Global Citizenship, Common Wealth and Uncommon Citizenships [1 ed.] 9789004383449, 9789004383432

Citation preview

Global Citizenship, Common Wealth and Uncommon Citizenships

Comparative and International Education: A Diversity of Voices Series Editors Allan Pitman (University of Western Ontario, Canada) Miguel A. Pereyra (University of Granada, Spain) Suzanne Majhanovich (University of Western Ontario, Canada) Editorial Board Ali Abdi (University of Alberta, Canada) Clementina Acedo (UNESCO International Bureau of Education) Mark Bray (University of Hong Kong, China) Christina Fox (University of Wollongong, Australia) Steven Klees (University of Maryland, USA) Nagwa Megahed (Ain Shams University, Egypt) Crain Soudien (University of Cape Town, South Africa) David Turner (University of Glamorgan, England) Medardo Tapia Uribe (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico) ඏඈඅඎආൾ 47

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/caie

Global Citizenship, Common Wealth and Uncommon Citizenships Edited by

Lynette Shultz and Thashika Pillay

අൾංൽൾඇ_ൻඈඌඍඈඇ

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov

ISSN 2214-9880 ISBN 978-90-04-38342-5 (paperback) ISBN 978-90-04-38343-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-38344-9 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, %ULOO1LMKR൵%ULOO5RGRSL%ULOO6HQVHDQG+RWHL3XEOLVKLQJ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The &RS\ULJKW&OHDUDQFH&HQWHU5RVHZRRG'ULYH6XLWH'DQYHUV0$ USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

CONTENTS

1.

2.

Global Citizenship, Common Wealth, and Uncommon Citizenships: An Introduction Lynette Shultz and Thashika Pillay

1

The Contradictions of International Education and International Development: Counter-Eurocentric Perspectives Ali A. Abdi

9

3.

Aboriginal Women, Uncommon Citizens Marlene E. McKay

4.

Cycles of Learning and Unlearning through Literary Study: 5HDGLQJ Marginalized Experience Narratives for Critical Global Citizenship Education Carrie Karsgaard

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

23

39

The Scholarship of Engagement: Moving Higher Education from Isolated Islands to an Inclusive Space Grace Rwiza and Chouaib El Bouhali

57

Seeking “Global Citizenship” in Graduate Library and Information Studies Education Toni Samek and Christina Palech

75

7KH5ROHRI+RVW9LOODJHVLQ)RVWHULQJ&RVPRSROLWDQ9DOXHVDPRQJ ISL Participants Harry Smaller, Michael O’Sullivan, Xochilt Hernández and Ashley Rerrie

93

Security in a World of Strangers: Exploring the Lived Meaning of Help Giving to International Students Derek Tannis

111

6RXWKHUQ6WUXJJOHVRYHU³.QRZLQJ´DQG7KHLU6LJQL¿FDQFHIRUWKH Politics of Global Citizenship Crain Soudien

125

10. Dance for Change: Seeking Tribal Citizenship and Identity Karen J. Pheasant-Neganigwane

v

141

CONTENTS

11. Global Citizenship Education as a UNESCO Key Theme: More of the Same or Opportunities for Thinking ‘Otherwise’? Karen Pashby

159

12. Citizenship and Education for Adult Newcomers Sung Kyung Ahn

175

13. Transgressive Learning: Journey to Becoming Ecocentric Irene Friesen Wolfstone

191

About the Contributors

207

Index

211

vi

LYNETTE SHULTZ AND THASHIKA PILLAY

1. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP, COMMON WEALTH, AND UNCOMMON CITIZENSHIPS An Introduction

AN INVITATION TO THE COMMONS

This book brings together leading ideas about citizenship and the commons in this time that both needs and resists a global perspective on issues and relations and H[WHQGV WKH ZRUN RI WKH &HQWUH IRU *OREDO &LWL]HQVKLS (GXFDWLRQ DQG 5HVHDUFK &*&(5  DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI $OEHUWD :H KDYH VWXGLHG WKH JOREDO PRYHPHQW towards global citizenship in the past 20 years by organizations such as UNESCO, multinational corporations, as well as local organizations, schools, and institutions of higher education. Global citizenship, as a concept and a practice, is now being met with a dangerous call for insularism and a protracted ethno-nationalism based on global economic imperialism, movements for white supremacy and miscegenation, various forms of religious extremism, and identity politics, but which antithetically, also comes from the anti-globalization movement. The writings in this book attempt to understand the relations that have emerged from decades of unprecedented economic, social, and cultural globalization and particularly, of its assumed benevolent platforms often attached to geo-political relations of (neo)colonialism put into place in the later 20th and early 21st centuries. More often than otherwise, global citizenship literature and theorizing represents the continuing dominance of western discourses and related epistemic constructions that do little to challenge the citizenship or educational needs of those who need them the most. Even within so-called western democracies, the rhetoric of citizenship education has hardly led to desirable political, economic, and knowledge-related freedoms. Indeed, as global citizenship education scholarship increased, the equity gap between global as well as national citizens has widened tremendously. $W &*&(5 ZH DUH HQJDJHG LQ SURMHFWV WKDW FRDOHVFH DURXQG WKHVH LVVXHV DQG our research asks questions about how we might transform educational spaces to achieve long overdue equity. Many of our research questions address how we can create ethical spaces and relations of equity through education curricula, pedagogies, and policies. We take Cindy Blackstock’s “problem of incremental equality” (Blackstock, 2016) seriously and acknowledge that education has played a key role in hampering social justice as it is used as a tool to silence marginalized voices and to create obedient rather than engaged citizens. This taming of citizens contributes

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI:10.1163/9789004383449_001

L. SHULTZ & T. PILLAY

to the taming of what we understand as the public sphere and the commons, the places of cultural, natural, and intellectual resources that are shared and not privately owned (Abdi & Shultz, 2013; Shultz, 2013). Jean Luc Nancy (2016, 2007) writes about our task of “making the world,” of “creating the world” as distinguishable from engaging in the processes of a deadly globalization or destruction of the world that responds to the interlocking issues that make life on the planet precarious for human and non-humans everywhere (albeit an unequal precarity) (2016, pp. vi–ix). Given the urgency of global issues, Nancy sees revolt as the necessary frame for our engagement, not waiting for an empty politics that reflects the neoliberal reality of our time. He states: [r]evolt … does not make clear what the élan [liveliness, flash and panache] RIDQH[LVWHQFHRSHQWRLWVSRVVLELOLWLHVPLJKWEH5HYROWGRHVQRWGLVFRXUVH it growls. What does growl mean? It’s almost onomatopoeia. It means to grunt, bellow, and roar. It means to yell together, to murmur, grouse, become indignant, become enraged together. One tends to grumble alone, but people growl in common. The common growl is a subterranean torrent: It passes underneath, making everything tremble. (Nancy, 2016, p. ix, emphasis added) Given the powerful work of feminist, Indigenous, and anticolonial researchers and activists, we are challenged to think and act differently and what is clear is that this rethinking must be done together, across borders and difference. Our DSSURDFKDW&*&(5LVWRXVHUHODWLRQDONQRZOHGJHDQGLGHDVRI³VSDFH´WRGRWKLV As educationists, we find ourselves working in what can be understood as spaces of potential, created as we read the world in citizenship education and citizenship education in the world in order to transform the structures and conditions that diminish life on the planet. Although the overarching context for research and higher education in most parts of the world reflects the values and ideology of neoliberalism and the inevitability of a world (dis)organized by capitalism, within institutions and communities (at times working together), there is a resistance emerging that demands recognition. We see examples of how non-western onto-epistemologies, ways of organizing relations and the experiences that these relations create, appearing in seemingly hegemonically closed spaces of marginalization. How might these emerging changes be given substance to support rather than capture and remake into a tamed version where transformational potential has been removed? This collection of essays, which resulted from a conference of the same name organized at the University of Alberta, critically analyze global citizenship education issues, putting into perspective the global significance of debates and struggles around the questions of belonging and abjection, solidarity and rejection, identification and othering, as well as love and hate. These essays have raised important questions concerning the intents, structures, and processes of society and critically reflect on education as a means to interact and transform society, not only theoretically, but in practical terms and in order to imagine alternative futures and common wealth. 2

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP, COMMON WEALTH, AND UNCOMMON CITIZENSHIPS

7+(&+$37(56$1(0(5*,1*&20021*52:/

In Chapter 2, Ali A. Abdi discusses the need to understand the foundations of current international education as practiced around the world today if we are to make any claim that such education contributes to either enhanced citizenship or the common good. While there has been much critique of the corporatization of international education, Abdi argues that it is the colonial foundation of current practices we need to address and no one is really innocent in their contribution to these practices. Abdi notes the difficulty of working within this system of Eurocentrism so institutionalized over the past centuries. In our actions, we, whether with good intention or ill, reinscribe the story of an enlightened western subject cast against an knowledgeless non-western Other. “In speaking about people in disparaging terms, colonizing them and exploiting both their human and natural resources, the first loss for them was their primordial citizenship that every person can claim the moment they are born”. Abdi continues to uncover the depth of this system and calls for a fundamental reframing of the whole project of international education that includes recognizing the long decitizenization of the majority of people on the planet, concluding that a recitizenization focus can contribute to moving education in the world along in a way that might make claims of education as a path of liberation even possible. In Chapter 3, Marlene McKay continues the reading of the world that highlights the impact of colonization. She presents her study of the “uncommon citizenship” of aboriginal women who she identifies as being members of multiple communities, including linguistic, landbased, cultural, and also the wider society. She describes how, too often, these women are oppressed within each of these communities. McKay uses a post-structuralist feminist framework to understand the lives of her study participants, all aboriginal women. She identifies the experience of surveillance and misrecognition that shape their decitizenization. Within these stories, we also hear of how women perform “themselves” in many ways that counter the entrenched stereotypes and narratives that restrict their engagement in the world. McKay draws links between the uncommon citizenship of aboriginal women and their resistance as a way of decolonizing and recitizenizing. Carrie Karsgaard draws on Andreotti and de Souza’s 2008 work in decolonizing education to critique curriculum from the currently very popular Free the Children organization. Karsgaard points out the colonial patterns visible, in this and other youth global citizenship curriculums, that reinforce the “enlightened westerner” as the usual main subject of the story, cast against the objects of their benevolence who are either poor or differently educated or perhaps just happen in live in a country that had been colonized. The chapter continues with a discussion of what Karsgaard refers to as a “cycle of learning” where global citizenship education starts with the necessary unlearning of colonial and colonizing practices to make it possible to even begin to act in any kind of citizenship solidarity. 5ZL]D DQG (O %RXKDOL LQ &KDSWHU  ORFDWH WKHLU VWXG\ LQ WKH FRUSRUDWL]HG university where they question how spaces might be created that nurture deep 3

L. SHULTZ & T. PILLAY

engagement in learning. They study the Centre for Global Citizenship Education DQG 5HVHDUFK DV D FDVH ZKHUH HIIRUWV WR WUDQVIRUP OHDUQLQJ WKURXJK HQJDJHG VFKRODUVKLS DUH EHLQJ LPSOHPHQWHG 5ZL]D DQG (O %RXKDOL XVH %R\HU¶V IRXU pillars of community engagement to view higher education and global citizenship education. In the following chapter, Samek and Palech present their study of global citizenship education within Library and Information Studies graduate studies programs in Canada. They provide data on the ways that global citizenship can be placed within information and knowledge studies to create critical spaces for learning about global issues, citizenship, and the interconnecting role of knowledge within these. Samek and Palech conclude that global citizenship, particularly linked to cognitive justice, knowledge rights, and decolonial considerations, is a relevant and timely topic in Library and Information Studies and can be formally inserted into graduate studies. 6PDOOHU 2¶6XOOLYDQ +HUQDQGH] DQG 5HUULH SUHVHQW WKHLU ILQGLQJV IURP D WKUHH year research project that explored the contested area of international service learning by examining how these programs impact the hosts and their communities. By drawing on Andreotti’s (2016) description of the difficulty of engaging students or instructors in decolonial discussions they believe their knowledge to be “neutral, universal, benevolent and unlimited in its capacity to apprehend reality”. Therefore, global citizenship education, Smaller et al. argue, should be based on the concept of cosmopolitanism to start to shake the Euro-centric perspective of participants. The authors discuss the difficulty in achieving this even in programs where there is substantial engagement between host communities, host families, and the western student visitors. At best, Their study found that, at best, a thick global citizenship engagement could work on the first level of Andreotti’s four-level hierarchy of international service learning “audience orientation” which is “wanting to be convinced and inspired but not challenged” by their international work. The study findings suggest that these programs must include critical examination of north-south relations to find authentic ways of engaging in relations of solidarity rather than charity. In Chapter 8, Derek Tannis uses a critical, phenomenological lens grounded in his own lived experiences as an international education practitioner in a post-secondary Canadian institution with over 20 years experience in the field to explore the contradiction of intent in international student help giving, in particular with regards to “helping” international students facing serious issues that might adversely affect their security. Tannis frames his argument around the work of Nancy (1997) and Honneth (1995), arguing that his own experiences as an international student and working with international students has opened him up to a deeper understanding of the lived ethics of solidarity which in turn leads to a philosophical rearticulation of citizenships within institutions and to seeing all within higher education institutions “as citizens in the polis of our campuses”. As such, Tannis concludes that experiences of “help giving in international education may expose us … to the very origin of justice and meaning in the world(s) of our co-creation”. 4

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP, COMMON WEALTH, AND UNCOMMON CITIZENSHIPS

Crain Soudien discusses current racial tensions in South Africa as a result of, first, racial colonialism and, later, the racist social order of apartheid which in 2015 FXOPLQDWHGZLWKWKH5KRGHV0XVW)DOO\RXWKPRYHPHQWDWWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI&DSH Town (UCT) and which then paved the way for the #FeesMustFall (FMF) youth movement which grew into a nationwide movement. Soudien argues that in the South African context, ‘race’ is “enunciated and justified, acquiring an entirely distinctive vocabulary which is given both official and academic authorisation. The racial self and the racial other come to be ontologised [in South Africa] as in few other parts of the world”. As a result, according to Soudien, South Africa has become an “ontological hotspot”, “as a southern site of knowledge of the self”. µ5DFH¶DQGUDFLVPLQWKH6RXWK$IULFDQFRQWH[WLVWKXVDFRQVWLWXWLYHDQGRQWRORJLFDO force and crucial for understanding “how structure relates to consciousness”. For 6RXGLHQWKH\RXWKPRYHPHQWV5KRGHV0XVW)DOODQG)HHV0XVW)DOOKLJKOLJKWDUH a decolonial approach tethered to the South African context, ontologised in the global South, and which proudly assert Blackness in the face of an environment which delegitimizes what it means to be Black. In Dance for change: Seeking tribal citizenship and identity, Karen PheasantNeganigwane outlines what she terms an Anishinaabe analytical approach in order to address questions of identity and policy for Indigenous peoples living within the Canadian colonial context. Through a series of personal narratives as well as analysis of current government policies affecting Indigenous peoples, PheasantNeganigwane uses the Anishinaabe concept of Mnaamodzawin – the Good Life or well-being as an integral part of identity – to frame this issue. Pheasant-Neganigwane argues that many of the questions being asked have their answers present within the next generation, but this can only be seen with an Indigenous epistemological approach and proactive inclusion with the policy development process. As such, Pheasant-Neganigwane joins Marie Battiste in calling for a blend of “Indigenous epistemology and pedagogy with Euro-Canadian epistemology and pedagogy to create an innovative ethical, trans-systemic Canadian educational system” (Battiste, 2013, p. 168). In Chapter 11, Pashby uses critical discourse analysis in conjunction with a reflexive theoretical approach – also referred to as the pivot point – to make visible the conflations and contradictions of global citizenship education in a recent UNESCO (2014) publication, Global Citizenship Education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-first century. In this chapter, Pashby asks and answers the following question as it relates to UNESCO’s policies on global citizenship education: What are the main ways critical GCE is articulated and what are the foreclosures and critical possibilities opened up by current discourses of GCE? Pashby finds that the predominant tension lies in the inability to look beyond liberalism and neoliberalism in order to explicitly address issues of power, or systems and structures of oppression. Pashby argues that while there is language within the document that suggests the critical possibility, this potential is often foreclosed as issues of power, privilege, and the centring of the individual are often over-stepped 5

L. SHULTZ & T. PILLAY

or reified as well-intended approaches to global citizenship education are co-opted into reductive neoliberal agendas. Ahn uses a narrative approach and document analysis of government provided citizenship and language materials to delineate on her changing understandings of citizenship from a purely nationalistic claim based on holding a passport to an active citizenship, focusing on the holistic and humanistic dimensions of citizenship. Ahn frames her conceptualization of active citizenship around Abdi and Shultz’s (2012) definition of citizenship as being concerned more about how people’s lives are influenced in society than how citizenship is categorized, how it is named, or how liberal democratic citizenship is framed. Ahn begins with an overview of citizenship policies in Canada, arguing that Canada’s multiculturalism and citizenship policies were in effect tasked first with assimilating new immigrants and later with integrating new immigrants. Through an analysis of federally approved English language classes for new immigrants, Ahn contends that the Canadian government is effectively using English language instruction to educate new immigrants on citizenship; yet, this citizenship education does not meet Ahn’s conceptualization of active citizenship, instead enabling a process of “doublesilencing immigrants”, in effect teaching immigrants to be passive citizens, to not question, and to be obedient to the government’s instructions. Ahn concludes that language education is in actuality a tool used by the government to ensure newcomers not “become active and critical citizens, but silent human resources for the economy, enduring inequalities and injustice” and recommends changes to language and citizenship instruction in order for newcomers to be allowed to practice their basic freedoms and rights. The final chapter by Irene Friesen Wolfstone brings us – readers, educators, researchers, activists and academics – back to a core issue for understanding global citizenship. It calls on us to explore our relationship with nature. In Chapter 13, Wolfstone extrapolates on ecoentricism, the notion that humans and nature are “interdependent with all beings, both human and other-than-human”. Through a critical narrative inquiry and critical theoretical framework, Wolfstone examines eco-centric learning. She contends that an eco-centric learning should be transgressive and, therefore, agentially go “‘against the grain’ of mainstream education,” intentionally seek “learning that is relational, holistic and informal,” “decolonize nature by deconstructing the dominant stories of place and telling new place stories” and moves “incrementally toward a political revolution”. Wolfstone’s articulation of global citizenship integrates eco-centric learning as a protest against anthropocentrism and as a rallying call for critical intra-actions that are emancipatory, decolonial and multi-relational. CONCLUSION

In total, this book is an invitation into a conversation that explores and makes visible some of the hidden chasms of oppression and inequity. It is a kind of growl, released 6

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP, COMMON WEALTH, AND UNCOMMON CITIZENSHIPS

by a community of academics who, together, bring global, local, Indigenous, feminist, anti-colonial, and critical perspectives of how we might understand and engage with the urgent issues of our time. It is meant to provoke both argument and activism as we work to secure common spaces that are broadly life-sustaining. Education plays a significant role in how we come to address these issues and this volume will contribute to ensuring that equity, global citizenship, and the common wealth provide platforms from which we might engage in transformational, collective work. 5()(5(1&(6 $EGL$ 6KXOW]/ 5HFRORQL]HGFLWL]HQVKLSVUKHWRULFDOSRVWFRORQLDOLWLHV6XE6DKDUDQ$IULFD and the prospects for decolonized ontologies and subjectivities. In L. M. de Souza & V. Andreotti (Eds.), Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship educationSS± /RQGRQ5RXWOHGJH Abdi, A., & Shultz, L. (2013). Youth engagement in Canada: Learning challenges and possibilities. Sysiphus, 1(2), 55–74. Andreotti, V. (2016). The educational challenges of imagining the world differently. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne d’études du développement, 37(1), 101–112. Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing. Blackstock, C. (2016). Big thinking on the hill. Incremental Inequality5HWULHYHG0D\IURP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3D7FdZkcaw Clavier, T. (Ed.). (2016). The common growl: Toward a poetics of precarious community. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. New York, NY: Polity Press. Nancy, J. L. (2007). The creation of the world or globalization. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Nancy, J. L. (2016). Forward: The common growl. In T. Clavier (Ed.), The common growl: Toward a poetics of precarious community. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Shultz, L. (2013). Engaged scholarship in a time of the corporatization of the university and distrust of the public sphere: A decolonizing response. In L. Shultz & T. Kajner (Eds.), Engaged scholarship: The politics of engagement and disengagementSS± 5RWWHUGDP7KH1HWKHUODQGV6HQVH3XEOLVKHUV

Lynette Shultz Department of Educational Policy Studies University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada Thashika Pillay Department of Educational Policy Studies University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada

7

ALI A. ABDI

2. THE CONTRADICTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Counter-Eurocentric Perspectives

,1752'8&7,21

Perhaps more than any other human endeavor, our reflective and relatable pragmatic connections with the ideas and practices of education are, san exception, prima facie constructive, of desirable psycho-cultural notations and almost always futuristically hopeful. A propos then to speak about the aspirational perspective of the learning and pedagogical horizons we predict, seek and selectively could achieve depending on our primordial and institutionalized established citizenships contexts and connections. The pictorial presentation of what we term education in any given context is, for all harnessable analysis, only fit for some of us, and not necessarily for others. By therefore ascertaining an inclusive understanding and analysis of global learning projects, how these have developed across time and space, and what their effects have been for different diverse in different parts of our world, requires a patient excavation of the archaeology of knowledge systems, perhaps even as much as Foucault (1972) intended in his strong analysis of our perforce conscriptions into dominant and immensely biased historical life constructions. Such system constructions arbitrarily place us within the controlled parameters of heavy and enveloping official discourses that institutionalize us into a singular, unicentric location that facilitates the intended panoptic surveillance which tames us for the governmentality of the prevailing political and economic orders. The way international education and international development have been presented might not be that different from these system-driven control ideologies that want us to believe what the elite or the selectively powerful, in different epochs, prefer to propagate. We can therefore, talk about contemporary educational systems in such a manner without any danger to our intellectual integrative existentiality, and we shall start thinking about the noble possibilities of a diversified historico-epistemological analysis that should be good for those outside the official discourses of the past centuries. More or less, that will represent a new acceptance that what we term today education factually existed in different forms, formats and relative design preferences for millennia. Indeed, learning something assured our primordial

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI:10.1163/9789004383449_002

A. A. ABDI

point of being about 3.2 million years ago when our common ancestor Lucy (Australopithecus), developed and used the first tools to hunt in the Awash Valley in Ethiopia, and from there, was able to live for a critical period of time (Cook, 2005). As historians of the human race note (there is only one race, as Cook, 2005; Sussman, 2014, and other serious scholars know), that capacity to learn could represent one of the most important points in our history, for it intelligence-wise, separated us for other primates. With that long-ago Lucyian achievement (if I can intentionally label it as such), we continued moving into successive learning possibilities that increased in sophistication and that brought us to where we are today: storing quasiinfinite amount of knowledge on nanoscale formats and retrieving it when needed. But storing information qua information and retrieving when needed in currently uneven global learning and social development relations could actually jeopardize the critical socio-historical and politico-economic attachments about the knowledge constructions and deconstructions this chapter aims to engage. The aim of this chapter is to selectively do this type of critical focus with the purpose of refusing the simplistic contemporary constructions of international education and its possible attachments of international development as either established for the betterment of all, or created via an inter-nations perspective and practice. It is with this in mind that we need to firstly problematize both the descriptive and analytical viabilities of international education, which has become an important area of focus for academics and graduate students’ research in the past 50 or so years with important publication programs and well-structured and well-funded conferences that attract thousands of scholars from across the globe. While many of us could survive within the assumed innocence of the terms ‘international’ and have professionally benefited from its current academic currency, what such terms hide are the important historical realities and not so pleasant fabrications of a program of education that exists among nations in different zones of the world. It also analytically jumps over the heavy, if monocentrically eschewed, power relations that in essence almost completely control the origin, quality and the directional realities of this other fine global learning prospect. 7+(+,6725,&$/$1'352%/(0$7,&&216758&7,216 2),17(51$7,21$/('8&$7,21

I start here with one of my main arguments that both the descriptive and analytical representations of international education are misplaced as that could denote a type of education that exists between or shared by two nations, which on a quick glance throughout the world, can be horizontally refuted. In real terms, the dominant education in the globe today is a Western designed and Western-centric system of education that incessantly refuses to borrow from the rich educational achievements of extra-western locations. This when actually all societies have created their contextually active and effective learning programs that have been in practical terms and without any nationalist nostalgia, useful for all aspects of people’s contemporary 10

7+(&2175$',&7,2162),17(51$7,21$/('8&$7,21

lives including, though not limited to general community learning programs including linguistic studies, history, public affairs and policy, science, mathematics and engineering programs and multi-level medical education (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999; Van Sertima, 1993). This Indigenous education also displayed specialized platforms of governance and democracy scholarship and practice (Lewis, 1969). While using the term ‘democracy’ can be an issue in discussing non-western situations, the intention for its usage here is not intended beyond describing a rule by some popular consensus. Indeed, while democracy as a word structure (with different claims of practice) is attributed to classical Greece, it is not definitive that the same word structure or something of same definitional and/or operational purposes was not used elsewhere. In Africa, for example, the rule of all adult men by consensus, with a clear and problematic gender bias, was in place for hundreds of years. But so was the Greek democracy with its even more entrenched gender-biased platforms which actually added two or more exclusionary categories: it only included those adult men who owned property, and also excluded slaves, i.e., slaves of Greek or neighboring European zones background. In pre-European contact African contexts (Pre-1500 AD), for example, the issue of inter-African enslavement was not that present, or if so, was not in the mold we hitherto understood both the structure and the practice of slavery. Irrespective, these points are only inserted here as important qualifying observations to block any concerns about associating non-western Indigenous education with what we call today democracy, which by the way and as it is globally practiced in this hour, is so less the rule of the people than it is a rule by the elite (Hoogvelt, 2003; Mills, 2004 [1956]; Wedel, 2009). With that understanding, the first impositions of European education on the rest of the world started with the advent of colonialism in Africa, Asia and the $PHULFDV$V KDV EHHQ QRWHG E\ PDQ\ REVHUYHUV 1\HUHUH  5RGQH\  wa Thiong’o, 1986, 1993, 2009; Achebe, 2000, 2009 [1958]; Kane, 2012 [1963]), it was the perforce substitution of viable, functional and social well-being conducive pre-colonial education, with European languages, knowledge parcels and ways of learning deployed to assure the success of such onslaught on both the physical and onto-epistemological existentialities of Africans and other colonized populations. As Nyerere’s (1968) brilliant analysis shows, the intention here was not accidental or even a short-term experiment, but a wholesale long term project of rescinding African histories, cultures and epistemologies, and in the process creating a colonized subject who is only educated to know more about Europe and Europeans than about himself/herself or about his/her land, and from there is so cognitively colonized that he/she appreciates foreign languages, cultures, knowledge systems and ways of being. At least partially, the way this was done fairly follows the first establishments of what we know today as area studies. That was, in non-qualifying terms, colonialism sponsored field studies that at best, superficially read the lives of so-described native populations, and from there decided on their histories, cultures, knowledge achievements, even intelligence capacities which were all reported back 11

A. A. ABDI

to colonial administrators and from there, published as reliable knowledge taught at some of the most prestigious universities including Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne in France, Heidelberg in Germany, Chicago and Princeton. In one case, WKH2[IRUGKLVWRULDQ7UHYRU5RSHUGHVFULEHG$IULFDDVDKLVWRULFDOZKLFKE\FULWLFDO hindsight, actually disqualifies him from trading in historical knowledge. In his brilliant and widely referenced work, Orientalism, the late Edward Said (1978) shatters, at least for my reading, this occidentalist, arbitrary construction of landmasses many times bigger than Europe and America combined, with billions of people who as stated above, have designed multi-level effective programs of education which helped them successfully manage their lives and futures for so long. The reaction to Said’s work, especially from those who multiply benefited from and were entrenched in the dominant establishment of orientalism, was swift and as expected, arrogant in both its linguistic dispositions and hubristic assumptions. Perhaps the most oppositional interlocutor with Said was the Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis (2002, 2004), who was and still remains (at age 100) a major figure in the establishment as well as the sustainability of orientalism. Indeed, reading Lewis’ biography should affirm, especially for critical postcolonial scholars, his thick trajectories within the major streams and around careerist ladders of orientalism. B. Lewis was a former British Army officer who later became an academic at the aptly named, School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London), and then moved to Princeton’s Department of Near Eastern Studies. Clearly for those whose reading of history, education and knowledge categories are fully aligned with Eurocentrism, he has been called the West’s leading interpreter of the Middle East, and the most influential post-War historian of Islam. Apparently, for Lewis and other orientalist creatures, Muslims who actually contributed to the structure of modern science as much as anybody else (Burns, 2010), were not qualified to define and analyze, or just interpret, their religion, culture and related life systems. In his 2002 book, What went wrong [with Muslims], B. Lewis engages in a quasi “free for all” description that in my reading, just adds to the stereotyping of non-western peoples with the false but perforce institutionalized assumption that those who miss to embrace modernity and its liberal democracy governance systems are doomed. Well, I believe we heard something of that genre beyond Lewis with Fukuyama (1993) declaring any new political and economic developments are no longer possible and the only way to live a viable life is to imitate the West and live well ever after. We, of course, know where that led us with the proliferation of false ‘democracies (Ihonvbere, 1996) and civil strife becoming the norm in many parts of the world. Still, B. Lewis, in the above stated work and in a few others, was a harsh critic of Edward Said, calling him an opportunistic liberal who pretends to engage in objective scholarship but is essentially ideological. One of course, would wonder what objective scholarship did orientalist B. Lewis engage, and how Said’s primary knowledge of Middle East languages, cultures and religions is less qualified scholarship than someone who actually claims that although he has written so much on Islam and Middle East, his only practical familiarity with that 12

7+(&2175$',&7,2162),17(51$7,21$/('8&$7,21

part of the world, was that he traveled for a while there in his current Princeton website for a while there. For those of us who have been lately relatively (only relatively) cured of Eurocentricism, Said’s exposition of the shallow scholarship of the legions of colonial and traditionalist postcolonial interpreters did not come soon enough. Fortunately for us, and in his characteristic analytical bluntness, Said was clear of what was happening within the enterprise of orientalism, he wrote: [In reading Orientalism, it is clear that] very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression, economic exploitation and lately, associative naturalism with terrorism. (Said, 1978, p. 1, emphasis added) To understand the dominant narratives of arbitrarily reconstructing extra-western locations for western colonialism, one cannot miss these and similar readings that attest to the beginnings of the study of the orient, not as a serious scholarship that adds value to our knowledge about concerned areas, but as mostly misguided interpretations that were undertaken to facilitate the exploitation of faraway peoples and lands that are negatively differentiated so as to facilitate such exploitation which assured us the savagely uneven livelihood situations we are witnessing in early 21st century. While I shall avoid any wide generalization of the situation as there should be few international education (if still mislabeled) projects that are well-intended, I will not hesitate to point out how the first embers of what we identify today as such, are not detached from the overall platforms of orientalism and its presumptive and certainly superficial knowledge claims about historico-actually complex life systems it barely understands and is clearly unwilling to pay the prerequisite epistemic respect that is needed to co-learn with concerned populations, while still claiming to know them through global hegemony which unjustly helps its stake in global knowledge claims. One important example of an even shallower presumptive knowledge exhortation than those committed by orientalists such as Bernard Lewis, is the writing of some prominent European thinkers and philosophers who unbeknownst to many people, served as the philosophical and by extension, epistemic vanguard for the invasion and the conquest of other people’s lands. I have already written about these more than once, and while I do not want to repeat more of that, I did make the claim recently (Abdi, 2016), that these were among the first organized international education practitioners, not scholars as they did not study anything about the contexts they willfully described for their European populace. In essence, the people I am labeling as such include some of Europe’s so-said most illustrious thinkers including, inter alia, G.W.H. Hegel, his compatriot Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, François-Marie Arouet (nom de plume, Voltaire) and the Baron of Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat (Abdi, 2008). From Hegel who called to-be-colonized peoples in Africa 13

A. A. ABDI

and elsewhere childlike and fit to be cheated, to Voltaire who affirmed, with absolutely no scientific basis and no fragment of evidence, that colonized natives are a different breed than Europeans, to Hobbes who denied any capacity for literature and letters to people in the Caribbean, these pioneers of what I would term now, negative and arbitrary international education pioneers were instructing their populations about nations they have never seen or studied and certainly have never spoken with, let alone conduct interviews and pragmatically analyze concerned peoples’ lives. So without much effort, one can easily read the origins of the unidirectional, historically exclusivist in its epistemic representations, conceptually hegemonic, theoretically shallow, practically impractical, and certainly not minimally inter-nations educational programs and claims we are currently consuming as international education. Indeed, from a serious critical perspective, what we are dealing with, is imbued with a quasi-similar epistemic arrogance that assumes the knowledge supremacy of the West over others. This false inter-nations education claim also extends from some of the inheritors of enlightenment rationalism which by instructionally admiring the line from Aristotle to Kant and beyond, decided to play dice with the knowledge, cultural and educational achievements of the rest of the world. Here, learning and development were predicated on what we could term the rational man who was to be the typical ideal human for everybody including western women who were-to-be suspended somewhere between this desirable prototype and the child-like races that were to be totally rescued from their primitive backwardness. In his writing of a famous article on modernization, it was the Harvard University political scientist Samuel Huntington (1971), later known for his clash of civilizations prospect, who was quick to divide the world into modern and backward peoples, advancing in the process, how the efficiency with which one learns and by extension, masters time and nature, qualifies them to be modern. From there, and again without any primary knowledge about the real lives on the other side of the world, Huntington tried to teach us about them as technically lazy and at the mercy of natural forces that overwhelm them when so occasioned by the prevailing physical-environmental forces. While the work of the above mentioned philosophers was mostly about justifying colonialism, Huntington’s work was more about rationalizing the second phase of postcolonial colonialism; that is the monocentric and practically untenable advancements of the ideas of international development. Before I discuss the issue of international development which is more partially connected to the old notations of international education, let me briefly engage a limited critique of the terminologies and potential practices of postcolonialism. This area has garnered a lot of research and writing currency in the past 25 or so years, expansively so contributed by some well-received works including the 1995 Post-colonial Studies Reader (1995) edited by Ashcroft et al., with some prior and quasi-catalyst analytical credit accordable to the writings of postmodern/poststructuralist figures including Fanon (1967), Foucault (1972), Said (1978, 1993), Derrida (1980), Mudimbe (1988), wa Thiong’o (1993), Baudrillad (1994), Battiste (1998) and Achebe (2009 [1958], 14

7+(&2175$',&7,2162),17(51$7,21$/('8&$7,21

2000). But while some of these critics (more those outside the European sphere) wrote about the transitions of colonialism and potential postcolonial times, their focus was more on the nature of the damage done to the historico-cultural, knowledge and by extension, on the psychosomatics of the colonized, with some pragmatic appreciation for the arduous and long-term processes of mental decolonization that are the sine qua non for real liberation and viable postcolonial spaces, some of the other works hastily heralded the arrival of postcolonial realities, which in effect, were not necessarily so. 7+(0212&(175,&&216758&7,2162) ,17(51$7,21$/'(9(/230(17

The modernist idea of international development as first stipulated by President Harry Truman of the United States of America in a post-World War II speech in 1948 (Black, 2002), had/has the same inter-nations presumption that was not also true. More often that otherwise, the historico-cultural contexts seem to have been missed by the proponents of this type of thinking and especially when such ideology was to be applied to extra-western contexts. To illustrate my point here perhaps more pragmatically, while the American idea of overseas development was relatively successful in war-ravaged western Europe (with similar economic and governance structures), even there it was not an inter-nations project but an American program through the Marshall Plan where power relations were heavily eschewed against the Post-War Europeans who were in a dire need of the aid they were receiving. With respect to the rest of the world, the situation was even worse with international development and all educational attachments not working well so far. And the contrast between Western Europe and the colonized world shouldn’t be difficult to understand in socio-economic and educational development. While the institutional de-development in World War II mostly consisted of the destruction of physical structures, beyond the killing of millions of people of course, in the non-European colonized world, the structural devastations were still there, but much greater than those was the damage done through colonial education as international education, to the histories, cultures and mental dispositions of the victims of imperial blunder. Indeed, it is worth borrowing Van Sertima’s pragmatic perspective when he spoke about the total re-doing of lives that were no longer what they were before so much of people’s historical, social, cultural and certainly educational threads were so savagely torn asunder by the false claims of Europe’s comprehensively false but still so labeled ‘civilizing mission’ (Van Sertima, 1993; Said, 1993). To be sure, the terminological constructions of this mission are so problematic that they exclusively function so much on the practically non-viable but a priori presumptions about African life. Such presumptions were willfully committed by the above-stated colonialist thinkers and philosophers who, via their rhetorical leave of absence from all realities on the ground, might have done more damage to the educational and 15

A. A. ABDI

social well-being of colonized populations than those who actually implemented the project itself in Africa and elsewhere. Drawing from some of the preceding observations of those colonialist philosophers representing some of the first legions of the origins and practices of international education, we can also see the fabricated and officialized epistemic place of the false but perforce advanced civilizing mission as perhaps the initial theoretical fragments of both international education and international development. In speaking about this, one need not easily abandon the power of presumption when one also wields the concerned tempo-spatial power to realize the potential practical outcomes of assumed ‘realities.’ Here combing the terms assumed and realities should not be a contradiction in terms when, as I am doing here, the concept DQGSUDFWLFHVRISRZHUDUHLQVHUWHG3RZHUDV:DOWHU5RGQH\ VRFRJHQWO\ described, is the most important variable in human relations; it accords one (or a group), an institution or a state to alter the behavior of people or even that of nonhuman animals, so such behavior fits the latter’s’ contextual desires and related/ expected outcomes. So assumed reality – even if in pragmatic terms not so – becomes real when explicated through inverse power relations. This is indeed, how myth became mythology and through select intersections of time and space, mythology technically became reality. When we now hear about Greek mythology which is an important component of the origins of Western civilization and knowledge platforms, we hardly see it as false. If on the other hand, someone speaks about Zimbabwean mythology which should be as valid as Greek mythology, we might not go too far. The points here are not about what happened in Greece in 300 BCE, or in Africa about the same time, it is more about the historical instructional power we have been exposed to and who was driving such power. It is also about the historical trajectories that equip some to acquire the knowledge power or other capacities to define, not only their world but as well, those of others. As Foucault (1972, 1980) skillfully discussed, albeit with Western historical and historico-cultural readings of the world, the constructions, meanings and operationalizations of knowledge do not happen in a contextual vacuum, but are relational in both historical and contemporary terms. By understanding and analyzing the previous and current constructions of international education, perhaps what we miss to deconstruct as much as anything else, are the particles of knowledge, including conceptualizations, theorizations, as well as policy and program possibilities thereof, of the dominant international development perspective. To be precise about this as the case is not as ambiguous as occasionally assumed, the ideas and the practices of international education and by direct extension, international development, are progenitors of both ontological and epistemic colonizations that created the enlightenment sanctioned monocentric rationalizations of knowledge where via Europe and later America’s monopoly of political, economic and through technological force-executed powers, Indigenous knowledges, systems of education and modes of social well-being were all replaced by what we have today: one learning and teaching system that is almost mono-linguistic, culturally exclusionist 16

7+(&2175$',&7,2162),17(51$7,21$/('8&$7,21

and epistemologically destructive (wa Thiong’o, 2009; Santos, 2014) which is consumed (selectively force-fed) across the globe. To briefly attach the above observations to the new development paradigms expected even after the relative ending of physical colonialism, the situation, as has been discussed by many concerned analysts (see, inter alia, Schuurmann, $NH   /H\V  5DKQHPD  %RZWUHH  5LVW   KDV not fulfilled much of the promises exhorted in the 1948 President Truman’s speech, with ongoing vocalizations about what went wrong with the then hyped promise of international development. Indeed, from the realities of epistemic and real livelihood FRQWUDGLFWLRQV6FKXXUPDQQ$NH5LVW WRWKHLPSUDFWLFDOLWLHVRI WKHZKROHWKLQJLQPRUHSODFHVWKDQRWKHUZLVH/H\V5DKQHPD %RZWUHH 1997), the answer to this important question should not require too much effort to find. For all practical intentions, the case has clear similarities with its rationalizing platform, international education, with the false presumptions of inter-nations perspective also abound here. The American idea of international development is not actually totally detached from the colonialist civilizing mission. As then, this also imposed, albeit in camouflaged formats, on different lands with millennia-old social cohesions, cultural categories and political and economic management systems, who are expected to shred those unique ways of developing across time and space, and must suddenly adopt American/Western ways of thinking, doing and achieving. Granted some of these were already imposed on almost all colonized societies, with so much of those fabrics untied, although perhaps not as much Van Sertima (1993) intended, the full scale Huntingtonian imposition of enlightenment’s most achieving child, modernity (Huntington, 1971) on people’s lives continuously carried through the dominant power/information nexus of the neoliberal globalization, did not work. As Colin Leys noted in his excellent work, The Rise and Fall of Development Theory (1996), the idea of international development was more or less, a continuation of colonialism by other means. Interestingly, this “by other means colonialism” was no longer the monopoly of Western states but also included some well-known Western institutions including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – generally known as the Bretton Woods Institutions – which by again briefly staying with their name claims, are other arbitrarily constructed structures that purport to be about, to belong to, and to act on behalf of world finances or for the monetary interests of different nations. The truth cannot be further as both the World Bank and the IMF actually act on Western interests, many times conditionalizing European and American political and economic interests on their lending and related global control mechanisms. In essence therefore, these institutions which should be read as central components of the Western ideology of international development, actually stunt, via, inter alia, their Western-centric and counter-communal living Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), the well-being of non-Western societies (Leys, 1996; Abdi, 2013). The way the Bretton Woods Institutions do this is by forcing the so-called developing countries into loan-granting and loan repayment practices and conditionalities that 17

A. A. ABDI

resemble the behavior of low level loan sharks with no recourse but to obey their dictates and local policy recolonizing schemes. More often than otherwise, this leads to the opposite of any viable social development possibilities for previously colonized poor countries who actually occasionally surrender their fiscal policies and national expenditure programs to these institutions, forfeiting as well in the process, the needed capacity to conceptualize and organize Indigenous blueprints and programs for community advancement and well-being (Abdi, 2013). As the late Nigerian political economist, Claude Ake (1996, 2002) so cogently noted, the rhetoric of political and economic development transfers from the West were exactly that, rhetorical without any meaningful outcomes for Africans and for other populations across the globe. Indeed, the effects of this false development promise that also suppressed the local advancement of education and attendant potential progress, can be viewed firsthand by examining the lot of many countries that started well after political independence about 50 or 60 years ago, but have not moved forward that much at all. By critically reading the history of the world, say selectively in the past 200 years therefore, one shouldn’t find it difficult to connect the treads of the early and colonialist constructions of international education, and its affiliated platforms of international development, all predicated on the false assumption that learning and progress were the prerogatives of the West. This when Harding (1998, 2008), Achebe (2000) and Burns (2016) strongly urge us to rethink the origins of ideas, knowledge and science, which, as stated in these timely disquisitions, are multi-origin, multi-perspectival, and collectively belong to the learning and research outcomes of all societies in every corner of the world. In some of my previous observations elsewhere, I have likened the history as well as the actualities of this collective epistemic heritage of humankind, a situation where the block or the edifice of our knowledge consists of bricks and parts that have come every zone of our planet. By claiming then that colonized societies which were the majority of the people in the world, were devoid of any viable educational, knowledge and development perspectives and platforms did not just represent the denial of the facts, but certainly the deliberate destruction of so much human achievement that was lost and may now be beyond recovery. Just to give one example of this, one can think of the level of Indigenous knowledge loss in Pre-Columbus Americas which was in many ways, as Charles Mann (2006, 2012) so skillfully researched and discussed, more advanced than that of Europe in 1491 (one year before the Italian mariner unknowingly marooned ashore). While we now marvel at the brilliant achievements of the Aztec, Mayan and Inca civilizations, we may miss the point of the story: the type of ignorance and arrogance that destroyed such achievements on the basis of what we term today Eurocentricism, which as stated above, preceded the colonialist philosophers of the nineteenth century, and was found in the analysis of Aristotle and many others after him. From citizenship terms, the analysis presented need not occasion too much elaboration. In speaking about people in disparaging terms, colonizing them and exploiting both their human and natural resources, the first loss for them was their 18

7+(&2175$',&7,2162),17(51$7,21$/('8&$7,21

primordial citizenship that every person can claim the moment they are born. So everything presented in this chapter, whether it concerns early colonialist constructions of the first fragments of international education and international development, involved massive processes of de-historicization, de-culturation, deepsitemologization and ongoing de-development schemes. To comprehensively ascertain the situation and critically respond to it therefore, anti-colonial scholars need to appreciate the concerned levels of de-citizenization that negatively affected the lives of people which has had long-term, multi-generational effects which are being or will continue being felt for many decades, if not centuries to come. To be sure, such process of de-citizenization through the problematic deconstructions of people’s learning, epistemic and progress conceptualizations and practices renders them to something outside the claims of full citizenship, slowly de-patterns their psycho-cognitive and agentic locations, thus applying, without much recourse in already harsh dominant-subordinate relationships, multiple demerit points to their ontological well-being, and by extension, to their self-esteem and life-wise, indispensable self-efficacy platforms. In essence therefore, the multi-citizenship scale we have today where without effort, we know we are all categorized into first class, second class, third class and fourth class citizens of the world, has been constructed at least for a major part, by the problematic international education and international development constructions and deconstructions explicated above. And we can redeem such viable lost citizenships by re-enfranchising multi-centric global cultural learning and social well-being recalibrations and achievements that accord equitable epistemic and cognitive status to all. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I have problematized the benignly presented constructions of international education which has become a major area in educational studies with massive block of publications, conferences and specialization claims engaged by thousands of scholars from across the globe. As far as I am concerned, the historical as well as the epistemic claims of international education, are hollowly moving around without the necessary scrutiny to dig up how these ideas and their potential pragmatics were conceived and advanced around the globe. Perhaps as problematic for me as the conceptual and epistemic constructions of international education, is its extensions into the also complicated area of international development. To say it again, the issue of inter-‘something,’ in this case between nations is to say it mildly, historically false and currently untenable. Indeed, these ideas and their heavily eschewed directional and impact outcomes were ipso facto, inventions of the West, with the first founders of the field, actually being those who uncritically inherited Aristotelian Eurocentrism, and Pliny the Elder’s purely subjective scribblings that disparaged non-European peoples from classical Greece into so-called Middle Ages, and later propagated by colonialist philosophers including some of the best known and disciplinary-wise, most referenced thinkers and writers. 19

A. A. ABDI

With those origins, the structure and the dispensational nature of international education and international development did not change. That is, the colonialist West having continued those traditions but this time with a less disparaging linguistic preferences. As the story goes on though, nothing has changed in especially the postenlightenment claims and contents of these areas of study. At this moment, there are no between-nations ideas, action or complex on education and social development. In both cases, things haven’t really changed and education and development in these times of neoliberal globalization are systems of learning and doing that represent the West while continuously imposed on the rest of the world, which for all pragmatic considerations, actually diminish prospects for indigenous education and wellbeing. As someone who has actually contributed to these false inter-nations claims and has simplistically bought into the fashionable area of international education and international development, I will now disclaim these and hope others can start reconsidering the descriptive and analytical perils implicated by these as at best shaky platforms of knowledge and being. 5()(5(1&(6 $EGL$$ (XURSHDQG$IULFDQWKRXJKWV\VWHPVDQGSKLORVRSKLHVRIHGXFDWLRQµ5HFXOWXULQJ¶WKH trans-temporal discourses. Cultural Studies, 22(2), 309–327. $EGL $ $   ,QWHQVLYH JOREDOL]DWLRQV RI $IULFDQ HGXFDWLRQ 5HLQWHUURJDWLQJ WKH UHOHYDQFH of structural adjustment programs. In Y. Hebert & A. A. Abdi (Eds.), Critical perspectives on international educationSS± 5RWWHUGDP7KH1HWKHUODQGV6HQVH3XEOLVKHUV Abdi, A. A. (2016, March 6–10). Knowledge designs in international development education: Retrospective and prospective analyses. Vancouver: Plenary Lecture given at the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES). Achebe, C. (2000). Home and exile. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Achebe, C. (2009 [1958]). Things fall apart. Toronto: Anchor Canada. Ake, C. (1996). Democracy and development in Africa. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Ake, C. (2002). The feasibility of democracy in Africa'DNDU&2'(65,$ Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (Eds.). (1995). The post-colonial studies reader. New York, NY: 5RXWOHGJH Battiste, M. (1998). Enabling the autumn seed: Toward a decolonized approach to Aboriginal knowledge, language and education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 22(1), 16–27. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Black, M. (2002). The no-nonsense guide to international development. Toronto: Between the Lines. Burns, W. (2010). Knowledge and power: Science in world history. London: Taylor & Francis. Cook, M. (2005). A brief history of the human race. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Derrida, J. (1980). Writing and difference. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge$VWRULD25,UYLQJWRQ3XEOLVKHUV Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Fukuyama, F. (1993). The end of history and the last man. New York, NY: Basic Books. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms and epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Harding, S. (2008). Science from below: Feminisms, postcolonialities and modernities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hoogvelt, A. (2003). Globalization and the postcolonial world: The new political economy of development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

20

7+(&2175$',&7,2162),17(51$7,21$/('8&$7,21 Huntington, S. (1971). The change to change: Modernization, development and politics. Comparative Politics, 3(3), 283–322. Ihonvbere, J. (1996). On the threshold of another false start? Journal of Asian and African Studies, 31(1–2), 125–142. Kane, H. (2012 [1963]). Ambiguous adventure. Brooklyn, NY: Melville Books. Lewis, B. (2002). What went wrong? The clash between Islam and modernity in the Middle East. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Lewis, B. (2004). The crisis of Islam: Holy war and unholy terror1HZ