Perhaps more than any other concept, the idea of global citizenship has emerged since the late 1990s as a key strategic principle in higher education. At scores of colleges and universities in the United States and abroad, the current era of globalization has been accompanied by renewed scholarly interest in an international dimension of citizenship as well as numerous initiatives with the specific aim of inspiring young people to think and live as global citizens. What insights do the historical evolution of cosmopolitan ideals and the recent expansion of the term global citizenship in public discourse offer to scholars, teachers, and administrators?
This chapter begins by tracing the origins and development of the cosmopolitan tradition, illustrating how todayâs multifaceted idea of global citizenship echoes numerous strains within cosmopolitan political thinking that have endured through the ages. Then, the chapter chronicles the recent ascendance of the term global citizenship, reviews some of the ongoing scholarly debates surrounding this idea, and explores how contemporary understandings of global citizenship encompass multiple concepts, such as awareness, responsibility, participation, cross-cultural empathy, international mobility, and personal achievement.
THE COSMOPOLITAN TRADITION THROUGHOUT HISTORY
The term cosmopolitan is a composite of the Greek words for order, universe, and citizen. At its heart, the cosmopolitan ideal holds that the inherent dignity and well-being of each human person warrants equal respect and concern,1 and advocates of the cosmopolitan ideal tend to emphasize universal standards of responsibility that require citizens to âtranscend the morally parochial world of the sovereign stateâ (Linklater, 1999, p. 39). Joshua Cohen (1996) has summarized the essence of cosmopolitanism: âOur highest allegiance must be to the community of humankind, and the first principles of our practical thought must respect the equal worth of all members of that communityâ (p. vii.).
The earliest political strains of cosmopolitan thinking date back to ancient Greece, where Socrates and Diogenes both identified themselves as citizens of the world.2 They did so to challenge the bounded civic ideal of the polis, which championed locally exclusive ties to oneâs immediate political community. As Michel de Montaigne wrote of Socrates:
As noted by Derek Heater (1996), who has led the way in contemporary historical scholarship of world citizenship, Socrates held a nonpolitical view of world citizenship that envisioned a sense of affinity with all humanity and the universe, as well. Socrates did not renounce his citizenship of Athens; on the contrary, he willingly submitted to a dubious death sentence. In contrast, the Cynics conceived of world citizenship as a direct rebellion against citizenship of the polis. Diogenes of Sinope famously made clear his disdain for what he considered the hypocrisy and dishonesty of his fellow citizens and set himself apart by proclaiming himself a citizen of the world.
The notion of world citizenship took a decidedly legalistic turn in ancient Rome, with the ideals of universal law and civic virtue closely intertwined in the writings of Roman Stoic thinkers, such as Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca. In the context of an empire of overlapping jurisdictions, Roman political philosophers introduced the idea of multiple citizenships and allegiances radiating from state-based political ties into the international arena. As Seneca emphasized:
By acknowledging citizenship ties based on âthe accident of our birth,â but awarding higher standing to an envisioned universal political community, the Stoics championed the human capacity to lead a dual civic lifeâfulfilling obligations to the state while also serving the cosmopolis as a virtuous human person. Such ethical perspectives on world citizenship carried into medieval Christian thinking, with Stoic principles related to moral universalism essentially carried forth into the formation of particular Christian teachings and literature, such as City of God by St. Augustine.
The single most powerful cosmopolitan thinker from the Age of Enlightenment and early modern period was Immanuel Kant, who advanced the ideal of âcosmopolitan rightâ secured through an international âpacific federationâ among free and independent states. As Kant speculated in his essay, âPerpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,â written in 1795: âThe peoples of the earth have thus entered in varying degrees into a universal community, and it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhereâ (Kant, 1991, p. 108). Of course, Kantâs linkage of world citizenship to universal human rights echoed the revolutionary declarations of rights written during this period in the emerging American and French national republics. Strikingly, at the same time as the U.S. constitutional framers were convening in Philadelphia in 1787, Benjamin Franklin foresaw the eventual prospect of European federation.
During the 20th century, the atrocities and casualties of the two world wars, culminating in the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reinvigorated campaigns for a cosmopolitan model linked to more cohesive global governing institutions. Immediately following the Second World War, public discourse regarding âworld citizenshipâ revolved heavily around the founding of the United Nations and the hope that this new global institution would foster world peace and nuclear disarmament. Albert Einstein served as one of the most visible advocates of world government, which he believed was necessary to ward off nuclear holocaust. Einstein stated in an interview in the 1940s: âDo I fear the tyranny of a world government? Of course I do. But I fear still more the coming of another warâ (quoted in Nathan & Norden, 1968, p. 376).
The founding documents of the United Nations, filled with sweeping affirmations of human rights for all, represented a giant step forward regarding aspirations for a rights-based model of world citizenship. At the same time, the stalemate of the Cold War and the chronic deadlocks between the West and the Soviet blocâparticularly within the United Nations Security Councilâ underscored the inherent limitations of the United Nations so far as its ability to transcend national sovereignty and power politics. In addition, groups in opposition to the United Nations often invoked âworld citizenshipâ with scorn during the Cold War years. The idea of world citizenship became vulnerable to attack as signaling a remote and tyrannical world government. Some political organizations on the far right, such as the John Birch Society in the United States, even began to equate âworld citizenshipâ with communism, overlooking the fact that Marxist and Leninist aspirations of an international workers utopia amounted to just one of many competing strains of cosmopolitanism as the concept evolved through the ages.
During the 1980s, in what turned out to be the waning years of Soviet communism, the idea of world citizenship had receded to the margins of political discourse. Even within the field of international relations, the term globalization was barely on the radar screen. However, this same period brought the early ascendancy of a new model of âglobal citizenshipâ that hearkened back to ancient cosmopolitan ideals of a universal human community and the goal of mediating ties and allegiances to overlapping, interdependent political and moral communities. Especially within the educational arenas in the United States and the United Kingdom, professional associations, allied organizations, and educational studies specialists began to show greater interest in designing programs seeking to inspire young people to become global citizens.
As early as 1979, the curriculum guidelines of the National Council for the Social Studies (in the United States) stated that the purpose of social studies education is âto prepare students to be rational, humane, participating citizens in a world that is increasingly interdependent.â In 1984, the councilâs president, Carole Hahn, placed âglobal citizenshipâ directly on the agenda of the professional organization with an impassioned argument that can be viewed as a forerunner to the sorts of philosophical arguments in favor of global citizenship that would emerge with much greater force during the 1990s. As Hahn stated in her 1984 presidential address:
The promises of an emerging global society became far more evident in the early 1990s with the political and economic opening of the former Soviet Union and its satellites, the ongoing democratic transformations in formerly authoritarian states such as South Africa and South Korea, and stunning advances in digital technology and telecommunications that made the world seem more interconnected and, indeed, smaller than before.
CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
As globalization became one of the buzzwords of the approaching new century, the idea of global citizenship became more conspicuous not only within scholarly debates but also as a salient and relevant idea for the general public. International relations theorist Richard Falk (1994) and sociologist John Urry (2000) both captured the new incarnation of global citizenship in separate articles that identified key segments of the population that seemed to fit into categories of prospective global citizens. Their images of global citizens can be consolidated into the following five categories, which overlap with each other:
1 âGlobal cosmopolitans,â as in individuals who develop, often through extensive international travel, âan ideology of openness towards certain âotherâ cultures, peoples and environmentsâ (Urry, 2000, p. 73).
2 âGlobal activists,â as in campaigners who take up causes such as human rights, poverty eradication, environmental protection, or who seek to hold accountable international economic institutions. True to the adage âthink globally, act locally,â these individuals also are often active in their local communities and national political arenas.
3 âGlobal reformers,â who out of concern for all humanity advocate more cohesive and democratically accountable global governing institutions, if not a centralized system of world government, âas indispensable to overcome the chaotic dangers of the degree of political fragmentation and economic disparity that currently exists in the world todayâ (Falk, 1994, p. 132).
4 âGlobal managers,â as in individuals who work, often in collaboration with the United Nations and other international governing institutions, to resolve borderless problems ranging from climate change to the threat of nuclear weapons.
5 âGlobal capitalists,â as in multinational corporate executives who travel the world and form a âdenationalized global elite that at the same time lacks any global civic sense of responsibilityâ (Falk, 1994, p. 135). Some global capitalists also are seen as willing to assume heavy financial risks in their respective quests to âunify the world around global corporate interestsâ (Urry, 2000, p. 172).
One category of global citizen that Falk and Urry did not single outâbut could have doneâis global educators. Classroom teachers and school principals; scholars with international credentials, contacts, and research agendas; leaders of international exchange programs; and educational outreach coordinators fo...