies. There is enough data to show that citizenship building, as an outcome, results in both failure and success in identity formation, and is reflected differentially and in historical terms in the ways in which people conceive, understand, get educated and practise the myriad identities that we are all part of. Certainly the connection with the land (motherland, fatherland) has always played a major role in the age of the nation-­state. But in the context of multiple globalizations, the interconnection of societies, the interpenetrations of cultures, global diversity and global hybridity, some of the traditional ways in which identities have been processed and elaborated inside communities (and in many cases inside nations within nation-­states) have been drastically altered. Add to these dilemmas and conundrums of identity the formation at the level of the nation-­state of tensions resulting from the growing inequality that is reaching historical heights, with some individuals being wealthier than entire nations (Piketty, 2014); with growing poverty, when one-­seventh of the world lives on US$1.25 per day (World Bank, 2014); with neo-­liberalism that has deeply affected the social matrix of the nation-­state, undermines the regulatory regimes of the state and propagated a concept of possessive individualism and privatization questioning the value of the nation-­state as effective, efficient and democratically transparent; and finally, the still-­dominant nature of some educational models that follow what Freire defined as Banking Education (Torres, 2002b). Add to this the predatory cultures that undermine the life of our planet and the dissatisfaction of many individuals with the actions (or inactions) of nation-­states in preventing the destruction of the planet and you may find very complex cocktails of elements that undermine the self-­perceived national identity of many individuals worldwide. Not surprisingly in this era of globalization, the previous call of the early 1980s for ‘bringing the state back in’ as an explanatory variable (Evans et  al., 1985) is confronted as a curious tour de force by neo-­liberals, appealing to an old Marxist adagio of ‘withering the state away’. Challenging this simplistic analysis of successful and failed citizenship as explanatory variables or modelling, we have already suggested that Global Citizenship Education (GCE) may play a major role, adding value to national citizenship, in the context of the soft power of UNESCO and the UN institutions and a cosmopolitan vision; a vision that may fail or succeed in various degrees and with different individuals in multiple and sometimes contradictory social contexts. In the words of Ulrich Beck:

164

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

What is enlightenment? To have the courage to make use of one’s cosmopolitan vision and to acknowledge one’s multiple identities – to combine forms of life founded on language, skin colour, nationality or religion with the awareness that, in a radically insecure world, all are equal and everyone is different. Beck, 2006: ii

With the massive and growing importance of the world system, the ideology of human rights has emerged as the ideology of global civil society, a different form of globalization, and one that pertains to the rights of people and not necessarily to the rights of property. This new model could eventually conflict with traditional cultural rights, and therefore it is not excepted from critique. Finally, in the conundrum of citizenship, two alternative models of globalization – one represented by the terrorist activities of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and the other the response of most Western powers under the leadership of the USA, anti-terrorism – have created a serious crisis in the different intersecting models of globalization. This intersection is not necessarily harmonious. In view of these changes, the idea of global citizenship is taking shape as an alternative to account for the unfinished business of citizenship. What do we mean by unfinished business? The construction of citizenship is a long and convoluted process. The modern notion of citizenship is closely related to birth in a particular territory. Processes of bestowing citizenship are differentiated across Europe. For example, while ius sanguinis prevails in emigration states to keep a connection with the homeland to the foreign born; ius soli was established in Napoleonic France to grant the citizen status to all the members of the empire. In any case, citizenship is coupled with nation and nineteenth-­century nationalism. Gallissot noted how during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries this European trend towards the nationalization of citizenship extended to the whole world and strengthened, becoming a ‘statalization’ of citizenship. Here originates the continuity between citizenship and nation-­state, which only the current processes of globalization are separating. Including and excluding members of the polity is a political decision that is legally constituted in laws and legal ordinances, and is based on past history and the construction of historical narratives. Moreover, the same idea of citizenship is built around collective action pushing for particular definitions of who are ‘we’ and who are ‘the other’. Therefore, it demarcates a territory as it demarcates the notion of community versus the other. Otherness becomes then the quintessential question for building a community of peers. Over time, we have come to realize

Conclusion

165

that citizenship has been more a model of exclusion than inclusion. As one of us has argued: Theories of citizenship have been advanced in the tradition of Western political theory, by white, heterosexual males who have identified a homogeneous citizenship through a process of systematic exclusion from, rather than inclusion in, the polity. That is, women, identifiable social groups (e.g. Jews, Gypsies), working-­class people, and people representing specific ethnic and racial groups – in short people of color – and individuals lacking certain attributes or skills (e.g. literacy and numeracy) were in principle excluded from the definition of citizenship in several societies, and hence ‘from [the] ideas of individual entitlement on the one hand and of attachment to a particular community on the other’ (Kymlicka and Norman, 1994: 352). Torres 1998: 4

Assuming that citizenship building is a work in progress and that there are many deficits in the way that nation-­states have incorporated different group of people into the polity, it is reasonable to speak of the unfinished business of citizenship. Riots at the peripheries of European cities by post-­migrant native new citizens, who are systematically excluded by the mainstream society, or the constant episodes of police in the USA executing African-American males point-­blank in the streets are proof of failed citizenship. Perhaps the Obama administration exemplifies the action and reaction of a society not fully prone to change and adaptation which defies the terms of tolerance in liberal doctrines. We recognize that this conversation about global citizenship is marked by three fundamental tensions, that between nationalism and religious fundamentalism, that between models of deregulation (neoliberalism) and re-­ regulation (the call for the capitalist state to save the system from its own demise after the crises of 2008), and at the level of freedom, the tension between emancipation versus regulation of social and collective action. We see global citizenship as being marked by an understanding of global ties and connections and a commitment to the collective good. In a previous work, Carlos Alberto Torres advanced the idea of ‘democratic multicultural citizenship’ in which education helps students to develop the dispositions and abilities to work across social and cultural differences in a quest for solidarity (1998). In another work on higher education, Rhoads and Torres (2006) argued that such skills are essential to citizenship in a multicultural, global environment. A similar concept has been advocated by Massimiliano Tarozzi, outlining that an ‘intercultural citizenship’ (Tarozzi, 2005b, 2006a, 2008) is a key issue for the

166

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

soundness of contemporary democracies which need critical citizens, able to practise political virtues in a globalized and plural world (Tarozzi, 2015). The traditional liberal idea of citizenship, with its individualistic foundations and goals of protecting homogenous groups, is unable to understand differences. Therefore, new citizens need intercultural competences that allow them to deal with differences and multiple identities. Rob Rhoads and Katalin Szelényi explore the question of global citizenship and the role of universities in detail. Rhoads advanced a view of citizenship in which the geographic reference point for one’s sense of rights and responsibilities is broadened and, in some sense, complicated by a more expansive spatial vision and understanding of the world (Rhoads and Szelényi, 2011). Learning from the seminal works of C. B. MacPherson and T. H. Marshall, it is important to argue that the engagement of individuals as citizens reflects understandings of rights and responsibilities across three basic dimensions of social life: the political (including civic aspects); the economic (including occupational aspects); and the social (including cultural aspects). The work of Adam Przeworski on the possible democracies still emphasizes that the tensions between equality, egalitarianism and equity will never go away, and will continue to underscore debates about citizenship building (Przeworski, 2010). As one of us has argued elsewhere: In this increasingly complexly organized multicultural and multilingual world system, the bases of traditional forms of political community have been eroded; and coupled with this erosion is an emerging theory and practice of distrust in democracy. Hence, the previous models of democratic checks and balances, separation of powers, and the notion of democratic accountability no longer work smoothly, not even at the level of formal rather than substantive democracy. [. . ] The growing distrust in democracy poses problems for a process of educational reform and its eventual connections with citizenship building and raises concerns about the narrowing of the meaning of democracy in capitalist societies. The redefinition of democracy needs to be extricated from the forming patterns of social regulation that prevail in contemporary societies. Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio (1995) contends that this issue may be at the heart of the possible survival of the democratic system: Can a state be fully democratic in a world that is not (as yet) democratic? Posing a Kantian dilemma in considering the relationships between domestic and international systems, Bobbio points to a vicious circle: ‘States can become democratic only in a fully democratized international society, but a fully democratized international

Conclusion

167

society presupposes that all the states that compose it are democratic. The completion of one process is hindered by the non-­completion of the other (Bobbio, 1995: 39). Torres, 1998: 95–6

For David Held (1995), the answer to this dilemma is the above-­mentioned notion of cosmopolitan democracy. There are a number of developments that prompt the possibilities of a cosmopolitan democracy, including: l

l

l

the growing presence of transnational social movements which focus on issues of equity, equality or the defence of the planets biomass and diversity (Milani and Laniado, 2006); the strengthening of an international global system of international relations in the twentieth century, consolidated around the UN as a supranational model for conflict resolution; the growing presence of the legal framework of human rights as a principle of orderly negotiation within and across nation-­states of the principles of human and environmental protection.

With the growing insularity of US society in cultural terms, and the perceived as well as real crises of capital accumulation and political legitimation, debates about the policies of equity and equality will take a back seat. In this context, how can US society take advantage of its diversity and difference to enrich the educational experience of children and youth of any colour? On the contrary, with the manipulation of social consciousness and media rhetoric, particularly in right-­wing outlets, not surprisingly immigrants are blamed for many of the ills of US society; people of colour are considered lazy and dependent and, together with the poor, of abusing the network of sustainability created by the welfare state. But immigrants get the brunt of the critique. Undocumented immigrants are seen as responsible for a lack of security at the borders, for the risks of terrorism and, of course, for the unfair advantage of undocumented immigrants pricing themselves below market standards and therefore taking jobs form US residents. In Europe, the ambitious and visionary project to build a supranational governance seems doomed to fail. After French and Dutch referendums had firmly opposed the ratification on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the EU as an institution remains a bureaucratic and not a welfare state, which imposes binding neoliberal rules and regulations on Member States and produces non-­binding declarations of principles in social and educational issues. In a feeble union, where the economically powerful countries increasingly

168

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

strengthen their political hegemony, processes relating to the construction of European citizenship, in which there are undeniable investments, appear to be more focused on legitimizing the organization itself or aimed at the EU’s institutional need for securing its stability, rather than empowering different and active citizenship (Milana and Tarozzi, 2013). These tensions and contradictions in the USA have prompted several academics to develop new theoretical forms, including Critical Race Theory, LatCrit Theory, culturally relevant pedagogies or a culturally responsive pedagogy (Howard, 2003), and Pedagogies of Belonging (Malsbary, 2012). In addition, policy-­oriented theories have emerged to enhance the understanding of race/ethnicity in education, and to move the debate beyond race and ethnicity into a new paradigm to deal with difference and diversity. We have argued in this book that this paradigm is a transformative and diverse social justice education. As has been noted several times, this paradigm aims to overcome the limitations of the sterile and superficial interculturalism of North American culturalism, to promote an idea of education for a multiple, diverse and socially just citizenship. Yet the paradigm that we have tried to conceptualize within this book is rooted in strong cultural and theoretical traditions. But these should not be taken in an essential and normative form: the simplistic multicultural approach adopted by the EU as a relativistic approach that separates cultures and ignores universal values is without foundation, because there are various forms that fall under the umbrella-­term multiculturalism. Similarly, the prospect that reduces interculturalism as seen in the USA to a solidarity approach that ignores equity issues is also unfounded, at least in reference to some approaches. Following Wieviorka, ‘The forms that public discussion about multiculturalism and integration take differ from one country to another; they may owe a lot to the history and political culture of the societies in question’ (Wieviorka, 2014: 639). Traditions do not emerge out of the blue, nor do they disappear quickly and without a trace. They are the results of the struggles of real people, in real times, with real experiences in real spaces. The endurance of the question of multiculturalism in the USA is connected to three great social movements: the 1880–1940 social movement of integration that brought to life the conversation about inter-­group relations; the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s; and the New Civil Rights Movement of Immigration in the twenty-­first century – as well as a host of other issues. These traditions, while not completely unrelated, are absent in the EU, or at least they do not have the level of visibility and impact that their counterparts

Conclusion

169

have in the USA. Yet, there is another level of complexity in the conversation, and one in which the difference between both geographical areas gets magnified. The discussion of religious populations is less important in the USA than it is in Europe. This is partly due to the growing anti-­secular movement (reflected in several strains of born-­again Christians, estimated by many analysts to represent 20 per cent of the US population) and highly visible in the media-­savvy mega churches that emphasizes the Christian nature of US society. Europe is in an entirely different situation. We have already mentioned that the political discourse about diversity in Europe is rooted both in recent immigration and in Islam, which is perceived as a threat to European values. In Europe, where, since the Protestant Reform and the subsequent religious wars the principle ‘cuius regio, eius religio’ (‘Whose realm, his religion’) has prevailed – the religion of a people has traditionally been closely tied to the religion of its ruler, and subsequently to that of the nation. This is different to the tradition of religious pluralism in the USA. Not surprisingly, Muslims in the EU, emerging as the growing religious minority, are perceived as a threat to national values.

Culture still counts In short, although multiculturalism is a very elusive term, or a sliding signifier as post-­modernists might say, in any analysis of contemporary societies cultural diversity and difference still count. Culture is still a key notion to interpret the contemporary world and cultural difference. Cultural debates cannot be excluded from the political agenda of Western societies, less so within a globalized world, also because inequality is too often coupled with diversity within and outside nations. International migration, global interconnections, global families that produce a massive transfer of resources through remittances, or indigenous peoples’ and communities’ demands represent a need to re-­invigorate a notion of citizenship showing that the questions posed by multiculturalism cannot be avoided. In doing so, a culture-­free vision of society is out of the question. Certainly, the normative ideology of multiculturalism, as it prevailed in the 1980s, should be reinvented. But the cornucopia of issues that it raised should not be disregarded. In this book we have distinguished between constructive and normative multiculturalism. While in education the latter seems to be dead, since long before Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy announced its failure, the former, based on a soft idea of dynamic and relational culture, is still an effective approach for

170

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

addressing diversity in public policies and practices. In particular, this approach helps us to understand complex migration processes that mark out contemporary democracies. Constructive multiculturalism is not what Anne Phillips called ‘multiculturalism without culture’ (Phillips, 2007). By focusing only on individual rather than collective rights, it makes it impossible to face some fundamental tensions of societies such as discrimination and oppression, and the hegemony of the majority. Through this perspective, culture still makes sense in socially constructed collective identities, in marking boundaries of difference between groups and in establishing power hierarchies, opportunities for inclusion or exclusion, and in common norms and regulations based on these boundaries. According to constructive multiculturalism, culture is not the only dimension which constitutes identity, because identities are by definition multifaceted and plural. There is a process of learning of our multiple identities, which is historically contextualized, and connects with our learning and recognition. A complex psychoanalytical mechanism is linked to our lived experience through a process of ex-­ante- and ex-­post-reflexivity. Moreover, cultures are not monolithic entities, but have rich internal variety and difference. Therefore, to establish intercultural dialogue, one must choose those aspects of a culture ‘which represent the widest circle of reciprocity within that culture, the version that goes furthest in the recognition of the other’ (Santos, 2002: 55). This flexible multiculturalism is effective in three main dimensions: everyday multiculturalism, constructive multiculturalism, and civic minimums that will counteract economic inequality First, as an ‘everyday multiculturalism’ (Colombo and Semi, 2007; Wise and Velayutham, 2009), it is not a comprehensive theory but a way to face concrete problems through negotiations of cultural practices. A model reminiscent of the ‘reasonable accommodation’ provided by Bouchard and Taylor’s analysis in Quebec. The response to the multicultural impasse is neither a metaphysical nor a normative approach related to a preconceived axiological sphere of universal principles and values. What is required is a pragmatic model that combines individual, collective and communitarian values and the notion of the common good. Yet, invoking the common good in addressing diversity could be a trap when it is used by those who have no interest in facing a complex situation to find effective solutions and instead deal with diversity and difference through a traditional canon that is never questioned (Torres, 1998). In other words, without addressing difference and cultural diversity, particularly in the educational context, we cannot include questions of equity, equality and fairness in the construction of a common good (Torres, 2015).

Conclusion

171

What is needed is a political space to negotiate a fair and successful policy, through bottom-­up, local and participatory solutions, rather than applying top-­ down policies decided elsewhere. Constructive multiculturalism can offer tools to understand the reality of the situation and provide precise political and pedagogical responses to it. Second, constructive multiculturalism may not be able to recover fully the quest for equity and justice when combined with a culture-­bound perspective. Multiculturalism and interculturalism have been criticized for conflating social and class factors by paying exaggerated attention to the cultural dimension (Frazer, 1997; Barry, 2001). Focusing on cultural diversity as window dressing has meant leaving social inequalities untouched and has fragmented the opposition of the oppressed by preventing them from fighting together for common social goals. Going to an extreme assessment as we indicated before, Brian Barry argued that ‘a politics of multiculturalism undermines a politics of redistribution’ (Barry, 2001: 8). Cultural equality is not the same as equal opportunities for cultures. Therefore, even within a multicultural education approach, underachievement, drop-­outs, racism, violence and crime to name a few critical issues are unresolved basic questions. Recognizing equal dignity for all cultural groups is not enough. It is necessary to promote equity within a social justice framework. Social justice education does not stop at celebrating cultural diversity, but it emphasizes the role of society’s structures in creating forms of discrimination and highlights institutional oppression experienced by certain groups which a priori limits equal education opportunities (McDonald and Zeicher, 2009). The above-­highlighted impasse between an intercultural model unable to propose coherent policies and a multicultural one stuck in rigid notions of monolithic and segregated cultural groups can be overcome by combining a radical and democratic definition of flexible and multiple culture with a political tension between empowerment and disempowerment or, according to Santos (2002), with progressive policies towards emancipation or regressive policies towards regulation. By posing the question of cultural diversity and social equality along this continuum it is possible to find the conditions to support intercultural dialogue based on equality. Third, GCE defends as its foundations civic minimums that will counteract economic inequality and will seek the foundations for global commonalities. Likewise, it defends the concept of Planetary Citizenship bringing the background into the foreground. It also defends the need for an education for sustainable development. As a concept, Global Citizenship becomes a lynchpin

172

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

for social transformation in the twenty-­first century. Inequality – the gap between the rich and the poor – is no longer a buzzword regarding capitalist economics, it is a palpable reality backed by research studies and reported in many books and newspaper articles and can be observed in urban environments throughout the world.1 The financial crisis that rocked the globe in 2008 has made strikingly evident the growing disparity between rich and poor and has adversely affected world democracies. As educators, we wonder when we will take crises of capitalism seriously and look to see how education can ameliorate social inequities, a divisive and insidious malady that consistently undermines all possibility for true social cohesion. GCE may play a major role in dealing with these dilemmas. We are enmeshed in a number of societal dilemmas that are difficult to address. We assume that education is not a direct answer to economic inequality, even if the influential work of Thomas Piketty (2014) seems to state the opposite. Yet, the policies and practices of education can and should contribute to solving such problems of existing economic and social policies, which aim to diminish or eliminate inequalities in society and fail to do their job. Education is not a lever of development, but without education there cannot be any real economic growth. To achieve this we need a new global social order and a robust international civil society, – hence the promise and perspective of GCE.

Do we need a new role for education worldwide? The question at the basis of the UNESCO Global Education First Initiative is about the state of education today. One central problem is that the prevailing schooling model that we inherited from industrial society is exhausted; but while there are few notable exceptions, no new national or world-­wide model has yet emerged to replace it. A second problem, magnified by the current economic crisis, is that we continue to extend educational opportunity and access to the underserved, which demands that more and more resources be drawn from wealthy individuals, families and societies. A third problem is the concrete risk that schooling serves, especially to those who need it, and who should have more school and education, such as post-­migrants and marginals in general who are excluded either literally or de facto, even if allowed to attend state school. In a welfare system that is still resisted in most European countries, those who come from privileged and favourable situations have all the conditions for the best use of public resources invested in the school. UNESCO First

Conclusion

173

Initiative and EFA should take this issue seriously. ‘Putting every child in school’ is not enough if they are not put in a condition to learn. What do they do when they are put in school? Such an issue has already been raised by educators and social activists like Paulo Freire and Lorenzo Milani (Mayo, 2007): granting the right of access to education is not enough, but we need to break down the social barriers to the effective exercise of the right to education and access to equal educational opportunities. Neo-­liberalism’s new common sense has promoted a worldwide model of efficiency via privatization. Institutions everywhere are implementing user fees affecting particularly low- or middle-­class families of limited resources, people in rural areas, the urban poor, and people of colour (Torres, 2011, 2013). The world’s system of production and consumption is unable to produce sufficient job opportunities for what has now become a highly qualified population of workers. For instance, youth unemployment in Europe is twice as high as the rate for the overall population, and in some countries like Spain it is even higher. Reading, writing and arithmetic continue to be serious challenges for children and youth who come from non-­schooled cultures such as those of some African nations and other developing countries, and who find an alienating curriculum in schools, more so when high-­stakes testing is in place, as it is in the USA and in every OECD country. Teachers are under attack in many countries, their status diminished, the teaching profession badly paid, and they are blamed for the low academic performance of students and schools. Teacher training, while recognized as a major factor for the improvement of educational systems, lacks the integration of theory and practice. Few if any of the multiple research findings in educational research about teachers are ever disseminated let alone implemented, and teaching and learning methodologies continue to be implemented as top-­down models in schools, very often lacking basic institutional foundations, particularly in the developing world. While education research could play a vital role for educational change, findings and recommendations of educational research work only when they reach the right person at the right time and through the right platform. Otherwise, tons of pages (and tons of megabytes) are shelved in real and imaginary archives with the hope of impacting practice some day. Educational reform and transnational regulation have emerged as the last conundrums. There is talk that education is in crisis, which has led many governments to attempt a series of cyclical and episodic reforms. Teachers, many parents and public opinion share

174

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

a serious mistrust of political action – and politicians in general – and doubt any real or credible process of change can happen in schools. Education has been overlooked as a tool for the transformation of economic inequities for far too long. We have not lost sight of the importance of education for furthering global citizenship as reflected in the GEFI initiative and the 17 new goals for sustainable development advocated by the United Nations.

Epilogue Writing the final words of a book is always difficult. This one is no exception, particularly when we have tried to find a possible mediation between the identity demands of cultural diversity, the socio-­political demands and the possible dreams of oppressed groups. We have argued that this mediation can be realized in educational contexts through a transformative social justice education that can only be possible on a global scale. This is a pedagogical framework for a completely renewed citizenship education. We have become convinced that the only way to challenge inequality is to struggle for GCE. But make no mistake. We cannot reach a sustainable, morally defensible and politically feasible GCE without solving some of the conundrums of ‘unfinished citizenship’ and ‘failed citizenship’ outlined above. Continuing the struggle for a radical democratic multicultural citizenship, not only in the national units of the global system but also as part of the new international public sphere of political deliberation and participation, is a precondition to achieve GCE. A careful reader will capture some of the key tenets upon which this perspective is based: the struggles, success and failures to achieve multiculturalism; the vision to construct a supranational democracy in Europe and a more democratic society in the USA, and the contributions of Freire, Phenomenology, and Critical Theory as important sources. One of the key elements is not to focus on single-­minded citizenship building but on a global citizenship building. This pedagogical framework requires a theory of multicultural citizenship rooted in a democratic notion of intercultural global citizenship, which we have sought to highlight throughout this book via a comparison between the US and EU contexts. There are many lessons to be learned from these comparative explorations which we have presented throughout our narrative.

Conclusion

175

We do hope that this book has offered a basis for hope, even in the context of the worst economic and environmental crises of our generation – even when education is being discounted as a solution to the emerging and multifarious crises, and some politicians, pundits, scholars, and organizations insist on pursuing models of high-­stakes testing and instrumental rationality, and models of accountability that constitute the most recent incarnation of a larger Darwinian policy experiment. Relying upon highly problematic indicators, the logic goes ‘only the strongest teachers will survive’. The most able will produce and the least able will fail and, in turn, be drummed out of the profession. In the absence of substantial investment in teacher development, we are left to deduce that able teachers and born, not developed; that teachers’ effectiveness is evident in a rise in test scores; that student achievement is a product of individual effort of individual educators rather than a full school community. Fabricant and Fine, 2013: 48–9

In a letter to his brother Carlo in 1929 (Letters from Prison, 19 December 1929), Gramsci urges him not to fall into those two ‘vulgar and trivial’ attitudes of optimism and pessimism. Referring to his experience in prison, he confesses in a famous motto that he overcame both: ‘I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.’ And he continues: ‘I think, in all circumstances, to the worst case scenario, to be able to put in motion all the reserves and will be able to break down the barrier.’ However, Gramsci’s optimism is not just a moral virtue but is a fundamental perspective of political theory, creating the possibility to influence processes of social change. In political activism and thinking, Gramsci rejects daydreaming, abstract fantasizing and its consolatory style, as well as resolutely rejecting the attitude of those planning theories and abstract plans that then, put to the test, have a lack of concreteness to make a positive impact in life. He invites us not to look abstractly to a dreamed future, but to stand firmly in the present that we want to transform. In doing so, we can know the roots of this reality and the dynamics of its development. Hence the invitation to know the past, the history if you want to know the present. But this knowledge, this critical activity of the reality, inevitably brings with it the pessimism and the attitude to give precedence to the worst case scenario in the analytical work. The empty utopianism, the romantic idealism so popular at Gramsci’s time and which innervated the rhetoric of war and the origins of fascism, is a form of moral laziness, of immobility and of irresponsibility. On the contrary, pessimism

176

Global Citizenship Education and the Crises of Multiculturalism

makes people responsible. Only from this ground can germinate the optimism of the will, an existential condition that can be hardened by the harsh trials of life and that leads people to develop an awareness and have the necessary energy and momentum to meet the political challenges of change, with responsibility and ethical and polical coherence. In the face of the increasing erosion of public education systems with the growing privatization and the spread of neo-­liberal ideas and directions worlwide, of the expansion of poverty, of social conflicts undermining intercultural encounters – in the face of all this the global citizenship proposal is not the abstract fantasizing and dreams that is claimed, which too often surrounds an irresponsible and consolatory proposal for global education. But it is and will be the result of a hard and tough critical analysis by transformative intellectuals generating an inexhaustible and conscious optimism of the will of millions of educators worldwide. We hope this book will excite hope, will and deliberative utopianism but also collective action to build a democratic multicultural GCE not only in theory but, and more importantly, in practice.

Note 1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlos-­alberto-torres/education-­reform-economy-_ b_2090463.html (retrieved 26 March 2016).

Bibliography Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (1986), Vers une pédagogie interculturelle. Paris: Anthropos. Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (1999), L’éducation interculturelle. Paris: PUF. Abdi, A. and Shultz, L. (eds) (2009), Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Abdi, A. and Shultz, L. (eds) (2011), Global Citizenship Education in Post-Secondary Institutions: Theories, practices, policies. New York: Peter Lang. Abdi, A., Shultz, L. and Pillay, T. (2015), Decolonizing Global Citizenship Education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Afonso, A. J. (2010), ‘Accountability in Education and the Emergence of this Issue in the Portuguese Context: A brief sociological overview’. Unpublished manuscript, Universidade de Minho, Portugal. Aguado Odina, T. (2009), ‘The education of ethnic, racial, and cultural minority groups in Spain’, in J. A. Banks (ed.) (2009), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 474–85. Aime, M. (2004), Eccessi di culture. Torino: Einaudi. Alber, J.-L., Bavoux, C. and Watin, M., (eds) (1990), Métissages. Paris: L’Harmattan. Alexander, J. C. (2013), ‘Struggling over the mode of incorporation: Backlash against multiculturalism in Europe’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(4): 531–56. Allemann-Ghionda, C. (2009), ‘From intercultural education to the inclusion of diversity: theories and policies in Europe’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 134–45. Allievi, S. (2014) ‘Immigration, religious diversity and recognition of differences: The Italian way to multiculturalism’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21(6): 724–37. Allport, G. W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. American Council on Education and Taba, H. (1952), Intergroup Education in Public Schools: Experimental programs sponsored by the Project in Intergroup Education in Cooperating Schools: Theory, practice, and in-­service education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Amselle, J.-L. (1998), ‘Mestizo logics: Anthropology of identity in Africa and elsewhere’, Mestizo Spaces. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Original edition, Logiques métisses. Anthropologie de l’identité en Afrique et ailleurs. Paris: Payot (1990). Andreotti, V. (2006), ‘Soft versus critical global citizenship education’, in Policy & Practice: A development education review, 3: 40–51.

178

Bibliography

Andreotti, V. (2010), ‘Postcolonial and post-­critical global citizenship education’, in G. Elliott, C. Fourali and S. Issler, Education and Social Change. London: Continuum, pp. 223–45. Andreotti, V. (2011), Actionable Postcolonial Theory. New York: Palgrave. Andreotti, V. and de Souza, L. M. T. M. (2008), ‘Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: Lessons from the project “Through Other Eyes” ’, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 1(1): 23–36. Andreotti, V. and de Souza, L. M. T. M. (eds) (2012a), Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education. New York and London: Routledge. Andreotti, V. and de Souza, L. M. T. M. (2012b), ‘Introduction: (Towards) global citizenship education otherwise’, in V. Andreotti and L. M. T. M. de Souza (eds) (2012), Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education. London: Routledge, pp. 1–6. Andreotti, V., Jeferess, D., Pashby, K., Rowe, C., Tarc, P. and Taylor, L. (2010), ‘Difference and conflict in global citizenship in higher education in Canada’, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2(3): 5–24. Appadurai, A. M. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Appadurai, A. (2006), Fear of Small Numbers: An essay on the geography of anger. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Appiah, K. A. (2002), ‘Cosmopolitan patriotism’, in J. Cohen (ed.), For Love of Country? Boston, MA: Beacon Press, pp. 21–9. Appiah, K. A. (2008), ‘Education for global citizenship’, in D. Coulter, G. Fenstermacher and J. R. Wiens (eds), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 1. Columbia, OH: Teachers College, Columbia University. Apple, M. W. (1997), Teoría Crítica y Educación. Buenos Aires: Mino y Davila Editores. Apple, M. W. (2003), Ideology and Curriculum. New York: Routledge, 30th anniversary edition. Apple, M. W. (2010), Global Crises, Social Justice, and Education. New York: Routledge. Archibugi, D. and Held, D. (1995), Cosmopolitan Democracy: An agenda for a new world order. Oxford: Polity Press. Arendt, H. (1958), The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Arnot, M. (2002), Reproducing Gender? Essays on educational theory and feminist politics. London: Routledge-Falmer. Arnove, R. and Torres, C. A. (eds) (2007), Comparative Education: The dialectics of the global and the local. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield (1st edn 1999, 2nd edn 2003, 3rd edn 2007). Assessorato Istruzione e Sport della Provincia autonoma di Trento (2013), Oltre l’immigrazione. Per una scuola diversa. Documento di indirizzo sull’educazione alla cittadinanza interculturale. Commissione di Studio sull’educazione interculturale e alla cittadinanza (CSEIC), a cura di Massimiliano Tarozzi. Trento: ottobre 2013.

Bibliography

179

Ayers, W., Quinn, T. and Stovall, D. (2009), Handbook of Social Justice in Education. New York: Routledge. Banks, J. A. (1986), ‘Multicultural education: Development, paradigms and goals’, in J. A. Banks and J. Lynch (eds), Multicultural Education in Western Societies. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 2–28. Banks, J. A. (1988), Multi-Ethnic Education: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Banks, J. A. (1993), ‘Education and cultural diversity in the United States’, in A. Fyfe and P. Figueroa (eds), Education for Cultural Diversity: The challenge for a new era. London: Routledge, pp. 49–68. Banks, J. A. (ed.) (2004), Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global perspectives (The Jossey-Bass education series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banks, J. A. (2008), ‘Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age’, Educational Researcher, 37(3): 129–39. Banks, J. A. (2009a), ‘Multicultural education: Dimensions and paradigms’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Banks, J. A. (ed) (2009b), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York: Routledge. Banks, J. A. (2009c), ‘Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 303–22. Banks, J. A. and Banks, C. A. M. G. (1995), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. New York: Macmillan. Banks J. A. and Lynch J. (eds) (1986), Multicultural Education in Western Societies. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Banks, J. A. and McGee Banks, C. (1989/1993), Multicultural Education: Issues and perspectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Banks, J. A. and McGee Banks, C. A. (eds) (2003), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banting, K. and Kymlicka W. (2013), ‘Is there really a retreat from multiculturalism policies? New evidence from the multiculturalism policy index’, Comparative European Politics, 11(5): 577–98. Barber, B. R. (1995), Jihad vs. McWorld. How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. New York: Times Books. Barn, R. (2012), ‘Interculturalism in Europe: Facts and fad or fiction – the deconstruction of a theoretical idea’, in Unedited Workshop Proceedings: Debating Multiculturalism 1. London: Dialogue Society, pp. 101–10. Barou, J. (2014), ‘Integration of immigrants in France: A historical perspective’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21(6): 642–57. Barry, B. (2001), Culture and Equality. An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

180

Bibliography

Baukie, P. and Saharso, S. (2010), ‘From toleration to repression: The Dutch backlash against multiculturalism’, in S. Vertovec and S. Wessendorf (eds), The Multiculturalism Backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge, pp. 72–91. Bauman, Z. (1998), Globalization. The human consequences. Cambridge and Oxford: Polity Press and Blackwell Publishers. Bauman, Z. (2001), Missing Community. Translated from the Italian, Voglia di comunità. Rome and Bari: Laterza, 2003. Beck, U. (2000), What is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2005), Power in the Global Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2006), The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. and Grande, E. (2007), Cosmopolitan Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bell, D. (1987), And We Are Not Saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York: Basic Books. Bell, D. (1995), ‘Racial realism – after we’re gone: Prudent speculations on America on a post-­racial epoch’, in T. Delgado (ed.), Critical Race Theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp. 2–8. Benhabib, S. (2002), The Claims of Culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bernstein, B. B. and University of London (1970), Primary Socialization, Language and Education. London and Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bertolini, P. (1999), Il presente pedagogico. Torino: Thélème. Bertolini, P. (2003), Educazione e politica. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore. Besley, T., Peters, M. A. and Xaioping, J. (eds) (2011), ‘The Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue’, Policy Futures in Education, special issue 9(1). Bhabha, H. K. (1989), ‘The commitment to theory’, in J. Pines and P. Willemen (eds), Third Cinema Reader. London: British Film Institute, pp. 111–32. Bhabha, H. K. (1994), The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Bhatti, G., Gaine, C., Gobbo, F. and Leeman, Y. (eds) (2007). Social Justice and Intercultural Education: An open ended dialogue. Stoke-­on-Trent: Trentham Books. Bloemraad, I. and Wright, M. (2014), ‘ “Utter failure” or unity out of diversity? Debating and evaluating policies of multiculturalism’, International Migration Review, 48: 292–334. Bloom, A. (1987), The Closing of the American Mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today’s students. New York: Simon & Schuster. Bobbio, N. (1995), ‘Democracy and the international system,’ in D. Archibugi and D. Held (eds), Cosmopolitan Democracy: An agenda for a new world order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 17–41. Bobbio, N. and Bellamy, R. (1987), The Future of Democracy: A defence of the rules of the game. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bora, K. (2015), ‘ISIS recruiting “increasingly young” Europeans; about 4,000 joined Islamic State in Syria: EU’, International Business Times. Retrieved from:

Bibliography

181

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-­recruiting-increasingly-­young-europeans-­about-4000joined-­islamic-state-­syria-eu-1972462 (retrieved 26 August 2015). Bouchard, G. and Taylor, C. (2008), Building the Future: A time for reconciliation [report of the Consultation Commission of Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences]. Montréal: Government of Quebec. Bourdieu, P. (1979), La Distinction, critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1999), ‘The cunning of imperialist reason’, Theory, Culture & Society, 16(1): 41–58. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1987), Democracy and Capitalism: Property, community and the contradictions of modern social thought. New York: Basic Books. Brandt, G. L. (1986), The Realization of Anti-Racist Teaching. Barcome Lewes, Sussex: Falmer Press. Brubaker, R. (2001), ‘The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4): 267–309. Buchanan, P. J. (2002), The Death of the West: How dying populations and immigrant invasions imperil our country and civilization. New York: St Martin’s Press. Buchanan, P. J. (2011), Suicide of a Superpower: Will America survive to 2025? New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Bunch, C. (2001), ‘Women’s human rights: The challenges of global feminism and diversity’, in M. DeKoven (2001), Feminist Locations: Global and local, theory and practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 129–46. Burbules, N. C. and Torres, C. A. (2000), Globalization and Education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Burke, J. F. (2002), Mestizo Democracy: The politics of crossing borders. Rio Grande/Río Bravo, no. 8. College Station: Texas A & M University Press. Burke, P. J. and Jackson, S. (2007), Reconceptualising Lifelong Learning: Feminist interventions. London: Routledge. Buruma, I. (2006), Murder in Amsterdam: The death of Theo van Gogh and the limits of tolerance. New York: Penguin Press. Buruma, I. (2010), Taming the Gods: Religion and God in three continents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University press. Butler, J. and Spivak, G. C. (2007), Who Sings the Nation-State?: Language, politics, belonging. London: Seagull Books. Callan, E. (2004), Creating Citizens. Political education and liberal democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Callari Galli, M. (1996), Lo spazio dell’incontro. Percorsi nella complessità. Rome: Meltemi. Carnoy, M. (1984), The State and Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, M. (1997), The Power of Identity. The information age: Economy, society and culture, II. Oxford: Blackwell.

182

Bibliography

Castles, S. (2004), ‘Migration, citizenship and education’, in James A Banks, Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global perspectives (The Jossey-Bass education series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 17–48. Castles, S. (2009), ‘Worldwide population movements, diversity, and education’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Catarci, M. (2015), ‘Interculturalism in education across Europe’, in M. Catarci and M. Fiorucci (eds), Intercultural Education in the European Context: Theories, experiences, challenges. Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 1–34. Catarci, M. and Fiorucci, M. (2015), Intercultural Education in the European Context: Theories, experiences, challenges. Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Ceruti M. (2003), ‘Educazione planetaria e complessità umana’, in M. Callari Galli, F. Cambi and M. Ceruti, Formare alla complessità. Prospettive dell’educazione nelle società globali. Rome: Carocci, pp. 13–63. Colley, H., Henriksson, L., Niemeyer, B. and Seddon, T. (2012), ‘Competing time orders in human service work: Towards a politics of time’, Time & Society, 21(3): 371–94. Colombo, E. (2011), Le società multiculturali, 2nd edn. Rome: Carocci. Colombo, E. (2015), ‘Multiculturalisms: An overview of multicultural debates in Western societies’, Current Sociology, June: 1–25. Colombo, E. and Semi, G. (2007), Multiculturalismo quotidiano: Le pratiche della differenza. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Contini, A. (2009), ‘Il paradigma del métissage, fra estetica e scienze umane’, Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica, 4(2): 1–36. Coulby, D. (2006), ‘Intercultural Education: Theory and practice’, Intercultural Education, 17(3): 245–57. Coulby, D., Gundara, J. and Crispin, J. (eds) (1997), World Yearbook of Education 1997. Intercultural education. London and Stirling: Kogan Page. Council of Europe (2003), Committee of Ministers of Education, ‘Declaration by the European Ministers of Education on Intercultural Education in the New European Context’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of the European Union (2004), Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union, 14615/04. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Crespi, F. and Segatori, R. (eds) (1996), Multiculturalismo e democrazia. Rome: Donzelli. Czock, H. (1993), Der Fall Ausländerpädagogik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. D’Souza, D. (1991), Illiberal Education: The politics of race and sex on campus, New York: Free Press. D’Souza, D. (1995), The End of Racism: Principles for a multicultural society. New York: Free Press. D’Souza, D. (2007), The Enemy at Home: The cultural left and its responsibility for 9/11. New York: Doubleday. Dal Lago, A. (1996), ‘Nonpersone. Il limbo degli stranieri’, in Aut Aut, 275(Sept.–Oct.): 43–70.

Bibliography

183

Dal Lago, A. (1999), Non-­persone: l’esclusione dei migranti in una società globale. Milano: Feltrinelli. Davies, L. (2006), ‘Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action?’, Educational Review, 58(1): 5–25. de Souza, L. M. T. M. and Andreotti, V. (2009), ‘Culturalism, difference and pedagogy: Lessons from indigenous education in Brazil’, in J. Lavia and M. Moore (eds.), Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Policy and Practice: Decolonizing community contexts. London: Routledge, pp. 72–86. de Toledo, C. N. (1977), ISEB: Fábrica de ideologias. São Paulo: Editora Ática. de Zoysa, R. (2006), ‘Immigration: Europe and the USA – common cause or American exceptionalism?’, Contemporary Politics, 12(3–4): 261–85. DEF (UK Department for Education) (2005) Developing the Global Dimension in the School Curriculum. Retrieved from: http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/ standard/publicationdetail/page1/DFES-1409–2005 (11 March 2016). Delanty, G. (2003), Community. New York: Routledge. Delanty, G. (2006), ‘Nationalism and cosmopolitanism: The paradox of modernity’, in G. Delanty and K. Kumar (eds), The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 357–68. Department of Education and Science (DES) (1985), Education for All (The Swann Report), Department of Education and Science Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Derrida J. (1967), L’écriture et la différence. Paris, Seuil. Italian translation, La scrittura e la differenza. Torino: Einaudi, 1971. Dewey J. (1916), Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan. Donati, P. (2008), Oltre il multiculturalismo. La ragione relazionale per un mondo comune. Rome and Bari: Laterza. Donati, P. (2009), ‘Beyond the dilemmas of multiculturalism: recognition through “relational reason” ’, in International Review of Sociology, 19(1): 55–82. Dower, N. (2003), An Introduction to Global Citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2007), ‘Gangstas, Wankstas, and Ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting effective teachers in urban schools’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6): 617–38. Dworkin, R. and Maffettone, S. (1996) I fondamenti del liberalismo. Rome and Bari: Laterza. Entzinger, H. (2014), ‘The growing gap between facts and discourse on immigrant integration in the Netherlands’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21(6): 693–707. Etzioni, A. (ed.) (1995), New Communitarian Thinking. Persons, virtues, institutions and communities. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. EU Commission (2008), Green Paper. Migrazione e mobilità: le sfide e le opportunità per i sistemi d’istruzione europei.

184

Bibliography

Euridyce (2004), Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Brussels: Euridyce – The Information Network on Education in Europe. European Council (2008), White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue ‘Living together as equals in dignity’, Lancé par les Ministres des Affaires Etrangères du Conseil de l’Europe lors de leur 118ème session ministérielle (Strasbourg, 7 mai 2008). Eurostat (2015), Migration and Migrant Population Statistics. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-­explained/mobile/index.php#Page?title— igration_and_migrant_population_statistics&lg=en (19 August 2015). Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T. (1985), Bringing the State Back In. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fabietti, U. (1996), L’identità etnica. Storia e critica di un concetto equivoco. Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Fabricant, M. and Fine, M. (2013), The Changing Politics of Education. Privatization and the dispossessed lives left behind. Boulder, CO, and London: Paradigm Publishers. Falk, R. (1994), ‘The making of global citizenship’, in The Condition of Citizenship, Bart van Steenbergen (ed.), London: Sage Publications, pp. 127–39. Fanon, F. (1963), The Wretched of the Earth (‘Preface’ by Jean-Paul Sartre, Translated by Constance Farrington). New York: Grove Press. Favaro, G. (2004), ‘L’educazione interculturale in Italia. Una scelta possibile e necessaria’, in G. Favaro and L. Luatti (eds), L’intercultura dalla A alla Z. Milano: Angeli, pp. 21–36. Feenberg, A. and Leiss, W. (eds) (2007), The Essential Marcuse. Selected writings of philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse. Boston: Beacon Press. Figueroa, P. (1995), ‘Multicultural education in the United Kingdom: Historical development and current status’, in J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks, Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. New York, MacMillian Publishing, pp. 778–800. Figueroa, P. (2000), ‘Citizenship education for a plural society’, in A. Osler (ed.), Citizenship and Democracy in Schools: Diversity, identity, equality. Stroke on Trent, Trentham Books, pp. 47–62. Figueroa, P. (2004), ‘Diversity and education in England’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), Diversity and Citizenship Education. Global perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 219–44. Fiorucci, M. (2015), ‘The Italian way for intercultural education’, in M. Catarci and M. Fiorucci (eds), Intercultural Education in the European Context: Theories, experiences, challenges. Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate., pp. 105–30. Fondazione Laboratorio Mediterraneo (1997), ‘Obiettivi e Mezzi per il Parternariato Euromediterraneo’, Il Forum Civile EuroMed. Naples: Magma, quoted in P. Mayo (2007), ‘Gramsci, the southern question and the Mediterranean’, Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 12(2): 1–17. Forghani-Arani, N., Hartmeyer, H., O’Loughlin, E. and Wegimont, L. (2013), Global Education in Europe: Policy, practice and theoretical challenges. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.

Bibliography

185

Fraser, N. (1997), Justice Interruptus: Critical reflections on the ‘postsocialist’ condition. New York: Routledge. Freire, P. (1972), ‘La misión educadora de las iglesias en América Latina’, Perspectivas de Dialogo, 7(66)(Aug.): 172–9, 7(67)(Sept.):201–9. Freire, P. (1978) Educación como práctica de la libertad. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI. Freire, P. (1985), The Politics of Education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley, MS: Bergin & Garvey. Freire, P. (1992), Pedagogia da Esperança: Um encontro com a pedagogia do oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Freire, P. (1998), Politics and Education. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications – translated by Pia Lindquist Wong, with an introduction entitled ‘The political pedagogy of Paulo Freire’, by Carlos Alberto Torres. Fullinwider R. K. (ed.), (1996), Public Education in a Multicultural Society. Policy, theory, critique. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gallissot, R., Kilani, M. and Rivera, A. (2000), L’imbroglio ethnique en quatorze mots clés. Lausanne: Editions Payot Lausanne. Italian translation, L’imbroglio etnico in dieci parole chiave. Bari: Dedalo (2007). Galtung, J. (1994), Human Rights in Another Key. Cambridge: Polity Press. Garavito, R. C. A. and Santos, B. S. (2005), Law and Globalization from Below: Towards a cosmopolitan legality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garcia, M. E. (2009), ‘Indigenous education in Peru’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. García Canclini, N. (1982), Las culturas populares en el capitalismo. Mexico City: Nueva Imagen. García Canclini, N. (1995), Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for entering and leaving modernity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Original edition (1990), Cultural Híbridas: Estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad. Mexico City: Grijalbo, p. 207. García Canclini, N. (2009), Diferentes, desiguales y desconectados. Spain, Gedisa. Geertz, C. (1984), ‘Distinguished lecture: Anti Anti-­relativism’, in American Anthropologist, 86(2): 263–78. Italian translation, C. Geertz (2001), ‘Contro l’antirelativismo’, Antropologia e filosofia. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 57–83. Geertz, C. (1986), ‘The uses of diversity’, Tanner Lectures in Human Values, VII. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 253–75. Gewirtz, S. (1998), ‘Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory’, Journal of Education Policy, 13(4): 469–84. Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (2006), ‘Misunderstanding multiculturalism’, Guardian, 14 October. Quoted in S. Vertotec and S. Wessendorf (eds), Introduction. The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge, 2010.

186

Bibliography

Gillborn, D. (1990), ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Education: Teaching and learning in multi-­ ethnic schools. London: Unwin Hyman. Gillborn, D. (2004), ‘Anti-­racism. From policy to praxis’, in G. Ladson-Billing and D. Gillborn (eds), Multicultural Education. London: Routledge-Falmer, pp. 35–48. Gillborn, D. (2006), ‘Critical race theory and education: Racism and anti-­racism in educational theory and praxis, Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 27(1): 11–32. Gillborn, D. (2008), Racism and Education: Coincidence or conspiracy? Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Gilroy, P. (2005), Postcolonial Melancholia. New York: Columbia University Press. Gilroy, P. (2006), ‘Multiculturalism and post-­colonial theory’, in J. S. Dryzek, B. Honig and A. Phillips (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 656–76. Ginsburg, M. (1995), ‘A personal introduction to The Politics of Educators’ Work and Lives’, in M. Ginsburg (ed.), The Politics of Educators’ Work and Lives. New York: Garland, pp. xxv–xxxvii. Giroux, H. (1992), ‘National identity and the politics of multiculturalism’, College Literature, 22(2): 42–57. Giroux, H. (1994), ‘Insurgent multiculturalists and the promise of pedagogy’, in D. T. Goldberg (ed.), Multiculturalism: A critical reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 325–43. Giroux, H. (1997), ‘Memories of Whiteness’, paper presented at Penn State University. Glazer, N. (1997), We are All Multiculturalists Now. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press. Gobbo, F. (2004), ‘Dal multiculturalismo americano all’intercultura: Il contributo del Consiglio d’Europa’, in G. Favaro and L. Luatti (eds), L’intercultura dalla A alla Z. Milano: Angeli. Gobbo, F. (2008), ‘On metaphors, everyday diversity and intercultural education’, Intercultural education, 19(6): 505–14. Goldberg, D. T. (ed.) (1994), Multiculturalism: A critical reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Gorski, P. (2006), ‘Complicity with conservatism: The de-­politicizing of multicultural and intercultural education’, Intercultural Education, 17(2): 163–77. Gorski, P. (2008), ‘Good intentions are not enough: a decolonizing intercultural education’, Intercultural Education, 19(6): 515–25. Graff, G. (1992), Beyond the Culture Wars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Co. Grant, C. A., and Lei, J. L. (eds) (2001), Global Constructions of Multicultural Education: Theories and realities. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Grant, C. A. and Portera, A. (2011), Intercultural and Multicultural Education. Enhancing global interconnectedness, London: Routledge.

Bibliography

187

Grant, C. A. and Sleeter, C. E. (2007), Doing Multicultural Education for Achievement and Equity. New York: Routledge. Grillo, R. (2007), ‘An excess of alterity? Debating difference in a multicultural society’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6): 979–98. Grinter R. (1992), ‘Multicultural or antiracist education: The need to choose’, in J. Lynch, S. Modgil and C. Modgil (eds), Education for Cultural Diversity: Convergence and divergence. London: Falmer, pp. 95–111. Gruzinski, S. (1999), La pensée métisse. Paris: Fayard. Gundara, J. S. (2000), Interculturalism, Education and Inclusion. London: Paul Chapman. Gundara, J. S. and Jacobs, S. (2000), Intercultural Europe: Diversity and social policy. Aldershot: Ashgate. Gundara, J. S. and Portera, A. (2008), ‘Theoretical reflections on intercultural education’, Intercultural Education, 19(6): 463–68. Gundara, J. S. and University of London (2003), Intercultural education: World on the brink? London: Institute of Education, University of London. Gutmann, A. (1987), Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habermas, J. (1992), ‘Citizenship and national identity: Some reflections on the future of Europe’, Praxis International, 12: 1–19. Habermas J. (1996), ‘Kampf um Anerkennung im demokratischen Rechtsstaat’, in Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Italian translation, ‘Lotta di riconoscimento nello stato democratico di diritto’, in J. Habermas and C. Taylor (1998), Multiculturalismo. Lotte per il riconoscimento. Milano: Feltrinelli, pp. 63–110. Hannerz, U. (1996), Transnational Connections: Culture, people, places. London and New York: Routledge. Hayek, F. A. (1982), Law, Legislation, and Liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Heater, D. (2002), World Citizenship: Cosmopolitan thinking and its opponents. London: Continuum. Heath, A. and Demireva, N. (2014), ‘Has multiculturalism failed in Britain?’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(1): 161–80. Held, D. (ed.) (1983) States and Societies, Oxford: Martin Robinson with The Open University. Held, D. (1989), Political Theory and the Modern State. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Held, D. (ed.) (1991), Political Theory Today. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Held, D. (1995), ‘Democracy and the new international order’, in D. Archibugi and D. Held (eds), Cosmopolitan Democracy: An agenda for a new world order. Cambridge: Polity Press, 97–120. Held, D. (2005), ‘Principles of cosmopolitan order’, in G. Brock and H. Brighouse (eds), The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–27.

188

Bibliography

Held, D. (2010), Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and realities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Held, D. and McGrew, A. G. (2007), Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the great divide, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. Herrnstein, R. J. and Murray, C. A. (1994), The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Hill, I. (2007), ‘Multicultural and international education: Never the twain shall meet?’, Review of Education, 53: 245–64. Hobsbawn, E. (2005), Interesting Times. A twentieth-­century life. NewYork: The New Press. Holm, G. and Zilliacus, H. (2009), ‘Multicultural education and intercultural education: Is there a difference’, in M. Talib, J. Loima, H. Paavol and S Patrikainen (eds), Dialogues on Diversity and Global Education. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 11–28. Howard, T. (2003), ‘Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection’, Theory into Practice, 42(3): 195–202. Huntington, S. P. (1996), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hwa, Y. J. (2000), ‘The invisibility of racial minorities in the public realm of appearances’, in K. Thompson and L. Embree (eds) (2000), Phenomenology of the Political. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Press. INRP (Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique) (2007), O. Meunier (ed.), Dossier interculturel. Approches interculturelles en education. Étude comparative internationale. Instituto Cervantes (2015), ‘El Español: Una lengua viva. Informe 2015’. Retrieved from: http://eldiae.es/wp-­content/uploads/2015/06/espanol_lengua-­viva_20151.pdf (26 August 2015). ISMU-MIUR (2015), Alunni con cittadinanza non italiana. Tra difficoltà e successi. Milano: Fondazione ISMU. Izzo, F. (2009), Democrazia e cosmopolitismo in Antonio Gramsci. Rome: Carocci. Jackson, L. (2010), ‘The new assimilationism: The push for “patriotic” education in the United States since September 11’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1): 108–36. Jeffcoate, R. (1984), Ethnic Minorities and Education. London: Harper and Row. Jefferess, D. (2012), ‘Unsettling cosmopolitanisms: Global citizenship and the cultural politics of benevolence’, in V. Andreotti and L. M. T. M. de Souza (eds), Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education. London: Routledge. Joppke, C. (2004), ‘The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy’, British Journal of Sociology, 55(2): 237–57. Joppke, C. (2007), ‘Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe’, West European Politics, 30(1): 1–22. Joppke, C. (2010), Citizenship and Immigration. London: Polity Press. Jorgenson, S. and Shultz, L. (2012), ‘Global citizenship education (GCE) in post-­ secondary institutions: What is protected and what is hidden under the umbrella of

Bibliography

189

GCE?’, Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 2(1): 1–22. Retrieved from: http://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/jgcee/article/viewArticle/52 (11 January 2016). Joshee, R. and Pashby, K. (2013), ‘Related and Conflated: A theoretical and discursive framing of multiculturalism and global citizenship education in the Canadian context’. Unpublished dissertation at OISE-UT. Kahn, M. (2008), ‘Multicultural education in the United States: Reflections’, Intercultural Education, 19(6): 527–36. Kerr, D. (1999), Citizenship Education: An international comparison. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Kirp D. L. (1979), Doing Good by Doing Little. Berkeley: University of California Press. Korteweg, A. C. and Triadafilopoulos, T. (2015), ‘Is multiculturalism dead? Groups, governments and the “real work of integration” ’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(5): 663–80. Kymlicka, K. (2010), ‘The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies’, in S. Vertovec and S. Wessendorf (eds), The Multiculturalism Backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge, pp. 32–49. Kymlicka, W. (1995), Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2004), ‘Foreword’, in J. A. Banks (ed.) (2004), Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global perspectives (The Jossey-Bass education series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. Xiii–xviii. Kymlicka, W. and Norman, W. (1994), ‘Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory’, Ethics, 104(January): 352–3. Kymlicka, W. and Norman, W. J. (2000), Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. La Belle, T. J. and Ward, C. R. (1994), Multiculturalism and Education: Diversity and its impact on schools and society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2004), ‘New directions in multicultural education: Complexities, boundaries, and critical race theory’, in J. A. Banks and C. A. M. G. Banks, Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 50–65. Ladson-Billings, G. and Tate, W. F. (1995), ‘Toward a critical race theory of education’, Teachers College Record, 97(1): 53. Lagrange, H. and Oberti, M. (2006), Émeutes urbaines et protestations: Une singularité française. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. Italian translation, La rivolta delle periferie: Precarietà urbana e protesta giovanile: Il caso francese. Milano: Bruno Mondadori. Laski, H. J. (1936), The Rise of Liberalism: The philosophy of a business civilization. New York: Harper & Brothers. Latouche, S. (1989), Occidentalisation du monde: Essai sur la signification, la portée et les limites de l’uniformisation planétaire. Paris: La Découverte. Italian translation, L’occidentalizzazione del mondo: Saggio sul significato, la portata e i limiti dell’uniformazione planetaria. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri (1992).

190

Bibliography

Leghissa, D. (2002), ‘Orientarsi nelle retoriche del multiculturalismo’, Aut Aut, 312: 19–45. Leicester, M. (1992), ‘Antiracism versus new multiculturalism: Moving beyond the interminable debate’, in J. Lynch and S. Modgil (eds), Education for Cultural Diversity. Convergence and divergence. London: Falmer Press, pp. 215–29. Lemaire, E. (2009), ‘Education, integration, and citizenship in France’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Lentin, A. (2014) ‘Post-­race, post-­politics: The paradoxical rise of culture after multiculturalism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(8): 1268–85. Loch, D. (2014) ‘Integration as a sociological concept and national model for immigrants: Scope and limits’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21(6): 623–32. Luchtenberg, S. (2009), ‘Migrant minority groups in Germany: Success and failure in education’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Luedtke, A. (ed.) (2010), Migrants and Minorities: The European response. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Luke, A. and Luke, C. (2000), ‘A situated perspective on cultural globalization’, in N. Burbules and C. A. Torres (eds), Globalization and Education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Lynch, J. (1986), Multicultural Education: Principles and practice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. McCarthy, C. (1990), Race and Curriculum: Social inequality and the theories and politics of difference in contemporary research on schooling. London and New York: Falmer Press. McCarthy, C. and Apple, M. W. (1988), ‘Race, class and gender in American educational research’, in L. Weis (ed.), Race, Class and Gender in American Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 9–39. McClafferty, K., Torres, C. A. and Mitchell, T. (eds) (2000), Challenges of Urban Education: Sociological perspectives for the next century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McDonald, M. and Zeicher, K. (2009), ‘Social justice teacher education’, in W. Ayers, T. Quinn and D. Stovall (eds), Handbook of Social Justice Education, New York: Routledge, pp. 595–610. McGhee, D. (2008), The End of Multiculturalism? Terrorism, integration and human rights. Maidenhead: Open University Press. McGee Banks, C. (2003), ‘Intercultural and intergroup education, 1929–1959: Linking schools and communities’, in J. A. Banks and C. A. M. G. Banks, Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 753–68. MacIntyre, A. C. (1981), After Virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Bibliography

191

McLaren, P. (1989), Life in Schools. White Plains, NY: Longman. McLaren, P. (1997), Revolutionary Multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Malsbary, C. (2012), ‘The Pedagogy of Belonging: The social, cultural, and academic lives of recently-­arrived immigrant youth in a multiethnic, multilingual high school’. PhD Dissertatiion submitted to the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, UCLA. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sp7r6fg (26 March 2016). Mangan, J. A. (ed.) (1993), The Imperial Curriculum: Racial images and education in the British colonial experience. London: Routledge. Markou, G. P. and Parthenis, C. (2015), ‘Intercultural education in Europe: The Greek experience’, in M. Catarci and M. Fiorucci (eds), Intercultural Education in the European Context: Theories, experiences, challenges. Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp.167–202. Marshall, T. H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marshall, T. H. (1973), ‘Citizenship and social class’, in T. H. Marshall (ed.), Class, Citizenship and Social Development. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Massey, I. (1991), More than Skin Deep: Developing anti-­racist and multicultural education in schools. London, Hodder and Stoughton. May, S. (2009), ‘Critical multiculturalism and education’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Mayo, P. (2007), ‘Critical approaches to education in the work of Lorenzo Milani and Paulo Freire’, Studies in Philosophy and Education: An International Journal, 26(6): 525–44. Meer, N. and Modood, T. (2011), ‘How does interculturalism contrast with multiculturalism?’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2): 175–96. Milana, M. and Tarozzi, M. (2013), ‘It’s about us! Reflections on education for active citizenship within the European Union’, in LLinE (Lifelong Learning in Europe. Online journal, Feb. 2013). Retrieved from: http://www.lline.fi/en/article/ research/22013d/it-­s-about-­us-reflections-­on-education-­for-active-­citizenshipwithin-­the-european-­union (26 March 2016). Milani, C. R. S. and Laniado, R. N. (2006), Transnational Social Movements and the Globalization Agenda: A methodological approach based on the analysis of the World Social Forum. Working Paper 5, December 2006. The Edelstein Center for Social Research. Retrieved from: http://www.edelsteincenter.org (26 March 2016). MIUR (2011), Alunni con cittadinanza non italiana. Verso l’adolescenza. Rapporto nazionale A. s. 2010/2011. Retrieved from: http://www.istruzione.it/alfresco/d/d/ workspace/SpacesStore/b4924380-1a9b-4422-86cc-57818a3232c4/alunni_con_ cittadinanza_non_italiana_a.s.201011.pdf (2 December 2011). Modood, T. (2007), Multiculturalism. A civic idea. Cambridge: Polity Press.

192

Bibliography

Moodley K. A. (ed.) (1992), Beyond Multicultural Education. International perspectives. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd. Morin, E. (2014), Enseigner à vivre: Manifeste pour changer l’éducation. Arles: Actes sud. Morrow, R. A. (2008), ‘Paulo Freire, indigenous knowledge and eurocentric critiques of development: Three perspectives’, in C. A. Torres and P. Noguera (eds), Social Justice Education for Teachers. Paulo Freire and the possible dream. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and Taipei: Sense Publishers, pp. 81–100. Morrow, R. A. and Torres, C. A. (1995), Social Theory and Education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Morrow, R. A. and Torres, C. A. (2002) Reading Freire and Habermas. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Morrow, R. A. and Torres, C.A. (2004), ‘Gramsci e a educação popular na América Latina. Percepções do debate brasileiro’, Currículo Sem Fronteiras, 4(2): 33–50. Morrow, R. A. and Torres, C. A. (2007), ‘The state, social movements, and education reform’, in R. F. Arnove and C. A. Torres (eds), Comparative Education: The dialectic of the global and the local, 3rd edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 79–100. MPI (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione) (2005), Indagine sugli esiti degli alunni con cittadinanza non italiana. Genoa: MPI. MPI (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione) (2007), ‘La via italiana per la scuola interculturale e l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri’. Osservatorio nazionale per l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri e per l’educazione interculturale, October 2007. MPI (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione) (2013), ‘Alunni con cittadinanza non italiana. Approfondimenti e analisi’. Rapporto nazionale A. s. 2011/2012. Retrieved from: http://hubmiur.pubblica.istruzione.it/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/ b80b747b-7336-4a76-9777-5373cfc79060/alunni_con_cittadinanza_non_italiana. pdf (12 March 2016). Mucchielli, L. (2006), ‘Les émeutes de novembre 2005: Les raisons de la colère’, in V. Le Goaziou and L. Mucchielli (eds), Quand les banlieues brûlent . . . Retour sur les émeutes de novembre 2005. Paris: La Découverte, pp. 5–30. Mullard, C. (1984), Antiracist Education: The three O’s. Cardiff: National Association for Multi-Racial Education. Nieto, S. (1996), Affirming Diversity. The sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 2nd edn. New York: Longman (1st edn, 1992 [now in 5th edn, 2008, with Patty Bode]. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Nieto, S. (2009), ‘Multicultural education in the United States: Historical realities, ongoing challenges, and transformative possibilities’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Noguera, P. (2011, 7 July), ‘Reforms driven by education fads’, New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com (18 March 2012).

Bibliography

193

The North South Centre of the Council of Europe (ed.) (2003), ‘The Maastricht declaration. In Global education in Europe to the year 2015. Strategies, policies and perspectives’. Lisbon. Retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/nscentre/Resources/ Publications/GE_Maastricht_Nov2002.pdf (11 March 2016) Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. Nussbaum, M. C. (1996), ‘Patriotism and cosmopolitanism’, in M. C. Nussbaum and J. Cohen (eds), For Love of Country: Debating the limits of patriotism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997), Cultivating Humanity. A classical defence of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Italian translation, Coltivare l’umanità. I classici, il multiculturalismo, l’educazione contemporanea. Rome: Carocci (1999). Nussbaum, M. C. (2002), ‘Education for citizenship in an era of global connection’, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21: 289–303. Nussbaum, M. C. (2008), ‘Toward a globally sensitive patriotism’, Daedalus, 137(3): 78–93. O’Cadiz, M. P. and Torres, C. A. (1994), ‘Literacy, social movements, and class consciousness: Paths from Freire and the São Paulo experience’, Anthropology &; Education Quarterly, 25: 3. O’Cadiz, M. P., Wong, P. and Torres, C. A. (1998), Education and Democracy: Paulo Freire, social movements, and educational reform in São Paulo. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Odora Hoppers, C. and Richards, H. (2011), Rethinking Thinking: Modernity’s ‘Other’ and the transformation of the university. Pretoria: UNISA Press. OECD (2009), PISA 2009 Database, Table II.4.1. Paris: OECD. OECD (2010), Closing the Gap for Immigrant Students: Policies, practice and performance. Paris: OECD. OECD (2011), Society at a Glance 2011 – OECD Social indicators (www.oecd.org/els/ social/indicators/SAG). Offe, C. (1984), Contradictions of the Welfare State, J. Keane (ed.). London and Sydney: Hutchinson. Okin, S. M. (1999), Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books. Ong, A. (2003), Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, citizenship, the new America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ong, A. (2004), ‘Higher learning: Education availability and flexible citizenship in global space’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), Diversity and Citizenship Education. Global perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, pp. 49–70. Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2005), Changing Citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. O’Sullivan, M. and Pashby, K. (eds) (2008), Citizenship Education in the Era of Globalization: Canadian perspectives. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

194

Bibliography

Oxley, L. and Morris, P. (2013), ‘Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3): 301–25. Paiva, V. P. (1980), Paulo Freire e o nacionalismo-­desenvolvimentista. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira. Panikkar, R. (2002), Pace e interculturalità: Una riflessione filosofica. Milano: Jaca Book. Papastephanou, M. (2012), Thinking Differently about Cosmopolitanism: Theory, eccentricity, and the globalized world. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Park, H. and Sandefur, G. D. (2010), ‘Educational gaps between immigrant and native students in Europe: The role of grade’, in J. Dronkers, Quality and Inequality of Education: Cross-­national perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 113–36. Parker, W. C. (1997), ‘Citizenship education’, in C. A. Grant and G. Ladson-Billings (1997), Dictionary of Multicultural Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, pp. 39–40. Passel, J. S. and Cohn, D’Vera (2009), A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Pateman, C. (1985), The Problem of Political Obligation: A critique of liberal theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Perotti, A. (2003), ‘L’educazione interculturale nella teoria e nella pratica’, in F. A. Portera (ed.), Pedagogia interculturale in Italia e in Europa. Aspetti epistemologici e didattici, Milano: Vita & Pensiero, pp. 27–64. Peters, M. A. and Bezley, T. (2014), ‘Islam and the end of European multiculturalism? From multiculturalism to civic integration’, Policy Futures in Education, 12(1): 1–14. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.1.1 (retrieved 26 August 2015). Peters, M. A., Britton, A. and Blee, H. (eds) (2008), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Phillips, A. (2007), Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Phillips, M. (2006), Londonistan: How Britain created a terror state within. London: Gibson Square Books. Pike, G. and Selby, D. (1988), Global Teacher, Global Learner. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Piketty, T. (2014), Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MS: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. PIRLS (2006), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2006. Boston, MA: Boston. Plant, R. (1990), ‘Citizenship and rights’, in Citizenship and Rights in Thatcher’s Britain: Two views. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Pollak, A. (2008), ‘Discrimination and good practice activities in education: Trends and developments in the 27 EU Member States’, Intercultural Education, 19(5): 395–406. Popkewitz, T. S. (2008), Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform: Science education and making society by making the child. New York: Routledge. Porcher, L. (1979), L’interculturalisme. Pour une formation des enseignants in Europe. Strasbourg: Editions du Conseil d’Europe.

Bibliography

195

Portera, A. (ed.) (2003), Pedagogia interculturale in Italia e in Europa. Aspetti epistemologici e didattici. Milano: Vita & Pensiero. Portera, A. (2008), ‘Intercultural education in Europe: Epistemological and semantic aspects’, Intercultural Education, 19(6): 481–91. Pozo Llorente, T., Vallespir Soler, J. and Cabrera Perez, L. (2015), ‘Intercultural education in the Spanish context’, in M. Catarci and M. Fiorucci (eds), Intercultural Education in the European Context: Theories, experiences, challenges. Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 131–66. Pretceille, M. (2015), ‘Interculturalism, diversity policy and integration in France: A succession of paradoxical instructions’, in M. Catarci and M. Fiorucci (eds), Intercultural Education in the European Context: Theories, experiences, challenges. Farnham, Surrey, and Burlington, VT Ashgate., pp. 55–72. Prins, B. and Saharso, S. (2010), ‘From toleration to repression: The Duch backlash against multiculturalism’, in S. Vertovec and S. Wessendorf (eds), The Multiculturalism Backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge, pp. 72–91. Prospero, M. (2002), La politica moderna. Teorie e profili istituzionali. Rome: Carocci. Przeworski, A. (2010), Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pulcini, E. (2001), Individuo senza passioni. Individualismo moderno e perdita del legame sociale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Race, R. (2015), Multiculturalism and Education, 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury. Radtke, F. O. (2006), ‘Scuola ed etnicità in Germania’, in J. Chaloff and L. Queirolo Palmas (eds), Scuole e migrazioni in Europa. Rome: Carocci Editore, pp. 127–40. Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard. Rawls, J. (1993), Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Rawls, J. (2001), Justice as Fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (2003), A Theory of Justice (revs edn). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Reimers, F. M. (2013), ‘Advancing global education. A 21st-­century imperative’. Paper presented at Technical consultation on GCE. Rezai-Rashti, G. (1995), ‘Multicultural education, anti-­racist education, and critical pedagogy: Reflections on everyday practice’, in Roxana Ng, Pat Staton and Joyce Scane (eds), Anti-Racism, Feminism, and Critical Approaches to Education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, pp. 3–20. Rhoads, R. A. and Szelényi, K. (2011), Global Citizenship and the University: Advancing social life and relations in an interdependent world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Rhoads, R. A. and Torres, C. A. (eds) (2006), The University, State and Markets. The political economy of globalization in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

196

Bibliography

Richardson, G. H. and Blades, D. (eds) (2006), Troubling the Canon of Citizenship Education. New York: Peter Lang. Ritzer, G. (1993), The McDonaldization of Society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Rocco, R. A. (1997), ‘Reframing postmodernist constructions of difference: Subaltern spaces, power, and citizenship’. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Challenge of Postmodernism to the Social Sciences and the Humanities. University Complutense, Somosaguas Campus, Madrid, 22–25 April. Rogers, J. (2013), ‘Dewey’s Liberalisms: Depression-­era insights for the great recession’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 23(3): 204–23. Romaine, S. (2009), ‘Language, culture, and identity across nations’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Romão, J. E. (2003), Pedagogia dialògica. Xàtiva. València: Edicions del CREC. Rorty, R., (1991), ‘Il liberalismo borghese postmoderno’, in Philosophical Paper, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rorty, R. (1998), ‘Achieving our country: Leftist thought in twentieth-­century America’. The William E. Massey Sr. Lectures in the History of American Civilization, 1997. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sabine, G. and Annika, R. (2014), ‘Multiculturalism Swedish style: Shifts and sediments in educational policies and textbooks’, Policy Futures in Education, 12(1): 56–66. Sandel, M. (1982), Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Santos, B. S. (2002), ‘Toward a multicultural conception of human rights’, in B. E. Hernández-Truyol, Moral Imperialism: A critical anthology. New York: New York University Press, pp. 39–60. Santos, B. S. (2006), The Rise of the Global Left. The world social forum and beyond. London: Zed Books. Santos Regò, A. M. and Nieto, S. (2000), ‘Multicultural/intercultural teacher education in two contexts: Lessons from the United States and Spain’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4): 413–27. Sarrazin, T. (2010), Deutschland schafft sich ab wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen. München: DVA. Sartori, G. (2002), Pluralismo, multiculturalismo e estranei: Saggio sulla società multietnica, 2nd edn. Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli. Sassen, S. (1998), Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the new mobility of people and money. New York: New Press. Schultz, L. (2015), ‘Decolonizing UNESCO’s post-2015 education agenda. Global social justice and a view from UNDRIP’, in Postcolonial Directions in Education, Vol. 4, N2, 2015, pp. 96–115. Schweitzer, H. (1994), Der Mythos vom Interkulturellen Lernen. Zur Kritik der sozialwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen interkultureller Erziehung und subkultureller

Bibliography

197

Selbstorganisation ethnischer Minderheiten am beispiel USA und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Münster: LIT. Scott, J. W. (1992), ‘Multiculturalism and the politics of identity’, in M. E. Malson, J. F. O’Barr, S. Westphal-Uhl and M. Wyers (eds), Feminist Theory in Practice and Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Semali, L. and Kincheloe, J. L. (1999), What is Indigenous Knowledge? Voices from the academy. New York: Falmer Press. Sen, A. (1992), Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2002), Globalizzazione e libertà. Milano: Mondadori. Sen, A. (2006), Identity and Violence: The illusion of destiny. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Shohat, E. and Stam, R. (1994), Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the media. London and New York: Routledge. Shultz, L. (2015), ‘Decolonizing UNESCO’s post-2015 education agenda’, Postcolonial Directions in Education, 4(2): 96–115. Silj, A. (ed.) (2010), European Multiculturalism Revisited. London: Zed. Sikes P. and Vincent C. (eds) (1998), ‘Social justice and education policy’, Special issue of Journal of Education Policy, 13: 4. Sleeter, C. E. (1996), Multicultural Education as Social Activism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sleeter, C. E. and Grant, C. A. (1999), Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender, 3rd edn. New York: Wiley (5th edn, 2008). Sleeter, C. E. and McLaren, P. (1995), Multicultural Education, Critical pedagogy, and the Politics of Difference. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Smith, T. (2003), ‘Globalisation and capitalist property relations: A critical assessment of David Held’s cosmopolitan theory’, Historical Materialism, 11(2): 3–36. Smith, T. and Noble, M. (1995), Education Divides: Poverty and schooling in the 1990s. London: Child Poverty Action Group. Soysal, Y. N. (1994), Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Spector, H. (2015), ‘The who and the what of educational cosmopolitanism’, Studies on Philosophy of Education, 34(4): 423–40. Spinelli, A., Rossi, E. and N. Bobbio (1982), Il manifesto di Ventotene. Napoli: Guida. (The Ventotene Manifesto for a free and united Europe, with an essay by N. Bobbio.) Spivak, G. C. (1999), A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Standish, A. (2012), The False Promise of Global Learning: Why education needs boundaries. London: Bloomsbury. Stehr, N. (2011), ‘Education, Knowledgeability and the Labor Market’. Unpublished paper (end of module), Zeppelin University, Lake Constance, Germany, May 2011. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002), Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

198

Bibliography

Stone M. (1981), The Education of the Black Children in Britain: The myth of multiracial education. Glasgow: Fontana. Su-Ming Khoo, S. (2011), ‘The shifting policy landscape of development education’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 13: 1–10. Suarez-Orozco, M. and Suarez-Orozco C. (2009), ‘Globalization, immigration, and schooling’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Suarez-Orozco, C., Suarez-Orozco, M. and Todorova, I. (2008), Learning in a New Land. Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Taguieff, P.-A. (1987), La force du préjugé: Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles. Paris: La Découverte. Taguieff, P.-A. (1999), Il razzismo: Pregiudizi, teorie, comportamenti. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore. Taras, R. (2012), Challenging Multiculturalism: European models of diversity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Tarozzi, M. (1996), ‘Oltre la pedagogia multiculturale’, in Infanzia, 6 (February): 16–26. Tarozzi, M. (1998a), La mediazione educativa. Mediatori culturali tra uguaglianza e differenza. Bologna: Clueb. Tarozzi, M. (1998b), ‘Autobiography and heterobiography: Two approaches in researching a multi-­cultural context’, Auto/biography, VI(1/2): 45–50. Tarozzi, M. (1999), ‘Geopedagogia e diritti umani. Un approccio fenomenologico’, in Pluriverso, IV(1): 76–80. Tarozzi, M. (2003), ‘Pedagogia e cittadinanza globale. Esperienza educativa fra liberalismo e multiculturalismo’, Encyclopaideia, 13: 11–19. Tarozzi M. (2004), ‘Mediazione linguistico-­culturale nei contesti educativi’ [Linguistic-­ cultural mediation in educational contexts], in G. Favaro and L. Luatti (eds), L’intercultura dalla A alla Z. Milan: Angeli, pp. 306–20. Tarozzi M. (2005a), Cittadinanza interculturale. Esperienza educativa come agire politico [Intercultural Citizenship. Educative experience as political acting]. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Tarozzi, M. (ed.) (2005b), Educazione alla cittadinanza. Comunità e diritti. Milano: Guerini. Tarozzi, M. (2005c), ‘Formazione globale come agire politico’, in M. Tarozzi (ed.), Educazione alla cittadinanza. Comunità e diritti. Milano: Guerini Studio, pp. 157–82. Tarozzi, M. (2006a), ‘Cittadinanza e interculturalità’, in L. Luatti (ed.), Il mondo in classe. Educare alla cittadinanza nella scuola multiculturale. Arezzo: Centro di Documentazione città di Arezzo, pp. 32–5. Tarozzi, M. (2006b), ‘Mediatori a scuola, dieci anni dopo’, in L. Luatti (ed.), Atlante della mediazione linguistico culturale. Milano: Franco Angeli, pp. 131–43. Tarozzi, M. (ed.) (2006c), Il senso dell’intercultura. Ricerca sulle pratiche di accoglienza, intercultura e integrazione in Trentino [The meaning of interculturality]. Trento: IPRASE.

Bibliography

199

Tarozzi, M. (2008), ‘Per una cittadinanza planetaria, attiva, interculturale’, in L. Mortari (ed.), Educare alla cittadinanza partecipata. Milano: B. Mondadori, pp. 121–40. Tarozzi, M. (2011), ‘Formare insegnanti politicamente impegnati’, in Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, 3: 367–93. Tarozzi, M. (2012), ‘Inter- or multicultural education or both?’, in B. della Chiesa, J. Scott and Ch. Hinton (eds), Languages in a global world: Learning for better cultural understanding. Paris: OECD, pp. 393–406. Tarozzi, M. (2014a), ‘Educare alla giustizia sociale. Differenze culturali e diseguaglianze sociali’, Civitas Educationis. Education, politics and culture, III(2): 73–88. Tarozzi, M. (2014b), ‘Building an “intercultural ethos” in teacher education’, in Intercultural Education, 25(2): 128–42. Tarozzi, M. (2015), Dall’intercultura alla giustizia sociale. Per un progetto pedagogico e politico di cittadinanza globale. Milano: Franco Angeli. Tarozzi, M., Rapanà, F. and Ghirotto, L. (2013), ‘Ambiguities of citizenship. Reframing the notion of citizenship education’, in RPD (Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica), 8(1): 1–18. Tawil, S. (2013), Education for ‘Global Citizenship’: A framework for discussion. UNESCO Education Research and Foresight: Paris. [ERF Working Papers Series, No 7.] Taylor, C. (1989), Sources of the Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Taylor, C. (1991), The Malaise of Modernity (George Massey Lecture Series). Toronto: Taylor and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Taylor, C. (1992), Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Italian translation, ‘La politica del riconoscimento’, in J. Habermas and C. Taylor (1998), Multiculturalismo. Lotte per il riconoscimento. Milano: Feltrinelli, pp. 9–62. Taylor, E., Gillborn, D. and Ladson-Billings, G. (2009), Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York: Routledge. Tedesco, J. C. (2012), Educación y justicia social en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica, Universidad Nacional de San Martín. Tomlinson, S. (2009), ‘Multicultural education in the United Kingdom’, in J. A. Banks (ed.), The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education. New York and London: Routledge. Torres, C. A. (ed.) (1978a), La praxis educativa de Paulo Freire. Mexico: Editorial Gernika. Torres, C. A. (ed.) (1978b), Entrevistas con Paulo Freire. Mexico: Editorial Gernika. Torres, C. A. (ed.) (1980), Paulo Freire en América Latina. Mexico: Editorial Gernika. Torres, C. A. (1995a), ‘Fictional dialogues on teachers, politics, and power in Latin America’, in M. Ginsburg (ed.), The Politics of Educators’ Work and Lives. New York: Garland, pp. 133–68. Torres, C. A. (1995b), ‘The state and education revisited. Or why educational researchers should think politically about education’, AERA, Review of Research in Education, 21.

200

Bibliography

Torres, C. A. (1997), Education, Power and the State: Dilemmas of citizenship in multicultural societies, ch. II. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Torres, C. A. (1998a), Democracy, Education, and Multiculturalism: Dilemmas of citizenship in a global world. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Torres, C. A. (1998b), Education, Power and Personal Biography: Dialogues with critical educators. New York: Routledge. Torres, C. A. (1998c), ‘The political pedagogy of Paulo Freire’, Introduction to Paulo Freire Politics and Education. Los Angeles, CA: Latin American Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Torres, C. A. (2002a), Requiem for Liberalism? CER 46 (November). Torres, C. A. (2002b), ‘The state, privatisation and educational policy: A critique of neoliberalism in Latin America and some ethical and political implications’, Comparative Education, edited by Robert Cowen (University of London), 38(4) (November): 365–85. Torres, C. A. (2005) La Praxis Educativa y la Educación Cultural Liberadora de Paulo Freire. Xátiva, Valencia: Institute Paulo Freie d’Espanya. Torres, C. A. (2007a) ‘Transformative social justice learning: The legacy of Paulo Freire’, in M. Coté, R. J. F. Day and G. de Peuter (eds), Utopian Pedagogy: Radical experiments against neoliberal globalization. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press, pp. 242–7. Torres C. A. (2007b), ‘Paulo Freire, education and transformative social justice learning’, in C. A. Torres and A. Teodoro (eds), Critique and Utopia. New developments in the sociology of education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 155–60. Torres, C. A. (2009a), Globalizations and Education. Collected essays on class, race, gender, and the state (‘Introduction’ by Michael W. Apple, ‘Afterword’ by Pedro Demo). New York and London: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Torres, C. A. (2009b), Education and Neoliberal Globalization (‘Introduction’ by Pedro Noguera). New York and London: Routledge. Torres, C. A. (2011), ‘Public universities and the neoliberal common sense: Seven iconoclastic theses’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(3): 177–97. Torres, C. A. (2013), ‘Neoliberalism as a new historical bloc: A Gramscian analysis of neoliberalism’s common sense in education’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 23(2): 80–106. Torres, C. A. (2014), First Freire. Early Writings in Social Justice Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Torres, C. A. (2015), ‘Global citizenship and global universities. The age of global interdependence and cosmopolitanism’, European Journal of Education, 50(3): 262–79. Torres, C. A. and Antikainen, A. (eds) (2003), The International Handbook on the Sociology of Education: An international assessment of new research and theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Bibliography

201

Torres, C. A. and Boron, A. A. (1996), ‘The impact of neoliberal restructuring on education and poverty in Latin America’, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XLII(2): 102–14. Torres, C. A. and Mitchell, T. (1998a), ‘Introduction’, in C. A. Torres and T. Mitchell (eds), Sociology of Education: Emerging perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Torres, C. A. and Mitchell, T. (eds) (1998b), Sociology of Education: Emerging perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press Torres, C. A. and Morrow, R. (1995), Social Theory and Education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Torres, C. A. and Morrow, R. (2002), Reading Freire and Habermas. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Torres, C. A. and Noguera, P. (eds) (2009), Social Justice for Teachers. Paulo Freire and education as a possible dream. The Hague, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Torres, C. A. and Puiggrós, A. (eds) (1996), Education in Latin America: Comparative perspectives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Torres, C. A. and Teodoro, A. (eds) (2007), Critique and Utopia. New developments in the sociology of education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Touraine, A. (1971), The Post-Industrial Society. Tomorrow’s social history: Classes, conflicts and culture in the programmed society. New York: Random House (1st edn 1968). Touraine, A. (1995), Critique of Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell (original edn 1992, Critique de la modernite?. Paris: Libraire Arthéme Fayard). Touraine, A. (1997), Pourrons-­nous vivre ensemble? Égaux et différents. Paris: Libraire Arthéme Fayard. English translation, A. Touraine and D. Macey (2000), Can We Live Together? Equality and difference. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Troyna, B. (1992), ‘Can you see the join? An historical analysis of multicultural and antiracist education policies’, in D. Gill, B. Mayor and M. Blair (eds), Racism and Education: Structures and strategies. London: Sage, pp. 63–91. Troyna, B. (1993), Racism and Education: Research perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press. Tye, B. B. and Tye, K. A. (1992), Global Education: A study of school change. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. UNESCO (1974), Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-­operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (1995), Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2006), Guidelines on Intercultural Education. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2014), Global Citizenship Education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2015), Rethinking Education. Toward a global common good? Paris: UNESCO.

202

Bibliography

Urry, J. (1998), The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publishing. Vasta, E. (2007), ‘From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30: 713–40. Vattimo, G. (1980), Le avventure della differenza. Milano: Garzanti. Verma, G. K. (1989), Education for All: A landmark in pluralism. London: Falmer. Vertovec, S. and Wessendorf, S. (eds) (2010), The Multiculturalism Backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge. Vitale E. (2000), Liberalismo e multiculturalismo. Una sfida per il pensiero democratico. Rome and Bari: Laterza. von Hayek, F. A. (1976), ‘The mirage of social justice’, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 2. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, p. 176 n.8. Waks, L. J. (2009), ‘Cosmopolitanism and its discontent’, Philosophy of Education 2009 (Deborah Kerdeman (ed.)), pp. 253–62. Retrieved from: http://ojs.ed.uiuc.edu/index. php/pes/issue/view/24 (30 August 2015). Wells, A. S. (1983), ‘The sociology of school choice: Why some win and others lose in the educational marketplace’, in E. Russell and R. Rothstein (eds), School Choice: Examining the evidence. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, pp. 47–8. West, C., de Alba, K., and Sheris, E. (1996), ‘Colloquy: Our next race question. The uneasiness between Blacks and Latinos’, Harper’s Magazine, April: 55–63. Whitty, G. (1998), ‘Citizens or consumers? Continuity and change in contemporary education policy’, in D. Carlson and M. W. Apple (eds), Power, Knowledge, Pedagogy: The meaning of democratic education in unsettling times (The Edge: Critical studies in educational theory). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 92–109. Wieviorka, M. (ed.) (1996), Une société fragmentée? Le Multiculturalisme en débat. Paris: La Decouverte. Wieviorka, M. (2001), La différence. Paris: Edition Balland. Italian translation, La differenza culturale. Una prospettiva sociologica. Rome and Bari: Laterza, 2005. Wieviorka, M. (2013), ‘The re-­enchantment of universal values’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(12): 1943–56. Wieviorka, M. (2014), ‘A critique of integration’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 21(6): 633–41. Williamson, J. A., Rhodes, L. and Dunson, M. (2007), ‘A selected history of social justice’, Review of Research in Education, 31(March): 195–224. Wintersteiner, W., Grobbauer, H., Diendorfer, G., and Reitmair-Juárez, S. (2015), Global Citizenship Education Citizenship Education for Globalizing Societies. Klagenfurt, AT: Zentrum für Friedensforschung und Friedenspädagogik. Retrieved from: http://www.peace-­ed-campaign.org/global-­citizenship-education-­citizenshipeducation-­for-globalizing-­societies/ (14 January 2016). Wise, A. and Velayutham, S. (2009), Everyday Multiculturalism. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bibliography

203

Wodak, R., Khosravinik, M., and Mral, B. (eds) (2013), Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and discourse. London: Bloomsbury. World Bank (2014), Global Monitoring Report. Geneva: World Bank. Wrench, J. (2000), ‘Trade unions, migrants and ethnic minorities in an intercultural Europe’, in J. S. Gundara and S. Jacobs, Intercultural Europe: Diversity and social policy. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 315–33. Xanthopoulos, J. (2005), ‘Global Education’, in New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Retrieved from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/ doc/1G2-3424300220.html (8 January 2016). Yang, R. (2003), ‘Globalisation as a context of inequality and scarcity for higher education development: A critical analysis, International Review of Education, 49(3): 269–291. Young, Iris M. (1989), ‘Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship’, Ethics, 99: 257–8. Young, I. M. (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zižek, S. (2008), Violence. London: Profile Books. Zoletto, D. (2002) ‘Gli equivoci del multiculturalismo’, Aut Aut, 312: 1–19 Zoletto, D. (2012), Dall’intercultura ai contesti eterogenei: Presupposti teorici e ambiti di ricerca pedagogica. Milano: F. Angeli.

Index academic achievement 32, 53, 62–3, 83–4, 100–4, 147, 174, 175 accountability in education 32, 155, 175 active citizenship 4, 13, 14, 16, 20, 133, 167–8 adopted children 57 adult education 5, 128 Agenda 21 6, 10 alienation 129, 162 Allport, Gordon 94 Andreotti, Vanessa de Oliveira 19, 20 anti-­anti-relativism 88 anti-­globalization vii–viii, 158 See also globalization anti-­racism education 67–70 Appadurai, Arjun 86, 88 Appiah, Antony 18, 141 Apple, Michael 42 Arab Spring 36 arcadianism 79–80 Arendt, Hannah 110 art and métissage 114 assimilationism 51, 61–4, 94, 108, 146–7 See also neo-­assimilationism asylum-­seekers 30, 58, 151 Banks, James 42, 148 Barry, Brian 96, 171 Bauman, Zygmunt 157 Beck, Ulrich 119, 142, 156, 164 Bell, Derek 131 Benhabib, Seyla 46 Bernstein, Basil 129 Bertolini, Piero 49–50 Beurs of France 112 Bobbio, Norberto 137, 166–7 Bouchard, Gerard 95, 153 Bourdieu, Pierre 97, 109, 129 Bowles, Samuel 134–5 Brandt, Godfrey 68–9 Breivik, Anders Behring 74 Buchanan, Pat 151–2

California Dream Act 107 Callan, Eamonn 133 Cameron, David 149–50 Canada 9, 95, 149, 153–4 capitalism 12, 119–20, 134–7, 139, 172 Castles, Stephen 61, 76 Catarci, Marco 107 Charlie Hebdo massacre 46, 74, 151 citizenship 1–2, 28–31, 44–5, 161–2 See also Global Citizenship (GC); multicultural citizenship; national citizenship; planetary citizenship citizenship building x, 4, 36, 44–5, 113, 129–33, 162–3, 165–6, 174 citizenship education 1, 9, 15–16, 20–1, 37, 77, 140–2, 146, 148–9, 155 civic integration 146, 148, 149–53, 154, 155–6 civil rights 35, 91–2, 95, 107, 129–30, 131 Civil Rights Movement 154, 168 clash of civilizations 73 collective identities 46–8, 64, 85, 105, 114, 150, 170 colonial traditions and education 62, 63, 66, 108 See also post-­colonial tradition and GCE colonialism and GCE 19–20 colour-­blind education 60 common good 170 communitarianism 95, 107 concientização (concientization) 114, 139 constructive multiculturalism 46–8, 149, 169–71 cosmopolitan citizenship 18, 19, 141 cosmopolitan democracy 30–1, 141–2, 167 cosmopolitan education 139–42 cosmopolitanism 4–5, 9, 31, 141–2 Council of Europe 6, 8, 51–5, 70 Critical Race Theory 68, 131 culinary multiculturalism 69

206

Index

cultural differences 19, 43–4, 51, 56–7, 63, 85–6, 94 cultural equality 82, 171 cultural essentialism 87 cultural hybridization viii, 108–15 cultural mediation 52, 72 cultural minorities 50, 55, 95, 104, 105, 127 cultural mobility 114 cultural reductionism 87 cultural relativism 8, 80, 84, 86–7 cultural romanticism 80–1 culturalism 84–8, 110 culture 169–72 democracy 30–1, 43, 54–5, 122, 127, 133–42, 166–7 descriptive romanticism 79–80 Development Education 9–10 Dewey, John 40, 101, 127, 133–5, 137 difference principle 123–4 differential exclusion of migrant pupils 64–6 discrimination 55, 67–8, 126, 171 diversity in Canada 153–4 challenge of 25–7, 35, 37 and equality 96, 119 in Europe 49–56, 59–60, 76, 79–80, 95, 104, 107, 169–70 (see also intercultural education) and GCE 18–19, 21, 46–7 and intercultural education 70–3 and liberalism 34–5 and multiculturalism 42, 69, 147 and neoliberalism 31–3 problems with 1–2, 96 in UK 91–2 in USA 97–8, 100–2 domination 99, 103 economic immigrants 30, 58, 146, 152 education equality 124 education for all (EFA) 2–3, 33, 84, 104, 107, 120, 173 Education for All (UK DoE) 66–7 educational models 59 enemies, personification of 25 environment and education 2–3, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, 27

equal dignity. See equality equal rights. See equity equality as democratic issue 101 and diversity 96 in education 26, 47, 49–50, 119–23 and equity 82–4 and social justice 123–4 See also inequality equity 82–4, 122, 171 ethnic minorities in Europe 50–1, 59–60, 75, 77, 78, 104 in UK 66, 67–8, 91 in USA 93 eurocentrism 49, 62 Europe citizenship 167–8 and civic integration 149–53 diversity in 59–60, 76, 79–80, 95, 169–70 and GE 8–9 intercultural education 8, 51–5, 70–3, 104–8 interculturalism in 101–2, 103, 154–6 European Commission 53–4, 70 Eurostat definition of migrants 56–7 exceptionalism 97, 106 Fabricant, Michael 175 fair education equality 124 Fine, Michelle 175 Fondazione Laboratorio Mediterraneo 29 football 112–13 foreigners 57–8 France 62, 63–4, 74, 81, 112, 150–1 Freire, Paulo access to education 173 Banking Education 163 conscientização 114, 139 on environment 27 on equality 122 on multiculturalism 69 on oppression 124 on politics 82, 98–100 social justice education 128, 138–9 Gallissot, René 111, 164 Galtung, Johan 31

Index García Canclini, Néstor 110–11, 158 GC. See Global Citizenship (GC) GCE. See Global Citizenship Education (GCE) GE. See Global Education (GE) Geertz, Clifford 88 GEFI. See Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) GENE. See Global Education Network Europe (GENE) Germany 64–6, 150, 152 ghost model of intercultural education 80–1, 86 Giddens, Anthony 130, 148 Gintis, Herbert 134–5 Giroux, H. 41, 42–4 Glazer, Nathan 145 Global Citizenship (GC) and citizenship 7, 11, 14–16, 17, 164–6 definition of 2, 12, 18 and democracy 142 and multiculturalism 156–8 and social transformation 171–2, 174 Global Citizenship Education (GCE) and citizenship 14–16 criticisms of 17–18 definition of 4–10 and diversity 18–19 and globalization vii–ix and post-­colonial tradition 19–20 requirements for ix–xi summary 10–14 in unequal societies 20–1 Global Education (GE) 4–6, 7–9, 10, 12, 14, 19 Global Education Charter 8 Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) 2–4, 6, 12, 172–3 Global Education Network Europe (GENE) 8 globalization vii–ix, 12, 28–30, 156–8, 163–4 Gramsci, Antonio 141–2, 162, 175 Grant, Carl 40–1, 93–4 Gundara, Jagdish Singh 70, 91–2 Gutmann, Amy 133 La haine (The Hate, film) 112 Hayek, Friedrich A. von 126, 127

207

Held, David 129, 133, 141, 167 human relations approach 40, 93–4 human rights EU and 8 and GCE 13, 14, 16, 17–18, 20 and global citizenship 142 globalization of viii, 164 internationalism of 31 and sustainability 10 UN and 5–6, 15 hybridization viii, 108–15 identities and civic integration 150 definition of 110 and differential exclusion 64 individual 17, 49, 77 and inequality 163 and intercultural education 51–2 and métissage 114 and multicultural education 42–4 and multiculturalism 46–8, 85, 105, 170 in USA 108–9 immigrants and citizenship 1, 29–31 and education policies 51, 53, 60–3, 71, 76, 146–7 types of in EU 56–8, 112 undocumented 75, 106–7, 154–5, 167 immigration 29, 56–8, 66, 104–8, 148, 151–2, 154 See also migration Incheon Declaration 2, 5–6 indifference to migrant pupils 60 indigenous knowledge 20, 96 indigenous people 27, 51, 105, 169 individual identity 17, 49, 77 individual rights 30, 31, 77, 131, 148 inequality 12, 20, 42, 100–4, 119–20, 171–2, 174 See also equality integration of migrant pupils. See assimilationism intercultural citizenship 149, 165–6 intercultural education backlash against 73–7 culturism and 84–8 equality and 82–4 EU policies 8–9, 51–5, 70–3, 101, 104–8

208 introduction 49–51 problems of 77–82, 103–4 and the USA 40, 92–4 use of term 91–2 interculturalism in Canada 95 crisis of 36–7 and cultural hybridization 108–15 and democracy 140 in Europe 53–5, 101–2, 103, 154–6 intergroup education 93, 94 ISIS 74, 152, 161, 164 Islam 73, 75, 81, 146, 152, 154, 169 Islamophobia viii Italy 58, 60, 61, 62, 70–1, 79, 84 Kahn, Michele 92 Kymlicka, Will 105, 115 Ladson-Billings, G. 131 laissez faire attitude to migrant pupils 60 language acquisition 61–3, 65, 107–8, 146–7 languages 52, 54, 67, 112–13, 148 Laski, Harold 34 Latinos 113, 154 left-­wing politics 33–6 liberalism 33–4, 40, 123–5 See also neo-­liberalism lifelong learning 128 Maastricht Global Education Declaration 6, 8 McCarthy, Cameron 42 MacPherson, Crawford 149 Mann, Horace 126–7 Marcuse, Herbert 162 Marshall, T. H. 18, 129–30, 149, 166 maximin principle 123–4 May, Stephen 145 media and globalization viii–ix, 45 Merkel, Angela 150, 152 métissage 48, 109–11, 113–15 Mexicans in USA 113 migrant literature 112 migrants. See immigrants migration 29, 56, 58–9, 95, 106, 107, 109, 158, 169–70 See also immigration

Index Milani, Lorenzo 173 Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione 71 minorities. See cultural minorities; ethnic minorities; religious minorities mixing (métissage) 48, 109–11, 113–15 Morrow, Raymond 114 multicultural citizenship 45, 165, 174 multicultural education in Europe 66–9, 91–2 goals of 39 and identity 42–4 in USA 40–2, 98–104 multiculturalism backlash against 73–7, 145–7 in Canada 95, 153–4 and citizenship 140 crisis of 36–7 in Europe 51, 55, 68–9, 149–53 and global citizenship 156–8 in USA 39–48, 95–7, 105–6, 154–6 See also constructive multiculturalism; normative multiculturalism multinational states 105 multiple citizenship 20 nation-­states 11, 15–16, 28–31, 162–3 national citizenship 1–2, 4, 14–16, 17, 20–1, 28–31, 108 national identity 42–4 neo-­assimilationism 73–7, 146, 148, 154 neo-­conservativism 45, 87, 130–1, 137–8, 147–9, 151, 154 neo-­liberalism and citizenship 130–1 crisis of 31–3 and globalization 158 impact of 120, 131, 163, 167, 173 and intercultural education 50 and new conservatism 147–9 The Netherlands 146 New Right politics 35–6, 41, 102, 130–1 Nieto, Sonia 47, 93 No Child Left Behind Act 32, 155 non-­national migrants 57–8 normative arcadianism 79–80 normative multiculturalism 46–8, 85, 110, 147, 169–70 Nozick, Robert 127 Nussbaum, Martha 2, 79, 103, 141

Index

209

Obama, Barack 161 Offe, Claus 131, 134, 136 Ong, Aihwa 2, 85, 88 Opatija Declaration 51–2 optimism 175–6 otherness, notion of 25–8, 30, 35, 79–80, 157–8

rights. See civil rights; human rights; individual rights; social rights Rocco, Ray 113 Roma people 57, 150 romanticism 79–81 Rosmini, Antonio 126 Rossi, Ernesto 107–8

Paiva, Vanilda 139 phenomenology 110 Phillips, Anne 170 Pike, Graham 8–9 Piketty, Thomas 12, 100, 120, 172 planetary citizenship 10, 14, 115, 171 pluralism 18, 42, 71, 83, 103, 141, 147, 169 pluriethnic states 105 political parties. See left-­wing politics; New Right politics political rights 35, 130 political theories of citizenship 140, 165 of cosmopolitan democracy 141–2 liberalism 33, 123 and multiculturalism 40, 95, 97, 101 optimism of Gramsci 175 politics and education 98–102 Portera, Agostino 91 post-­colonial tradition and GCE 19–20, 113 post-­modernism 26, 114 post-­national citizenship 15, 28 Przeworski, Adam 166

Santos, Boaventura de Sousa 109, 171 Sarkozy, Nicolas 150 Sarrazin, Thilo 152 Sayad, Abdelmadek 58 school achievement. See academic achievement Scott, Joan 43–4, 108–9 second-­generation immigrants 57, 58, 112, 146 secularism 63 Selby, David 8–9 Sen, Amartya 119, 121 separation of migrant pupils 64–6 Shultz, Lynette 20 Sinti people 57 Sleeter, Christine 40–1, 93–4 soccer 112–13 social citizenship 18, 131, 148 social equality 82 social justice 123–5 social justice education x, 41, 46, 102–4, 122, 125–9, 138–9, 168, 171, 174 social rights 35, 130 Soysal, Yasimin Nuhoglu 30 Spinelli, Altiero 107–8 Stehr, Nico 136 superficial xenophilia 80, 81–2, 83 sustainable development 10, 21, 171, 174 The Swann Report (UK DoE) 66–7 Szelényi, Katalin 166

quality of learning 2–3 Quebec, Canada 95, 153–4 ‘Race to the Top’ policy 155 racial inexplicitness 60 racism 55, 67–70, 87–8, 103, 126, 161 Rawls, John 32, 40, 101, 103, 122, 123–4 reasonable accommodation 95, 153–4, 170 refugees 30, 58, 151 Reimers, Fernando 5 relativism 8, 80, 84, 86–8, 147 religious minorities 168–9 See also Islam Rhoads, Rob 165–6 Ricœur, Paul 124 right-­wing politics. See New Right politics

Taparelli D’Azeglio, Luigi 126 Tarozzi, Massimiliano 9, 25, 165–6 Tate, W. F. 131 Tawil, Sobhi 13, 21 Taylor, Charles 1, 26, 95, 153 teachers 60–2, 65–7, 80–1, 107, 125–6, 173, 175 terrorism viii, 41, 75, 164 Tex-Mex 113 third-­country nationals 57

210 Tocqueville, Alexis de 122 Torres, Carlos Alberto 14, 113, 128, 138, 140, 156, 165–7 Touraine, Alain 121, 123 transnational social movements 36, 167 Tye, B. B. 7 Tye, K. A. 7 unaccompanied minors 57 underachievement of students. See academic achievement undocumented immigrants 75, 106–7, 154–5, 167 UNESCO 2, 5–6, 10–11, 12, 52, 172, 173 United Kingdom 8–9, 12–13, 55, 60, 62, 66–8, 81, 91, 146, 149–50 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 106 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 5 universalism 19, 87–8, 114, 141–2, 147 USA citizenship failure 161–2 colour-­blind education 60 future policies 167–8 and GE 7–8

Index and immigration 29 interculturalism 92–4, 108 liberalism 33–4 multiculturalism in 39–48, 69, 95–7, 102–4, 105–7, 154–6 politics and education 98–102 religious minorities 169 social justice education 125–7 utopianism 17, 175, 176 Ventotene Manifesto 107–8 Wacquant, L. 97 war against terrorism viii welfare state 35, 60, 129–32 West, Cornel 42, 108, 161 Whitty, Geoff 131–3 Wieviorka, Michel 103, 156, 157, 168 Wintersteiner, Werner xi xenophilia 80, 81–2, 83 Young, Iris 2 Zižek, Slavoj 86 Zoletto, Davide 58, 85, 112–13