Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read the

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay


A Model of Global Citizenship: Antecedents and Outcomes (Links to an external site.)

 article and watch the 

Globalization at a Crossroads
 (Links to an external site.)

 video. Go to the UAGC Library and locate one additional source on global citizenship that will help support your viewpoint, or you may choose one of the following articles found in the Week 1 Required Resources:


From Globalism to Globalization: The Politics of Resistance (Links to an external site.)


Globalization, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal (Links to an external site.)


Transnationalism and Anti-Globalism (Links to an external site.)

Reflect: Please take some time to reflect on how the concept of global citizenship has shaped your identity and think about how being a global citizen has made you a better person in your community.

Write: Use the 

Week 1 Example Assignment Guide

 Download Week 1 Example Assignment Guide

when addressing the following prompts:

· Describe and explain a clear distinction between “globalism” and “globalization” after viewing the video and reading the article.

· Describe how being a global citizen in the world of advanced technology can be beneficial to your success in meeting your personal, academic, and professional goals.

· Explain why there has been disagreement between theorists about the definition of global citizenship and develop your own definition of global citizenship after reading the article by Reysen and Katzarska-Miller.

· Choose two of the six outcomes of global citizenship from the article (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and the level of responsibility to act for the betterment of this world).

· Explain why those two outcomes are the most important in becoming a global citizen compared to the others.

· Describe at least two personal examples or events in your life that illustrate the development of global citizenship based on the two outcomes you chose.

· Identify two specific general education courses.

· Explain how each course influenced you to become a global citizen.


The Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

· Must be 750 to 1,000 words in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style, as outlined in the UAGC Writing Center’s 

APA Style resource. (Links to an external site.)

· Must include a separate title page with the following:

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· Course name and number

· Instructor’s name

· Date submitted

· For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to 

APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.)


· Must utilize academic voice. See the 

Academic Voice (Links to an external site.)

 resource for additional guidance.

· Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.

· For assistance on writing 

Introductions & Conclusions (Links to an external site.)

 as well as 

Writing a Thesis Statement (Links to an external site.)

, refer to the UAGC Writing Center resources.

· Must use at least one credible source in addition to the two required sources (video and article).

· The 

Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.)

 table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for an assignment. The 

Integrating Research
 (Links to an external site.)

 tutorial will offer further assistance with including supporting information and reasoning.

· Must document in APA style any information used from sources, as outlined in the UAGC Writing Center’s 

In-Text Citation Guide (Links to an external site.)


· Must have no more than 15% quoted material in the body of your essay based on the Turnitin report. References list will be excluded from the Turnitin originality score.

· Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style. See the 

Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.)

 resource in the UAGC Writing Center for specifications.

A model of global citizenship: Antecedents
and outcomes

Stephen Reysen1 and Iva Katzarska-Miller2

Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, TX, USA
Department of Psychology, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, USA

A s the world becomes increasingly interconnected, exposure to global cultures affords individualsopportunities to develop global identities. In two studies, we examine the antecedents and outcomes of
identifying with a superordinate identity—global citizen. Global citizenship is defined as awareness, caring, and
embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act. Prior theory and research suggest that being aware of one’s connection with others in the

world (global awareness) and embedded in settings that value global citizenship (normative environment) lead to
greater identification with global citizens. Furthermore, theory and research suggest that when global citizen
identity is salient, greater identification is related to adherence to the group’s content (i.e., prosocial values and
behaviors). Results of the present set of studies showed that global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness

with others) and one’s normative environment (friends and family support global citizenship) predicted
identification with global citizens, and global citizenship predicted prosocial values of intergroup empathy,
valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act

for the betterment of the world. The relationship between antecedents (normative environment and global
awareness) and outcomes (prosocial values) was mediated by identification with global citizens. We discuss the
relationship between the present results and other research findings in psychology, the implications of global

citizenship for other academic domains, and future avenues of research. Global citizenship highlights the unique
effect of taking a global perspective on a multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of everyday actions,
environments, and identity.

Keywords: Global citizenship; Social identity; Normative environment; Global awareness; Prosocial values.

A lors que le monde devient de plus en plus interconnecté, l’exposition à des cultures globales offre auxindividus l’opportunité de développer des identités globales. Dans deux études, nous avons examiné les
antécédents et les conséquences de s’identifier à une identité dominante – le citoyen global. La citoyenneté globale
est définie comme la conscience, la bienveillance et l’adhérence à la diversité culturelle, tout en promouvant la

justice sociale et la durabilité, joint à un sens des responsabilités à agir. La théorie et la recherche antérieures
suggèrent que le fait d’être conscient d’être connecté aux autres personnes dans le monde (conscience globale) et
d’être enchâssé dans des milieux qui valorisent la citoyenneté globale (environnement normatif) amène une plus

grande identification aux citoyens globaux. De plus, la théorie et la recherche suggèrent que lorsque l’identité de
citoyen global est saillante, une plus grande identification est reliée à une adhérence au contenu du groupe (c.-à-d.
les valeurs et les comportements prosociaux). Les résultats des présentes études ont montré que la conscience
globale (connaissance et interconnexion avec les autres) et l’environnement normatif d’une personne (les amis et

les membres de la famille qui soutiennent la citoyenneté globale) prédisaient l’identification aux citoyens globaux.
De plus, la citoyenneté globale prédisait les valeurs prosociales de l’empathie intergroupe, de la mise en valeur de
la diversité, de la justice sociale, de la durabilité environnementale, de l’entraide intergroupe et du sens des

responsabilités à agir pour l’amélioration du monde. L’identification aux citoyens globaux jouait un rôle
médiateur sur la relation entre les antécédents (environnement normatif et conscience globale) et les conséquences
(valeurs prosociales). Nous discutons de la relation entre les présents résultats et les résultats des autres recherches

en psychologie, des implications de la citoyenneté globale pour les autres domaines académiques et des avenues
de recherche futures. La citoyenneté globale met en lumière l’effet unique de la prise de perspective globale sur

Correspondence should be addressed to Stephen Reysen, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce,

Commerce, TX 75429, USA. (E-mail:

International Journal of Psychology, 2013
Vol. 48, No. 5, 858–870,

© 2013 International Union of Psychological Science

une multitude de sujets liés à la psychologie, sur les plans des actions quotidiennes, de l’environnement et de

A medida que el mundo se vuelve cada vez más interconectado, la exposición a las culturas globales les ofrecea los individuos oportunidades para desarrollar identidades globales. En dos estudios examinamos los
antecedentes y consecuencias de la identificación con una identidad supraordinal —el ciudadano global. La

ciudadanı́a global se define como la conciencia, el cuidado y la aceptación de la diversidad cultural a la vez que se
promueve la justicia social y la sustentabilidad, emparejada con un sentido de responsabilidad de acción. La
teorı́a e investigaciones previas sugieren que el ser consciente de la conexión que uno tiene con otras personas del
mundo (conciencia global) y estar inserto en entornos en que se valora la ciudadanı́a global (entorno normativo)

conduce a una mayor identificación con los ciudadanos globales. Además, la teorı́a e investigación sugieren que
cuando la identidad del ciudadano global es destacada, la mayor identificación se relaciona con la adhesión al
contenido del grupo (por ej., los valores y comportamientos prosociales). Los resultados de la presente serie de

estudios mostraron que la conciencia global (el conocimiento y la interconexión con los demás) y el propio
entorno normativo (los amigos y familia que apoyan la ciudadanı́a global) predijeron la identificación con los
ciudadanos globales, y la ciudadanı́a global predijo los valores prosociales de empatı́a intergrupal, valoración de

la diversidad, justicia social, sustentabilidad ambiental, ayuda intergrupal y una sentida responsabilidad de
actuar para la mejora del mundo. La relación entre los antecedentes (entorno normativo y conciencia global) y
los resultados (valores prosociales) estuvo mediada por la identificación con los ciudadanos globales. Se discuten

la relación entre estos resultados y otros resultados de investigaciones psicológicas, las implicaciones de la
ciudadanı́a global para otros ámbitos académicos y los futuros lineamientos de investigación. La ciudadanı́a
global destaca el efecto único de adoptar una perspectiva global frente a una multitud de temas pertinentes a la
psicologı́a de las acciones cotidianas, los entornos y la identidad.

Spurred by globalization, the concept of global
citizenship identity has become a focus of theoriz-
ing across various disciplines (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a). In psychology, with a few excep-
tions (e.g., immigration, self-construal), little
research has empirically explored the vast effects
of globalization on identity and psychological
functioning. Calls for greater attention to the
effects of cultural (Adams & Markus, 2004) and
global (Arnett, 2002) influences on everyday life
have been relatively ignored. In the present paper
we cross disciplinary boundaries to draw on
theoretical discussions of global citizenship, and
utilize a social identity perspective (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987) to add conceptual and structural
clarity to the antecedents and outcomes of taking a
globalized perspective of the world.
Clarifying the concept of global citizenship is

difficult due to the use of seemingly synonymous
terms to describe a superordinate global identity,
and the influence of theorists’ disciplinary per-
spectives in defining the construct. A multitude of
labels are used to describe inclusive forms of
citizenship, such as universal, world, postnational,
and transnational citizenship. While some theorists
use the terms interchangeably, others make clear
distinctions. For example, Golmohamad (2008)
equates global citizenship with international and
world citizenship, while Haugestad (2004) suggests
that a global citizen is concerned about social
justice, a ‘‘world citizen’’ is concerned about trade

and mobility, and an ‘‘earth citizen’’ is concerned
about the environment.

The confusion regarding global citizenship is
exacerbated as theorists draw from diverse dis-
ciplines and perspectives (e.g., political, theologi-
cal, developmental, educational) to define the
construct. For example, theorists in philosophy
may highlight morality and ethics, education
theorists may highlight global awareness, while
others may eschew the concept altogether as
idealist and untenable because there is no concrete
legal recognition of global group membership (for
a review of competing conceptions of global
identity see Delanty, 2000; Dower, 2002a). In an
effort to integrate the various disciplinary framings
and highlight the commonalities in prior discus-
sions of global citizenship, Reysen, Pierce,
Spencer, and Katzarska-Miller (2012b) reviewed
global education literature and interviews with
self-described global citizens, and indeed found
consistent themes regarding the antecedents
(global awareness, normative environment) and
values posited to be outcomes of global citizenship
(intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social
justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup
helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the
betterment of the world).

For the purpose of the present research, we
define global citizenship, as well as the related
constructs identified by Reysen and colleagues
(2012b), by drawing from prior interdisciplinary
theoretical discussions. Global awareness is defined


as knowledge of the world and one’s interconnect-
edness with others (Dower, 2002a; Oxfam, 1997).
Normative environment is defined as people and
settings (e.g., friends, family, school) that are
infused with global citizen related cultural patterns
and values (Pike, 2008). Intergroup empathy is
defined as a felt connection and concern for people
outside one’s ingroup (Golmohamad, 2008;
Oxfam, 1997). Valuing diversity is defined as an
interest in and appreciation for the diverse cultures
of the world (Dower 2002b; Golmohamad, 2008).
Social justice is defined as attitudes concerning
human rights and equitable and fair treatment of
all humans (Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Heater, 2000).
Environmental sustainability is defined as the belief
that humans and nature are connected, combined
with a felt obligation to protect of the natural
environment (Heater, 2000). Intergroup helping is
defined as aid to others outside one’s group, and is
enacted through behaviors such as donating to
charity, volunteering locally, and working with
transnational organizations to help others globally
(Dower, 2002a). Responsibility to act is defined as
an acceptance of a moral duty or obligation to act
for the betterment of the world (Dower, 2002a,
2002b). In line with themes found in prior
theorizing, we adopt the definition of global
citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing
cultural diversity while promoting social justice
and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act (Snider, Reysen, &
Katzarska-Miller, in press).


To empirically examine the antecedents and out-
comes of global citizenship, we utilize a social
identity perspective (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Individuals feel
different levels of identification (i.e., felt connec-
tion) with social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Each group has a prototype or set of interrelated
attributes (i.e., group content), that are specific to
that group (Hogg & Smith, 2007). When a
particular group membership is salient, the more
strongly one identifies with the group the more
depersonalization and self-stereotyping occur in
line with the group’s content such as norms,
beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviors (Turner et al.,
1987), and personality (Jenkins, Reysen, &
Katzarska-Miller, 2012). In effect, when an iden-
tity is salient, one’s degree of identification with
the group predicts adherence to the group’s
normative content (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Turner
et al., 1987).


Following a social identity perspective, we argue
that membership in the group ‘‘global citizen’’ is
psychological in nature. As suggested by
Golmohamad (2008), global citizenship is a mind-
set or attitude one takes. In effect, individuals
perceive themselves to be global citizens and can
feel a psychological connection with global citizens
as a group. Consequently, greater


with global citizens should predict endorsement of
the group content (i.e., norms, values, behaviors)
that differs from the content of other groups (e.g.,
American). To test this notion, Reysen and
colleagues (2012b) asked participants to rate
endorsement of prosocial values (e.g., intergroup
helping), and identification with global citizens,
cosmopolitans, world citizens, international citi-
zens, and humans. Global citizenship identifica-
tion predicted endorsement of intergroup
empathy, valuing diversity, environmental sustain-
ability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility
to act, beyond identification with the other super-
ordinate categories.
Additional studies showed that global citizen-

ship identification predicted participants’ degree of
endorsement of prosocial values and related
behaviors (e.g., community service, recycling,
attending cultural events) beyond identification
with subgroup identities (e.g., nation, state,
occupation). Across the studies, global citizenship
content (i.e., prosocial values) was shown to differ
from the content of other social identities. In
effect, there is converging evidence that the content
of global citizenship is related to the prosocial
values (e.g., social justice, environmentalism)
posited in the literature, and global citizenship
identification predicts these prosocial values
beyond identification with other superordinate
and subgroup identities.


As the world has become increasingly connected,
exposure to global cultures affords individuals
opportunities to develop global identities (Norris,
2000). To examine the influence of cultural context
on global citizenship identity, Katzarska-Miller,
Reysen, Kamble, and Vithoji (in press) assessed
participants’ perception of their normative envir-
onment (i.e., friends and family express an
injunctive norm that one ought to be a global
citizen), global citizenship identification, and


endorsement of prosocial values in samples from
Bulgaria, India, and the United States.
Participants sampled in the US rated their
normative environment and global citizenship
identification lower than participants sampled in
the other two countries. Mediation analyses
showed that the relationship between cultural
comparisons (US vs. Bulgaria, US vs. India) and
global citizenship identification was mediated by
participants’ perception that others in their nor-
mative environment valued global citizenship (i.e.,
participants’ environment contained an injunctive
norm that prescribes being a global citizen).
Further analyses showed that global citizenship
identification mediated the relationship between
cultural comparison and social justice, intergroup
empathy and helping, and concern for the envir-
onment. In other words, one’s normative environ-
ment is a strong predictor of global citizenship
identification, and global citizenship identification
mediates the relationship between cultural setting
and prosocial values.
Global awareness represents knowledge of

global issues and one’s interconnectedness with
others. Gibson, Reysen, and Katzarska-Miller
(2011) randomly assigned participants to write
about meaningful relationships (interdependent
self-construal prime) or not (control) prior to
rating their degree of global citizenship identifica-
tion and prosocial values. Participants primed with
interdependence to others showed greater global
citizenship identification and prosocial values
compared to participants in the control condition.
The relationship between priming interdependence
(vs. no prime) and global citizenship identification
was mediated by students’ perception of their
normative environment. Furthermore, global citi-
zenship identification mediated the relationship
between the interdependence prime (vs. no prime)
and endorsement of prosocial values. In effect,
raising participants’ awareness of interconnected-
ness with others led to greater endorsement of
prosocial values through a greater connection with
global citizens.
Conversely, raising the saliency of global com-

petition (related to an independent self-construal)
can reduce identification with global citizens.
Snider and colleagues (in press) randomly assigned
college students to read and respond about
globalization leading to the job market becoming
more culturally diverse, more competitive, or did
not read a vignette. Participants in the competition
condition rated global citizenship identification,
academic motivation, valuing diversity, intergroup
helping, and willingness to protest unethical
corporations lower than participants in the

culturally diverse framing condition.
Furthermore, participants exposed to the competi-
tion vignette were more willing to reject outgroups
than those in the diversity framed condition.
Students’ degree of global citizenship identification
mediated the relationship between globalization
message framing and academic motivation, valu-
ing diversity, intergroup helping, and willingness
to protest unethical corporations.

To summarize, past research has shown that
one’s normative environment (friends, family) and
global awareness (knowledge and interconnected-
ness with others) predict global citizenship identi-
fication. Global citizenship identification is
consistently found to mediate the relationship
between normative environment and global aware-
ness, and degree of endorsement of the group’s
content (i.e., prosocial values). Therefore, there is
considerable evidence to suggest a model of global
citizenship in which normative environment and
global awareness predict global citizenship, and
global citizenship predicts endorsement of proso-
cial values.


In the present paper we test a model of the
antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship
identity. Following past theorizing (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008;
Schattle, 2008) and research (Gibson et al., 2011;
Katzarska-Miller et al., in press; Reysen et al.,
2012b; Snider et al., in press) we hypothesize a
structural model of global citizenship with one’s
normative environment (i.e., close others endorse
being a global citizen) and global awareness
(knowledge and interconnectedness with others)
predicting identification with global citizens, and
global citizenship identification predicting endor-
sement of prosocial values that represent the
group’s content (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainabil-
ity, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to
act). In Study 1 we test the proposed structural
model, and in Study 2 we replicate the model with
a second sample of



The purpose of Study 1 is to test the predicted
model of global citizenship. Past theory and
research suggest that one’s normative environment
and global awareness predict greater global
citizenship identification, and identification with
global citizens predicts prosocial value outcomes.


In effect, global citizenship is expected to mediate
the relationship between antecedents (normative
environment and global awareness) and outcomes
(prosocial values).


Participants and procedure

Undergraduate college participants (N ¼ 726,
57.6% women) completed the survey for either
course credit toward a psychology class or extra
credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age
was 28.90 years (SD ¼ 9.98). Participants rated
items assessing normative environment, global
awareness, global citizenship identification, inter-
group empathy, valuing diversity, social justice,
environmental sustainability, intergroup helping,
felt responsibility to act, and demographic infor-
mation. All items used a seven-point Likert-type
scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly


Normative environment. Two items (‘‘Most
people who are important to me think that being
a global citizen is desirable,’’ ‘‘If I called myself a
global citizen most people who are important to
me would approve’’) were combined to assess the
perception that others in one’s environment believe
that people ought to identify as global citizens
(injunctive norm) (a ¼ .82).

Global awareness. Four items (‘‘I understand
how the various cultures of this world interact
socially,’’ ‘‘I am aware that my actions in my local
environment may affect people in other countries,’’
‘‘I try to stay informed of current issues that
impact international relations,’’ ‘‘I believe that I
am connected to people in other countries, and my
actions can affect them’’) were combined to form a
global awareness index (a ¼ .80).

Global citizenship identification. Two items
(‘‘I would describe myself as a global citizen,’’
‘‘I strongly identify with global citizens’’) were
adapted from prior research (see Reysen, Pierce,
Katzarska-Miller, & Nesbit, 2012a) to assess
global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89).

Intergroup empathy. Two items (‘‘I am able to
empathize with people from other countries,’’ ‘‘It
is easy for me to put myself in someone else’s shoes
regardless of what country they are from’’) were
used to assess intergroup empathy (a ¼ .76).

Valuing diversity. Two items (‘‘I would like to
join groups that emphasize getting to know people
from different countries,’’ ‘‘I am interested in
learning about the many cultures that have existed
in this world’’) were combined to assess valuing
diversity (a ¼ .91).

Social justice. Two items (‘‘Those countries that
are well off should help people in countries who
are less fortunate,’’ ‘‘Basic services such as health
care, clean water, food, and legal assistance should
be available to everyone, regardless of what
country they live in’’) were combined to assess
belief in social justice (a ¼ .74).

Environmental sustainability. Two items
(‘‘People have a responsibility to conserve natural
resources to foster a sustainable environment,’’
‘‘Natural resources should be used primarily to
provide for basic needs rather than material
wealth’’) were combined to assess belief in
environmental sustainability (a ¼ .76).

Intergroup helping. Two items (‘‘If I had the
opportunity, I would help others who are in need
regardless of their nationality,’’ ‘‘If I could, I
would dedicate my life to helping others no matter
what country they are from’’) were adapted from
past research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) to
assess intergroup helping (a ¼ .76).

Responsibility to act. Two items (‘‘Being
actively involved in global issues is my responsi-
bility,’’ ‘‘It is my responsibility to understand and
respect cultural differences across the globe to the
best of my abilities’’) were combined to assess felt
responsibility to act (a ¼ .78).


All of the assessed variables were moderately to
strongly positively correlated with one another (see

Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and zero-
order correlations between the assessed variables).
We conducted a series of structural equation
models using AMOS 19 to examine the predicted
model’s fit, subsequent modification, and the
mediating role of global citizenship identification.
Due to the related nature of the prosocial values,
we allowed the disturbance terms for the variables
to covary. We evaluated model fit using the
normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit
index (CFI), for which values greater than .90 are
acceptable. Following Browne and Cudeck (1993),


we set the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA) value of .08 as an acceptable level.
Items loaded well on each of the factors,

including normative environment (.83, .84), global
awareness (.49 to .91), global citizen identification
(.86, .91), intergroup empathy (.85, .74), valuing
diversity (.96, .86), social justice (.78, .76), environ-
mental sustainability (.80, .76), intergroup helping
(.78, .80), and responsibility to act (.78, .82). The
predicted model adequately fit the data, w2(146) ¼
820.24, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(075; .085),
NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922. However, examination of
the modification indices suggested allowing two
of the global awareness item errors to covary.
Following this allowance, the model difference was
significant (Dw2(1) ¼ 211.70, p 5 .001), and the fit
indices showed the model appropriately fit the data,
w2(145) ¼ 608.54, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .066,
CI(.061; .072), NFI ¼ .931, CFI ¼ .946.1
As shown in Figure 1, normative environment

and global awareness were positively related (r ¼ .51,
p 5 .001). Normative environment (b ¼ .78,
p 5 .001, CI¼ .701 to .858) and global awareness
(b ¼ .20, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .104 to .287) predicted
global citizenship identification (significance

computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping with
5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals). Global
citizenship identification predicted intergroup
empathy (b ¼ .53, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .445 to .606),
valuing diversity (b ¼ .61, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .542 to
.667), social justice (b ¼ .53, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .439 to
.608), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .50,
p 5 .001, CI ¼ .418 to .581), intergroup helping
(b ¼ .51, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .419 to .594), and felt
responsibility to act (b ¼ .70, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .633
to 769). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000
iterations), the indirect effect of normative environ-
ment and global awareness on the prosocial values
(e.g., social justice) was reliably carried by global
citizenship identification (see Table 2 for standar-
dized betas of indirect effects and 95% bias-
corrected confidence intervals; all indirect effects
were significant at p 5 .001, two-tailed).


The purpose of Study 1 was to examine our
predicted model of global citizenship identifica-
tion. Following a small modification, the model

Study 1: Correlations and means (standard deviations)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean (SD)

1. Normative environment 1.0 4.58


2. Global awareness .44 1.0 4.76


3. Global citizenship


.75 .53 1.0 4.57


4. Intergroup empathy .34 .54 .42 1.0 4.98


5. Valuing diversity .47 .59 .51 .49 1.0 4.84


6. Social justice .39 .33 .41 .40 .44 1.0 5.62


7. Environmental


.38 .36 .38 .40 .42 .63 1.0 5.63


8. Intergroup helping .37 .50 .39 .55 .54 .53 .47 1.0 5.54


9. Responsibility to act .49 .59 .56 .58 .65 .51 .54 .63 1.0 5.09


All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.

Contact the first author for detailed model information, including item loadings and disturbance term intercorrelations. In

Studies 1 and 2 we also examined the reversed causal model, with the outcomes (prosocial values) predicting antecedents
(global awareness, normative environment) through global citizenship identification. The reversed model showed relatively
appropriate fit to the data in Study 1, w2(147) ¼ 821.16, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(.074; .085), NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922, and
Study 2, w2(147) ¼ 1299.96, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .081, CI(.077; .085), NFI ¼ .903, CFI ¼ .913. However, in Study 1, the final
predicted model showed lower AIC (738.54) and ECVI (1.02, CI ¼ .919; 1.13) values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 947.16,
ECVI ¼ 1.31, CI ¼ 1.19; 1.44). In Study 2, the predicted model showed lower AIC (1252.35) and ECVI (1.04, CI ¼ .958; 1.14)
values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 1425.96, ECVI ¼ 1.19, CI ¼ 1.10; 1.29). Thus, in both studies the predicted model
showed a better fit than the reversed causality model.


showed appropriate fit to the data. As hypothe-
sized, normative environment and global aware-
ness predicted global citizenship identification,
which then predicted greater endorsement of
prosocial values (e.g., environmental sustainabil-
ity). We designed Study 2 to replicate the
final adjusted model with a second sample of



The purpose of Study 2 is to replicate the final
adjusted model from Study 1 in a separate sample
of participants. We predict the model will show an
appropriate fit to the data similar to Study 1.

Participants and procedure

Undergraduate college participants (N ¼ 1201,
62.8% women) completed the survey for either
course credit toward a psychology class or extra
credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age
was 25.86 years (SD ¼ 9.24). The procedure and
materials were identical to Study 1. The scales of
normative environment (a ¼ .81), global awareness
(a ¼ .80), global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89),
intergroup empathy (a ¼ .80), valuing diversity
(a ¼ .82), social justice (a ¼ .73), environmental
sustainability (a ¼ .78), intergroup helping
(a ¼ .77), and responsibility to act (a ¼ .79)
showed appropriate reliability.

Study 1: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification

Normative environment Global awareness

Variable Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper

Empathy .41 .348 .486 .10 .053 .163

Diversity .48 .418 .537 .12 .061 .183

Social justice .41 .340 .492 .10 .054 .160

Sustainability .39 .323 .467 .10 .052 .153

Helping .40 .328 .476 .10 .051 .159

Responsibility .55 .484 .622 .14 .072 .211

Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects

are significant at p 5 .001.


To Act





Social Justice












Figure 1. Study 1 final model standardized betas, *p 5 .001.


All of the assessed variables were moderately to
strongly positively correlated with one another (see

Table 3 for means, standard deviations, and zero-
order correlations between the assessed variables).

Items loaded well on each of the factors, including:

normative environment (.79, .86), global awareness
(.50 to .89), global citizen identification (.89, .89),

intergroup empathy (.88, .77), valuing diversity
(.83, .85), social justice (.73, .79), environmental

sustainability (.83, .77), intergroup helping
(.82, .78), and responsibility to act (.79, .83). The

model fit the data, w2(145) ¼ 1122.35, p 5 .001;
RMSEA ¼ .075, CI(.071; .079), NFI ¼ .916,
CFI ¼ .926. Similarly to Study 1, normative envir-
onment and global awareness were positively

related (r ¼ .47, p 5 .001).

Normative environment

(b ¼ .74, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .670 to .801) and global

awareness (b ¼ .21, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .126 to .280)
predicted global citizenship identification (signifi-
cance computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping
with 5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals).
Global citizenship identification predicted inter-
group empathy (b ¼ .49, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .425 to
.553), valuing diversity (b ¼ .49, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .424
to .556), social justice (b ¼ .40, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .322
to .474), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .42,
p 5 .001, CI ¼ .340 to .486), intergroup helping
(b ¼ .41, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .339 to .483), and felt
responsibility to act (b ¼ .59, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .517
to .652). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000
iterations), the indirect effect of normative envir-
onment and global awareness on the prosocial
values (e.g., intergroup helping) was again reliably
carried by global citizenship identification (see
Table 4 for standardized betas of indirect effects
and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals; all

Study 2: Correlations and means (standard deviations)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean (SD)

1. Normative environment 1.0 4.37


2. Global awareness .43 1.0 4.75


3. Global citizenship

.70 .49 1.0 4.26


4. Intergroup empathy .33 .51 .39 1.0 4.85


5. Valuing diversity .35 .56 .39 .46 1.0 4.96


6. Social justice .28 .34 .30 .36 .40 1.0 5.57


7. Environmental sustainability .33 .43 .31 .42 .40 .57 1.0 5.64


8. Intergroup helping .28 .46 .32 .53 .56 .52 .49 1.0 5.54


9. Responsibility to act .41 .62 .47 .53 .61 .41 .51 .61 1.0 4.96


All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.

Study 2: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification

Normative environment Global awareness
Variable Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper

Empathy .36 .313 .415 .10 .058 .147

Diversity .36 .310 .416 .10 .058 .148

Social justice .29 .235 .353 .08 .048 .124

Sustainability .31 .249 .360 .09 .049 .129

Helping .30 .251 .359 .09 .049 .129

Responsibility .43 .379 .487 .12 .070 .175

Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects
are significant at p 5 .001.


indirect effects were significant at p 5 .001, two-


The purpose of the present studies was to test a
model of the antecedents and outcomes of global
citizenship identity. As hypothesized, one’s nor-
mative environment and global awareness pre-
dicted global citizenship identification, and one’s
connection to global citizens predicted endorse-
ment of prosocial values that represent the content
of the group: intergroup empathy, valuing diver-
sity, social justice, environmental sustainability,
intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act.
Global citizenship identification mediated the
relationship between normative environment and
global awareness and prosocial values. Overall, the
proposed structural model of the antecedents and
outcomes of global citizenship was supported.

Clarifying global citizenship

Arguments about the meaning of global citizen-
ship across various disciplines have resulted in a
state of confusion and a lack of definition.
Converging on a definition is difficult given the
variety of synonymous category labels (e.g.,
cosmopolitan, planetary citizen), and theorists’
tendency to highlight certain components (e.g.,
social justice) over others (e.g., environmental
sustainability). We adopt the definition of global
citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing
cultural diversity, while promoting social justice
and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act (Snider et al., in press). The
model of global citizenship tested in the present
paper supports each aspect of this definition.
Individuals who are highly identified global
citizens are globally aware, express caring and
empathy for others, embrace cultural diversity,
promote social justice and environmentally sus-
tainable living, and feel a responsibility to act to
help others.

The model of global citizenship also supports a
wealth of theorizing (Davies, 2006; Dower, 2002a,
2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008; Schattle, 2008)
and research examining global citizenship (Gibson
et al., 2011; Katzarska-Miller et al., in press;
Reysen et al., 2012b; Snider et al., in press). The
consistent pattern across the literature and
research shows global awareness and normative
environment as antecedents to global citizenship,
and the prosocial values as components of the
content of global citizen identity. Utilizing a social

identity perspective, the present research is the first
to show that the antecedents to global citizenship
predict one’s degree of identification with the
category, and global citizenship identification
predicts endorsement of prosocial values hypothe-
sized to represent the content of the group identity.
Thus, while past theorizing has highlighted com-
ponents of the model, the present results show the
pathways to identification with global citizens, and
the prosocial outcomes to feeling connected to the
superordinate global category.

Global awareness and superordinate

The present model shows global awareness as an
antecedent to identification with global citizens.
As noted by Dower (2002a), all humans are global
citizens; however, some individuals lack the
awareness to recognize their connection with
humanity as a whole. Thus, global citizenship
represents an inclusive group membership with all
humans. A wealth of social psychological research
supports the notion that categorizing with an
inclusive superordinate category results in proso-
cial values and behaviors (for a review see Crisp &
Hewstone, 2007). For example, salience of one’s
human identity leads to greater forgiveness to an
outgroup for past harm. However, human identity
salience can also reduce the motivation of victim
groups to act collectively, and salience of bene-
volent (vs. hostile) human group content can lead
perpetrators to legitimize harmful actions against
outgroups and retain negative attitudes (see
Greenway, Quinn, & Louis, 2011).
We suggest that inherent in the content of global

citizen identity is the notion of valuing diversity
and multiculturalism (i.e., recognition of multiple
identities) that is absent in human identity content.
Indeed, Reysen et al. (2012b) found global citizen-
ship identification to uniquely predict prosocial
values beyond identification with the category
label human, as well as other superordinate groups
(e.g., international citizen). In other words, global
citizen content differs from other superordinate
group labels, and raising the saliency of global
citizen will affect participants differently than
saliency of human due to the differing group
content. The present results support past research
by showing that the extent to which individuals are
aware of the larger world and their place in that
world predict prosocial values (including valuing
diversity and intergroup helping) through greater
identification with the superordinate category
‘‘global citizen.’’


Normative environment

A second antecedent to global citizenship identi-
fication is the extent that one’s normative environ-
ment supports aspects of global citizenship.
Results from the present set of studies show that
perceiving valued others embedded in one’s every-
day settings (e.g., friends, family) as endorsing
global citizenship (injunctive norm) predicts iden-
tifying with the group. The results support past
research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) that
shows the relationship between cultural context
and identification with global citizens is mediated
by the degree others in one’s normative environ-
ment prescribe the identity. Global citizen theor-
ists, rightly, argue for greater integration and
support for global citizenship education between
school and community (Dower, 2002a, 2002b).
Embedding injunctive norms in the everyday lives
of students may lead to greater identification with
others around the world and subsequent endorse-
ment of prosocial values and behaviors.
The strong influence of social norms on

attitudes and behavior has a long history in
psychology. Individuals shape and are shaped by
the cultural patterns that are produced, repro-
duced, and modified by individuals in settings in
which they are embedded. In other words, every-
day environments (e.g., home, school, work, cities)
are intentionally constructed places that hold the
cultural patterns from prior generations, and
engaging in the settings can influence individuals
through implicit conditioning and priming of
everyday actions (Adams & Markus, 2004).
Cultural patterns and norms afford various
identities to individuals, and to the extent that
these identities are valued, can influence one’s
degree of identification (Reysen & Levine, 2012).
Thus, to the extent that patterns related to global
citizenship are embedded in one’s environment
(Adams & Markus, 2004), and others within that
environment endorse those beliefs, greater identi-
fication with global citizens can be expected.

Global citizenship and prosocial identity

Global citizenship identity content contains values
and behaviors (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainabil-
ity, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to
act) that are typically examined in isolation with
one another in psychology. The present model
highlights the interconnected nature of these
prosocial values and their relation to social

identity processes. For example, work on inter-
group empathy finds that empathetic feelings for a
person in need are reserved for ingroup members
(Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006). Global
citizen identity relates to empathetic concern for
ingroup and outgroup members. Priming shared
human experiences reduces prejudice toward out-
groups and increases support for peace (Motyl
et al., 2011). Similarly, global citizenship relates to
valuing diversity, reduced prejudice toward out-
groups, and greater endorsement of world peace
(Katzarska-Miller, Barnsley, & Reysen, 2012;
Reysen et al., 2012b).

Groups, and social and moral norms, influence
one’s personal values and subsequent intention to
engage in environmental behaviors (Bamberg &
Möser, 2007). Global citizenship identity content
includes a desire to act for environmentally
sustainable societies (Reysen et al., 2012b). The
relationship between salience of relationships and
helping others is mediated by one’s felt intercon-
nectedness with others (Pavey, Greitemeyer, &
Sparks, 2011). Similarly, global citizenship is
related to a variety (i.e., charity, volunteering) of
helping behaviors (Reysen et al., 2012b), and the
relationship between global awareness (knowledge
and interconnectedness with others) and inter-
group helping is mediated by global citizenship
identification (Gibson et al., 2011). Research
shows the importance of social identities in
predicting collective action (van Zomeren,
Postmes, & Spears, 2008). As shown in the present
model, and in past research (Gibson et al., 2011;
Reysen et al., 2012b), global citizens report a
responsibility to act for the betterment of human-
ity. Overall, the research described above exam-
ined prosocial values separately, while the present
research integrates these disparate areas of
research as outcomes of a psychological connec-
tion with others in the world.

Implications and future directions of
global citizenship

Beyond the prosocial values that represent the
content of global citizen identity, the present
research has implications for a variety of areas
within psychology and other disciplines (e.g.,
education, political science, business). For exam-
ple, psychological concepts of moral identity and
critical moral consciousness are related to empa-
thy, social justice, and a moral responsibility to act
(Mustakova-Possardt, 2004). The motivation
behind a moral identity is posited to be a spiritual
search for truth, similar to the concept of a


religious quest motivation. In a recent series of

studies, Katzarska-Miller et al. (2012) found that

global citizenship identification is closely related to

a religious quest motivation. Global citizenship is

also similar to past findings examining ‘‘world-

mindedness,’’ which is positively related to endor-

sement for collective action and suggested to lead

to greater felt connection with the global commu-

nity (Der-Karabetian, 1992). Within education,

cooperative learning highlights students’ intercon-

nectedness with others and results in greater

empathy and perspective taking, justice beliefs,
and wellbeing (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). The

underlying mechanism behind cooperative learn-

ing may reside in the salience of interconnected-

ness with others, similar to the interconnectedness

component predicting global citizenship.
Based on social identity perspective, global

citizenship has implications for intergroup rela-

tions. As previously noted, superordinate group

salience can have beneficial but also negative

effects on intergroup bias (see Crisp & Hewstone,

2007). The present model shows global citizenship

identification predicting greater intergroup empa-

thy, helping, and valuing diversity. In a recent

study, Jenkins and Reysen (2011) presented
participants with either morally positive or nega-

tive information about an outgroup prior to rating

the perception of the outgroup and endorsed

actions. Participants’ prior rating of global citizen-

ship identification moderated the relationship of

valence of information on outgroup attitudes such

that when the outgroup was portrayed negatively

(vs. positively), highly identified global citizens

were less likely to view the outgroup as an enemy,

which resulted in a lower desire to avoid the

Global citizenship has implications for research

examining immigrants and global travelers. For
example, Berry’s model of acculturation strategies

(e.g., Berry, 2001) has recently been adapted to

account for a larger global identity (Banerjee &

German, 2007). Work on bicultural identities (e.g.,

Chen, Benet-Martı́nez, & Bond, 2008) shows that

bicultural individuals who integrate disparate

cultural identities show better psychological

adjustment in their new environments. Perhaps

an umbrella identity can aid immigrants by

providing an inclusive identity that allows for

identification with both new and prior subgroup

identities. In effect, global citizenship may provide

global sojourners with a way to reduce the

perceived distance between cultures by simulta-

neously identifying with the larger superordinate
global citizen category.

Unethical companies can elicit moral outrage
and protest behaviors on the part of consumers
(Cronin, Reysen, & Branscombe, in press). In
response, corporations endorse and advertise
corporate social responsibility, regardless of
whether they actually perform responsible business
practices, which affects how consumers view those
corporations. Consumer reactions to corporate
practices may depend on consumers’ global
citizenship identification and interact with whether
the corporations’ actions reflect global citizen
values. Corporations are also pushing to hire
employees with a greater global focus and open-
ness to new ideas and experiences. Global citizen-
ship identity is related to greater intellectualism
and openness (Jenkins et al., 2012) beyond
identification with other identities (e.g., nation,
human). Perhaps the characteristics companies
desire in new employees are those associated with
global citizen identity. The present model of global
citizenship holds implications for how companies
present their public image, how consumers react,
and employee hiring and training.


Although the present set of studies is novel in
showing antecedents and outcomes of identifying
with global citizens, there are limitations that
should be considered when interpreting the results.
First, participants in the present study consisted of
American undergraduate college students attend-
ing a university in northeastern Texas. As shown
by Pippa Norris’ (2000) examination of World
Values Survey results, younger individuals are
more likely than older adults to feel an attachment
with the world as a whole. While similar patterns
of association between global citizenship identifi-
cation and endorsement of prosocial values have
been found in a community sample including older
adults (Reysen et al., 2010) and participants
sampled in other countries (Katzarska-Miller
et al., in press), caution should be taken in
generalizing the results. Future research can
examine the model tested in the present paper in
other cultural contexts and demographically vari-
able populations. Second, the measures used in the
present studies are subjective self-reports rather
than objective behavioral measures. Future
research should examine whether global citizen-
ship identification is related to prosocial behaviors
when the identity is salient.
Third, the present studies are correlational. The

purpose of modeling the antecedents and out-
comes of global citizenship is to direct future


research endeavors that can experimentally manip-
ulate aspects of the model. Fourth, we implied a
causal direction of antecedents leading to global
citizenship, and global citizenship leading to out-
comes. However, practicing global citizen oriented
activities (e.g., community service) may also lead
to greater global citizenship (e.g., Schattle, 2008).
While we examined, and found, the reverse
causality model to show poorer fit to the data
than the predicted model, future research examin-
ing aspects of the model (e.g., manipulating
responsibility and examining the effect on global
citizenship identification) is needed.


Globalization has encouraged many disciplines to
examine the nature of citizenship, identity, and
more generally, the effects of increasing intercon-
nectedness with others. One outcome is the
affordance of identifying the self with a global,
rather than national, identity—global citizen. In
two studies, we tested a model of the antecedents
and outcomes of identification with global citizens.
Global awareness and one’s normative environ-
ment predict identification with global citizens,
and global citizenship predicts prosocial values of
intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social
justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup
helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the
betterment of the world. The relationship between
normative environment and global awareness and
prosocial values is mediated by global citizenship
identification. Global citizenship highlights the
unique effect of taking a global perspective on a
multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of
everyday actions and environments (e.g., helping
behaviors). The field of psychology has relatively
ignored the exponential cultural and social change
and impact of globalization. Global citizenship
exemplifies the recognition of the impact of
globalization on identity and subsequent prosocial
effects on attitudes and behaviors.

Manuscript received March 2012

Revised manuscript accepted May 2012

First published online July 2012


Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a
conception of culture suitable for a social psychology
of culture. In M. Schaller, & C. S. Crandall (Eds.),
The psychological foundations of culture
(pp. 335–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization.
American Psychologist, 57, 774–783.

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after
Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-
analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-envir-
onmental behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27, 14–25.

Banerjee, P., & German, M. (2007, October).
Amalgamated religious–ethnic identities: The promise
of an emerging postmodern paradigm. Paper presented
at Intellectbase International Consortium conference,
Atlanta, GA.

Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615–631.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative
ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen, S. X., Benet-Martı́nez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008).
Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological
adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration-
based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal
of Personality, 76, 803–837.

Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social
categorization. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 163–254.

Cronin, T., Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R.
(in press). Wal-Mart’s conscientious objectors:
Perceived illegitimacy, moral anger and retaliatory
consumer behavior. Basic and Applied Social

Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or
framework for action? Educational Review, 58, 5–25.

Delanty, G. (2000). Citizenship in a global age: Society,
culture, politics. Buckingham, UK: Open University

Der-Karabetian, A. (1992). World-mindedness and the
nuclear threat: A multinational study. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 293–308.

Dower, N. (2002a). Global citizenship: Yes or no?
In N. Dower, & J. Williams (Eds.), Global citizenship:
A critical introduction (pp. 30–40). New York, NY:

Dower, N. (2002b). Global ethics and global citizenship.
In N. Dower, & J. Williams (Eds.), Global citizenship:
A critical introduction (pp. 146–157). New York, NY:

Gibson, S. A., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2011).
Priming interdependence and global citizenship.
Manuscript in preparation.

Golmohamad, M. (2008). Global citizenship: From
theory to practice, unlocking hearts and minds.
In M. A. Peters, H. Blee, & A. Britton (Eds.),
Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and
pedagogy (pp. 521–533). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Greenway, K. H., Quinn, E. A., & Louis, W. R. (2011).
Appealing to common humanity increases forgive-
ness but reduces collective action among victims of
historical atrocities. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 569–573.

Haugestad, A. K. (2004). Norwegians as global neigh-
bors and global citizens. In A. K. Haugestad, &
J. D. Wolfhorst (Eds.), Future as fairness: Ecological
justice and global citizenship (pp. 218–240).
New York, NY: Rodopi.


Heater, D. (2000). Does cosmopolitan thinking have a
future? Review of International Studies, 26, 179–197.

Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social
context: A social identity perspective. European
Review of Social Psychology, 18, 89–131.

Jenkins, S., & Reysen, S. (2011, November). A
mediated moderation model of outgroup perception
and avoidance. Poster presented at the 9th annual
Pathways Student Research Symposium, College
Station, TX.

Jenkins, S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012).
Ingroup identification and personality. Journal of
Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Relations and
Identity, 5, 9–16.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010). The impact of
social interdependence on values education and
student wellbeing. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, &
N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook
on values education and student wellbeing
(pp. 825–848). New York, NY: Springer.

Katzarska-Miller, I., Barnsley, C. A., & Reysen, S.
(2012). Global citizenship, religiosity, and political
orientation. Manuscript in preparation.

Katzarska-Miller, I., Reysen, S., Kamble, S. V., &
Vithoji, N. (in press). Cross-national differences in
global citizenship: Comparison of Bulgaria, India, and
the United States. Journal of Globalization Studies.

Motyl, M., Hart, J., Pyszczynski, T., Weise, D.,
Maxfield, M., & Siedel, A. (2011). Subtle priming
of shared human experiences eliminates threat-
induced negativity toward Arabs, immigrants, and
peace-making. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47, 1179–1184.

Mustakova-Possardt, E. (2004). Education for critical
moral consciousness. Journal of Moral Education, 33,

Norris, P. (2000). Global governance and cosmopolitan
citizens. In J. S. Nye Jr, & J. D. Donahue (Eds.),
Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 155–177).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Oxfam (1997). A curriculum for global citizenship.
Oxford, UK: Oxfam.

Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011).
Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives
and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37, 905–917.

Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating
for global citizenship. In A. A. Abdi, &
L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and
global citizenship (pp. 223–237). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Reysen, S., & Levine, R. V. (2012). People, culture, and
place: An integrative approach to predicting helping
toward strangers. In P. J. Rentfrow (Ed.),
Psychological geography. Washington, DC: APA.

Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Katzarska-Miller, I., & Nesbit, S.
(2012a). Measuring ingroup identification: The single
item ingroup identification scale. Manuscript in

Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Spencer, C., & Katzarska-Miller,
I. (2012b) Exploring the content of global citizenship
identity. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Snider, J. S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I.
(in press). How we frame the message of
globalization matters. Journal of Applied Social

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006).
Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of
group membership. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943–956.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory
of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin, &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D.,
& Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social
group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK:

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008).
Toward an integrative social identity model of
collective action: A quantitative research synthesis
of three socio-psychological perspectives.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.


Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Educational Philosophy and Theor y, Vol. 37, No. 4, 200


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.Oxford, UKEPATEducational Philosophy and Theory0013-1857© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of AustralasiaSeptember 2005374Original ArticleGlobalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism

Marianna Papastephanou

Globalisation, Globalism and
Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal





University of Cyprus


In this paper, I discuss globalisation as an empirical reality that is in a complex relation
to its corresponding discourse and in a critical distance from the cosmopolitan ideal. I argue
that failure to grasp the distinctions between globalisation, globalism, and cosmopolitanism
derives from mistaken identifications of the Is with the Ought and leads to naïve


ethnocentric glorifications of the potentialities of globalisation. Conversely, drawing the
appropriate distinctions helps us articulate a more critical approach to contemporary cultural
phenomena, and reconsider the current place and potential role of education within the
context of global affairs. From this perspective, the antagonistic impulses cultivated by
globalisation and some globalist discourse are singled out and targeted via a radicalization
of educational orientations. The final suggestion of the article concerns the vision of a more
cosmopolitically sensitive education.

Keywords: globalisation, nation-state, identity, antagonism, hybridity, Bauman,
Giddens, Kristeva, Dewey


As early as 1916, John Dewey wrote:

Every expansive era in the history of mankind has coincided with the
operation of factors which have tended to eliminate distance between
peoples and classes previously hemmed off from one another. Even the
alleged benefits of war, so far as more than alleged, spring from the fact
that conflict of peoples at least enforces intercourse between them and
thus accidentally enables them to learn from one another, and thereby to
expand their horizons. Travels, economic and commercial tendencies,
have at present gone far to break down external barriers; to bring peoples
and classes into closer and more perceptible connection with one another.
It remains for the most part to secure the intellectual and emotional
significance of this physical annihilation of space. (Dewey, 1993, p. 110)

Today, although the relevant empirical phenomena have advanced in incredible
ways and paces, the intellectual and emotional significance has not been debated



Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

exhaustively, let alone secured. The economic and commercial tendencies that
Dewey noticed have now taken the form of a shift of the population to the tertiary
sector of economy, i.e. services, commerce, transport, etc. (Habermas, 1998, p. 308),
what is often seen as knowledge economy, and an unprecedented flow of informa-
tion across the globe. These facts—and many more—constitute the phenomenon of
globalisation, which has become the object of globalist studies.

In this paper, after exploring the connection of globalisation and globalism
meta-theoretically, I discuss some tendencies in the globalist examination of the
factual, intellectual and emotional significance of globalisation and show how they
affect educational theory. A critical assessment of these tendencies leads me to sugges-
tions regarding the direction globalism and the theorization of the cosmopolitan
pedagogical ideal must take.


Globalisation is an empirical phenomenon that has been primarily felt as a structural
transformation of the world economic system operating in a complex dialectics with
time and space compression effected by advances in technology and communication.
Politically, globalisation is playing a major role in issues of state sovereignty, world-
order, extra-state policies and administration practices. Culturally, it is intervening
dramatically in the (re)shaping of identities and self-conceptions, the premises of
human encounter and exchange of world-interpretations and the frame of diverse
sensitivities, creativities and responses to aesthetic experience. As a result of its
multi-dimensionality and the chaotic force of its effects, globalisation denotes the
‘indeterminate, unruly and self-propelled character of world affairs: the absence of
a centre, of a controlling desk, of a board of directors’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 38).

Theoretical responses to the facts of globalisation vary and often conflate empirical
reality and rhetorical myth. The line distinguishing the two is fuzzy since our access
to empirical reality is always linguistically and culturally mediated but this should
not lead us to blurring the distinction itself. To see Globalisation as a ‘discursively
constructed master discourse of uncontrollable global market forces’ ( Janice Dudley,
cf. Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 451) ignores the material effects of globalisation
and their extra-linguistic factual character. That this character is thematized and
known to us through our linguistically mediated interactions (a chiefly epistemo-
logical matter) should not obscure the fact that globalisation occurs as a set of
actualities that radicalize and accentuate older phenomena of cross-cultural human
contact. Such a set may be entangled in a complex dialectics with its discursiveness,
as its narrativity, its representation and the imaginary investments they create play
an important ideological role in that very consolidation and promotion of globali-
zing effects and the construction of the particular symbolic sphere that nurtures
globalisation. Globalisation often becomes an ideological device that states and
governments employ as an excuse for imposing certain policies that would otherwise
fail to gain public acceptance or support. But it would be erroneous to conclude
that the admission of the ideological role globalisation plays should lead us some-
how to deny its reality. It could even be politically dangerous since the political

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

significance of a discursive construction differs from that of a detectable reality and
focusing on the former would engender one-sided interpretations overlooking the
need to deal with the latter. In any case, as Giddens writes,

… a few years ago, there was some doubt, particularly on the left, about
whether globalization was a reality. The unpersuaded would write
‘globalization’ in inverted commas, to demonstrate their essential scepticism
about the idea. This controversy has moved on. Discussion continues
about how best to conceptualize globalization, but few would any longer
deny its influence—as signalled by the role of global financial markets,
new developments in electronic communication and geopolitical
transitions [ … ]. Discussion of globalization is no longer concentrated on
whether or not it exists, but on what its consequences are (Giddens,
2001, p. 3).

In this respect, I argue, the idea that ‘globalization is best understood as a kind of


’ (Smith, 1999, p. 2) should rather correspond to globalism than the
latter’s object of inquiry. For, the facticity of globalisation is one thing but the


of this facticity is quite another.
For many thinkers, especially Third Way advocates, the impact of globalisation

‘has been compared to that of the weather; a “self-regulating, implacable Force of
nature” about which we can do nothing except look out of the window and hope
for the best’ (Andrews, 1999, p. 1). But also critics of the Third way such as
Bauman diagnose the same quality. ‘Globalization is not about what we all or at
least the most resourceful and enterprising among us wish or hope

to do

. It is about
what is

happening to us all

. It explicitly refers to the foggy and slushy “no man’s
land” stretching beyond the reach of the design and action capacity of anybody in
particular’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 39). These meteorological metaphors that have been
employed by many theorists to illustrate the unanticipated and unintended character
of globalisation prove indirectly the facticity of this phenomenon and the need for
a nuanced conceptual treatment of globalisation and its discursive thematization.

Given such a chaotic multiplicity and lack of determinate responsibility or liability,
it is no wonder that the causes and consequences of globalisation, ‘let alone the
new political arrangements and kinds of democracy—cosmopolitan, realist, liberal,
radical—that should respond to globalization are debated and contested’ (Isin &
Wood, 1999, p. 92). To render the distinction between empirical reality and its
theorization more operative, I suggest that we reserve the term ‘globalization’ for
the description of the intensification of global interconnectedness and use the term
‘globalism’ for the discursive treatment and analysis of the empirical phenomenon.
Globalisation as an empirical phenomenon involves various practices—some of
which are discursive—and states of affairs. But the discourse about globalisation,
i.e. its thematization, should be examined separately, at least for methodological
purposes, and under a different heading: the term I suggest is ‘globalism’. To use
an example, it is part of globalisation that a multinational company operating in a
Western state may cause an ecological disaster that will affect primarily the clima-
tological conditions of some remote countries or perhaps even the whole planet.



Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

The debate on this phenomenon, however, belongs to a particular discourse that
we may call globalist.


Following Isin & Wood, we may regard globalism as a discourse that constitutes
globalisation as an object (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 92). Therefore, globalism is not
a process or a set of realities independent from researchers.


It is a ‘discourse in
which the very idea of globalization is articulated, disseminated, justified, debated,
in short, constituted as an object of reflection and analysis’ (Isin & Wood, 1999,
p. 94).

Globalist discourse operates at many levels deploying a large variety of descrip-
tive, evaluative and normative judgements—most frequently in a syncretic and
eclectic fashion. But one may synthesize some of the approaches so as to group
them in three main categories of responses to globalisation.

1. The


category includes the positions that express deep concern about globalisa-
tion as a new form of domination propelled by a ‘homogenization’ principle.

2. The


comprises those that have a more positive and optimistic outlook resting
on what I would call a ‘global diversity thesis’.

3. The


involves positions that share the pessimism of the first category but explain
it via a description that acknowledges more subtle differentiations and accepts the
dual nature of globalisation.

The first and third focus on the concentration of power whereas the second on its
dispersal. One may associate the first with Eric Hobsbawm, the second with Feath-
erstone, Giddens and Appadurai and the last with Bauman. (It should be noted
here that there is nothing ‘essential’ about the association of the above thinkers
with the corresponding positions on globalisation. Categorizations of the above
kind serve methodological purposes and can become easily relativized by the
polemical shifts that often guide theoretical discussions. For instance, Giddens’s
approach can be largely associated with the ‘global diversity thesis’ but when he
confronts the glorifications of globalisation that derive from the conservative inter-
nationalist camp he adopts a far more sceptical and critical outlook. Therefore, like
all generalizations, the above segregation of positions is subject to the vagaries of

1. Hobsbawm deplores the fact that globalisation puts heterogeneity and particularity
under threat by imposing a single dominant culture as the model of all operations.
Globalisation is ‘a state of affairs in which the globe is the essential unit of operation
of some human activity, and where this activity is ideally conducted in terms of
single, universal, systems of thought, techniques and modes of communication.
Other particularities of those who engage in such activities, or of the territories in
which they are conducted, are troublesome or, at best, irrelevant’ (Hobsbawm,
1998, p. 1).

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism



© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

2. The opposite holds for Featherstone who ‘calls into question the homogenization
thesis, arguing that globalization often results in indigenization and syncretization of
global symbols and hybridization of various local symbols’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p.
105). To him, complexity is the most important feature of globalisation. He argues
that a paradoxical consequence of that phenomenon and the awareness of ‘finitude
and boundedness of the planet and humanity, is not to produce homogeneity but to
familiarize us with greater diversity, the extensive range of the local cultures’ (cf.
Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 451). Giddens singles out and focuses on another
positive effect of globalisation, namely, the freedom that stems from the enlarge-
ment of the economic, political and cultural horizons of people. Thus, he considers
globalisation a ‘transformation of space and time in which the development of
global systems and networks reduces the hold of local circumstances over people’s
lives’ (Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 449).

3. Giddens’ approach appears one-sided when compared to Bauman’s position. Bau-
man associates the above kind of freedom with the potentialities of a small percent-
age of the population worldwide. ‘The global network of communication, acclaimed
as the gateway to a new and unheard of freedom, is clearly very selectively used; it
is a narrow cleft in the thick wall, rather than a gate’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 44). The
sway of a localizing trend triggers a new social division and hierarchy. The knowl-
edge economy that cancels old modes and relations of production, as well as the
movement of the footloose élites and their sense of time are such that secure for the
rich an unprecedented independence from the poor. Those are now even removed
from the sight of the privileged classes and become so tied to their local circum-
stances that social mobility seems no longer to be a feasible life option for them.
Habermas’s analysis converges with Bauman’s on this point. As Habermas writes,
‘pauperized groups are no longer able to change their social situation by their own
efforts’ (1998, p. 315). Overall, the third large category of positions we notice in
globalist discourse provides a comprehensive and nuanced reading of globalisation
but concentrates on a diagnosis of negative global effects. I will return to the
positions that have consolidated in globalist discourse thematically after I examine
how educational theory has responded to them by generating what I would call
‘educational globalism’.

The main positions of general globalism are traceable and informative in educa-
tional globalism too. Additionally, within it, one may discern perspectives from
which the relation of education and globalisation can be examined. One perspective
is concerned with research in ways by which practices, institutions, discourses and
structures of education have been affected by globalisation. Another places more
emphasis on ways by which educational policies express and respond to the pres-
sures of globalisation (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, p. 421), i.e. on how education
actively engages with the facts of globalisation and often with the promotion of
globalizing effects. A third perspective, which appears as yet underdeveloped,
explores ways by which education should try to counterbalance the negative effects
of globalisation and extend the potentialities of it for all in a democratic fashion.
Most authors have dealt with the first two points in a diagnostic mode. [With



Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

respect to this last point, cosmopolitanism can contribute a lot having first being
defined in an appropriate way.]

What underlies most approaches, however, is the same feeling of unease, power-
lessness and bewilderment that characterizes general globalism. As Gregory Heath
remarks, ‘education sits in an unfamiliar and interesting position in the face of
globalisation. This is new territory for education, its institutions and practitioners’
(2002, p. 37). Patrick Fitzsimons comments that, regarding globalisation, ‘exactly
how education is involved or what it can or should do, is not quite as clear’ (2000,
p. 505). Overall, education seems to be unsure of its direction regarding globalisation
and this is often attributed precisely to the tensions between the global and the local
and unity and difference that mark globalist discourse (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 520).

A Critique of Globalist Positions

The position I defend in relation to the theorization of globalisation, which under-
lies the suggestions in the educational frame that will follow, is deontological. By
this I mean that my approach is primarily concerned with the imperatives and the
impact of globalisation regarding the ethical dimension of intersubjectivity rather
than with the economic growth or techno-informational progress it may facilitate.
Issues such as productivity, efficiency and profit enter the picture of a deontological
approach only when and if they answer the question: for whom? Who or which
group of people benefit from globalisation? How are justice and equality affected?
What seems to be happening to diversity and cultural plurality in a globalized
world? How does the Is of globalisation relates to the Ought of the vision of better
conditions for all biota?

Therefore, I shall concentrate on how globalisation is viewed as affecting unity
and plurality, social and international justice, and emancipatory enrichment of
humanity and protection of natural life. I shall expound my critique thematically
by focusing on the issues of (i) the nation-state and territoriality, (ii) diversity and
homogeneity, (iii) identity and rootlessness and (iv) equality and life options.

The Nation-state and Territoriality

The nation-state and its prospects constitute a crucial point of contention within
globalism. Advocates of globalisation celebrate its challenging impact on the modernist
construction of the nation-state because they associate with this configuration the
terror of totality and homogeneity and treat it as a barrier to ‘cosmopolitanism’.
Detractors of globalisation (and of the corresponding appreciative globalist theory)
defend the nation-state invoking a very wide spectrum of arguments. For polemical
reasons, or due to lack of true engagement in the debate, many thinkers who regard
globalisation positively draw a caricature of their opponents and reduce the latter’s
defense of the nation-state to a conservative and reactionary commitment to obso-
lete notions such as consanguinity, community ethos, and cultural purism. ‘For
some, the de-realisation and de-territorialisation of place associated with the
growth of globalisation and symbolic exchange results in a loss of social meaning

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism



© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

and disruption of established senses of community and identity’ (Usher, 2002,
p. 48). This picture is accurate only for a small group of globalist theorists and
within it there is room for a variety of positions, not all of which could be considered
as motivated by conservative nationalist concerns. By contrast, there are those who
defend the nation-state precisely because they see it as the last bulwark of particu-
larity against the homogenizing flows of globalisation. Additionally, there are thinkers
who offer the theoretical means for dissociating the nation-state from the unity


plurality binarism by unmasking operations of domination that use diversity


totality equally effectively for their purposes but detrimentally for people and nature.
Let us examine the issue of the nation-state more closely. It may be true that

‘the establishment of any sovereign state required as a rule the suppression of state-
formative ambitions of many lesser collectivities’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 40). But
accounts presenting the nation-state as a product of homogenization at the expense
of the lives of millions of people by suppressing uprisings, oppositional movements,
and so on (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 93) are one-sided and eurocentric. They are so
in the sense that they generalize the data that concern major Occidental states to
cover all cases of territorial sovereignty on the planet without taking into consideration
independence wars and anti-colonial movements. The reason why I pinpoint this
has nothing to do with a defense of the nation-state or a belief in its preservation.
It aims solely to draw attention to its double nature which problematizes any effort
to render the nation-state a scapegoat on which we could project the trials of moder-
nity and establish its overcoming as the new legitimating metaphor of globalisation.

Another reason motivating some globalist theorists to allocate globalisation’s
challenges of the nation-state immediately into the sphere of progressivism is the
assumption that national territoriality is intimately bound up with tribal instincts
that impede the just and equal treatment of alterity imposing homogeneity. Glo-
balisation then is presented as the process that disarms territoriality and allows
more diasporic and differentiated political configurations to flourish. A concomi-
tant—and equally faulty assumption—is that cosmopolitanism is a simple matter of
rootlessness. In turn, this idea leads to a mistaken identification of globalized
managerialism and footloose entrepreneurs as ‘emerging cosmopolitan classes’ (Isin
& Wood, 1999, 7). Both assumptions are reflected in the following connection of
globalisation and postmodernism. ‘If globalization is contesting the sovereignty of the
nation-state and making its boundaries permeable, giving rise to various forms of
cosmopolitan citizenship, postmodernization is creating new forms of social differ-
entiation, establishing new relationships between class and citizenship’ (Isin &
Wood, 1999, p. 23). I will deal with the issue of rootlessness and cosmopolitanism
later on but now I will turn to territoriality.

Contrary to the fashionable idea that the territorial principle of political organization
emanates from a dormant tribalism, Bauman writes that it ‘does not stem from the
natural or contrived tribal instincts alone (not even primarily)’ (1998, pp. 41–2)
and proves that its relation to globalisation is far more complicated. Beneath the
surface gloss, and despite its threat to the nation-state, globalisation encourages
forms of tribal territoriality for reasons of money and power. The territorial principle
is being revived now because ‘global finance, trade and information industry


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

depend for their liberty of movement and their unconstrained freedom to pursue
their ends on the political fragmentation, the


of the world scene’
(Bauman, 1998, p. 42). Thus, homogenizing and imperialist forces use plurality in
a strategic way while destroying those aspects of that plurality that would slow
down the ‘free movement of capital and limit market liberty’ (p. 42). ‘Far from
acting at cross-purposes and being at war with each other, the political “tribalization”
and economic “globalization” are close allies and fellow conspirators’ (p. 42).

In those circumstances, the task of a profound postmodernist outlook would be,
I argue, to unveil the fact that in the complexities of globalisation doubleness
borders with duplicity. This becomes more evident if we recall that the debilitating
effects of globalizing processes on territorial sovereignty do not affect all nation-
states equally. On the contrary, some powerful nations stand up against extra-national
publics and stop the globalizing measures the latter impose so long as they do not
serve the interests of the former. An obvious and relatively recent example is ‘the
refusal of the United States to accept one of the few international agreements
genuinely accepted by everyone else, namely, the commitment to cut the emission
of greenhouse gases down to the required level. It has thus single-handed sabotaged
a global measure’ (Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 3).

I would like to conclude this section by stressing that if competitiveness damages
the significance intersubjectivity may acquire for our lives, then, the nation-state,
by not being the only possible carrier of competitiveness, cannot be the only cause of
oppression of alterity, culturally or socially. Recalling the cold war, we realize the
fact that at that time the nodal points of coexistence and competition were the
blocks of states rather than the states themselves (Bauman, 1998, p. 40). And in
the Fordist and post-Fordist landscapes, economy has gradually shifted some of the
political initiative and control from the nation-state to extra-national formations
while preserving and even exacerbating self-interested antagonism


among nations


and individuals. The persistence of competitiveness and its negative effects (that
we cannot take up here)


transcending the nation-state ought to put us on guard
vis-à-vis postmodern political optimism. Like other things, imperialism takes a
new form too. It no longer conquers territories but preserves and intensifies the
aggression and competitiveness that used to characterize the nationalist claims of

Diversity and Homogeneity

However, affirmative responses to globalisation do not herald only the limitations
confronting the nation-state. They also discard the idea that the New World order
promotes a Western-led homogenization as too simplistic and argue that, though
Occidental influence is significant, ‘there is a degree of cultural interpenetration,
hybridity and fluidity across different localities around the globe’ (Isin & Wood,
1999, p. 94). Equated with either modernization or Westernization, globalisation
becomes bereft of the multiplicity of its rationalities. Moreover, within the frame
of globalisation-as-modernization the mobilization of encounter and influence of
non-western cultures would be underestimated. For many globalist theorists, ‘the

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

“global” and the “local” are not opposing but mutually constituting elements of
globalization’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 94).

For Bauman, on the other hand, this complexity and interrelation of the global
and the local—what he calls ‘glo


lization’—is precisely the vehicle of new modes
of domination and oppression of diverse others. Glo


lization as the process of the
‘world-wide redistribution of sovereignty, power, and freedom to act’ (Bauman,
1998, p. 42) divides the world into the tourists of the planet and the vagabonds of
regions, i.e. those that ‘inhabit the globe’ and the others that ‘are chained to place’
(p. 45). Moreover, I believe, counterarguments to the positive globalist outlook do
not emanate solely from different interpretations and appraisals of the interconnec-
tion of the global and local. Doing justice to the qualitative asymmetries of influence
among cultures is an additional motivation for turning a critical eye on favourable
treatments of globalisation. ‘If globalization has to adjust to local particularities, of
which “nations” are an important subvariety, particularities are much more powerfully
affected by globalization and have to adjust to it or be eliminated by it’
(Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 2). Hence, what is sidestepped by the positive category of
globalist discourse is the fact that, in certain cases, the difference in degree makes all
the difference in the world and the deflationist theorization of modernization and
Westernization misdirects globalism.

Consider for instance the fact that to the critical and often dismissive treatments
of globalisation through the employment of notions such as ‘Americanization’,
Westernization’, and ‘McDonaldization’ is counterpoised a set of terms such as
‘diaspora’, ‘hybridity’, ‘


identities’ and so on. However, if one thinks over
the generality of the latter set of terms one cannot but notice that they do not really
articulate processes that run truly counter the occidental domination of cultural
influence. Contrasted to the concrete character of the terms signifying one-sided
expansion and concentration of power, the generality and vagueness of ‘diaspora’
and ‘hybridity’ speaks for a lack of analogous influence of non-western cultures on the
western ones rather than a possibility for a more even-handed reshuffling and dis-
persal of power. None of the defenders of the complexity of cultural interpenetration
seems to have terms to offer that account for how the Western world is influenced
by non-Western cultures—and that is no accident. The lack of terms theorizing e.g.
‘Easternization’ is very telling regarding the asymmetries of cultural interplay.

Also, the implicit assumption of some positive treatments of globalisation that
cultural influence is a matter of free play in which people select merrily what they
find attractive is politically insensitive and sociologically blind to issues of power
and control. Capitalism with its subsystems of economy and administration pene-
trates lifeworlds anchoring in them and often eroding them in ways that go far
beyond the scope of cultural merry-go-rounds. Finally, we should take into account
the qualitative differences that mark the reception of or, adaptation to, otherness
by diverse cultures. Even when western cultures are influenced by others this does
not occur with respect to what they really desire but with respect to what they lack.
For instance, the ‘fastfoodization’ of foreign food we notice in the western world
has added variety to western eating habits without contributing significantly to
changes of western perceptions of time, labor, and lifestyle. Eating Chinese or


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Indian or Mexican food relates to cultural sufficiency, desire, social position and
overall influence in ways that are strikingly different from those surrounding the
introduction of fast food in the non-Western world. Fast food in the latter world
goes hand in hand with a change in the conception of time, the sense of worthy
activity and the assumptions about what is nutritious or healthy.

Identity and Rootlessness

Many globalists hope that the recognition of the fact that subjectivities are con-
structions rather than essences will lead to eliminating or complicating the neat
categorization of people that usually sparks off wars, violence, exclusion and rac-
ism. It is true that phenomena of globalisation could be credited with a reassertion
of fluid, diasporic, hybrid and contingent identities but this is only one side of the
story. Only by way of a logical leap one could justify the identification of fluidity
as such with its potential fruitful political interpretation. That is to say, the
diasporic and the hybrid identity on their own do not determine the conditions of
their political treatment or their cultural reception and ethical significance. To give
an example, the relativized identity of footloose élites does not appear very helpful
when they negotiate in the good old capitalist fashion about their interests. Worse,
it does not seem to enter the picture when they display the disarming innocence
of the unsuspecting with regard to their own, subtle or manifest, complicities.

In this respect, rootlessness may be a disguise of a deep and unreflective rootedness
in the Occidental culture of performativity, modernization and profit. A closer look
shows that the hope that rootlessness is the royal route to transcending a tyrannical
conception of identity is grounded in problematic and ethnocentric premises. Let
us first examine an example of the attention rootlessness has received. In certain
locations, the space-time compression results in globalized senses of place. This
‘can lead to what Benko refers to as non-places, spaces “devoid of the symbolic
expressions of identity, relations and history: examples include airports, motoways,
anonymous hotel rooms, public transport”—and possibly even cyberspace’ (cf.
Usher, 2002, p. 47). This phenomenon invites a careful interpretation. In my
opinion, the anonymity of a hotel room, instead of rendering it a non-place, is
precisely one of the features that root it in a particular culture in relational distinc-
tion to non-anonymous space. The sense of normalcy it enjoys because it is ours
empties it in our eyes of any content as we forget that its lack of name is exactly
what makes it northwestern, i.e. ours and nobody else’s.

As to airports being non-places, once again, this idea mirrors our ethnocentric
forgetfulness that efficiency, passports, security, regional or racial origin and so on,
are still loaded with various cultural meanings. For instance, as Habermas argues,
international flights, global stock market transactions, the millennium, conferences
etc, are scheduled by the Christian calendar (1998, p. 307). I believe that this
example proves that the identity of the supposed non-places, which is not discernible
to us when we assume that history and culture are cancelled out when convention-
ally standardized, is surely felt by those who follow our conventions temporarily
and then return to their own. ‘World air travel is possible because of a number of

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

arrangements which link all airports and airlines of the globe, and which are
handled in a standardized manner everywhere and, in fact, with the use of a single
language of communication for all essential technicians anywhere in the world’
(Hobsbawm, 1998, p. 1). Thus, the so-called rootlessness and its supposed mani-
festations speak more for the homogenizing effects of globalisation and the euro-
centrism they encourage rather than the redemption of pluralism. If there is freedom
from the constraints of identity, that freedom is for those others who make the effort
to adjust to our normalized and eurocentrically anonymized modes of existence.

Equality and Life Options

The approaches I have placed in the large category of affirmative theorizations of
globalisation also converge in their appreciation of the new opportunities for
improvement of people’s lives. ‘The movement of people, money, and information
across national and cultural boundaries means that we now have access to markets,
cultural practices, and products as never before. This access clearly has the poten-
tial for enriching our lives by providing lifestyle and employment options that were
once beyond our reach. [ … ] Even the remotest cultural traditions are now readily
accessible to us’ (Rizvi & Lingard, 2000, p. 419). It is true that politically pessimist
globalist discourses often downplay these opportunities or unduly demystify them
as being a smoke screen. But the undue emphasis on prospects for equality and
enlarged existential choice founders upon serious problems too. These involve
issues such as for whom the employment options are truly available, what happens
to cultures that are not very adaptable to the globalizing rationale and to what
extent (and filtered through what) remote cultures are really accessible.

Besides, any account of globalisation, precisely those which purport to grasp the
complexities and paradoxes of the phenomenon, must pay attention to the fundamental
inequalities that solidify or emerge from the course of restratification (Bauman, 1998,
p. 43) effected through globalisation. As Habermas diagnoses, ‘the gap between the
living conditions of the employed, the underemployed, and the unemployed is widen-
ing’ (1998, p. 315). Globalisation as, primarily, ‘a redistribution of privileges and
deprivations, of wealth and poverty, of resources and impotence’ (Bauman, 1998,
p. 43) widens the scope of choice for some and drastically narrows it for some others.

Given that our times are marked ‘by the structural menace to the welfarist
domestication of capitalism and by the revival of a neoliberalism unhampered by
considerations of social justice’ (Habermas, 1998, p. 314),


equality is sacrificed
on the altar of performativity. A consequence of economic globalisation and the
competitiveness it has imposed is the transformation and reduction of the welfare
state mirrored in the fact that benefits drop, access to social security is toughened
and pressure on the unemployed is increased (Habermas, 1998, p. 315).

Educational Globalist Discourse

The dilemmas and tensions of globalism are noticeable in educational theory too.
Some commentators concentrate on the complexities of the global knowledge


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

economy and their impact on education directing their endeavours in a theorization
of the new possibilities. Novel conceptions of spatiality, the cyberspace, and diaspora
(Usher, 2002) as well as the features of knowledge economy (Peters, 2002)


the attention of theorists in a way that often refrains from painting a gloomy
picture—or sometimes creates a picture that is even overtly optimist.

Some others refer to the fact that globalisation threatens traditional forms and
structures of pedagogy to render them obsolete (Heath, 2002). Haynes (2002, p. 103)
contrasts the conception of the university ‘as a community of academics engaged
in a range of traditions or practices’ with its conception as a ‘quasi-governmental
administrative entity’—a conception shaped by globalizing procedures and the
tolerance or welcome they encounter in educational systems and policies. The latter
conception should be combated because it reduces the university to an organization
‘employing workers to value-add to customers intending to maximise personal
economic rewards from future engagement in a more competitive national economy’
(p. 103).

Others focus not so much on the threats confronting tradition and community
but rather on what they view as an overwhelming tendency of the globalized world
to treat education solely as a means to an end (Coxon, 2002, pp. 69 –70). Education,
then, turned to a commodity (Bagnall, 2002, p. 81), becomes ‘instrumental to
goods which lie outside the realm of knowledge and rational or critical understand-
ing’ (Heath, 2002, p. 38).


In this way, it is complicitous in the cultivation of
consumptive subjectivities (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 519) and the promotion of policies
that aim to ‘ensure the competitiveness of the national economy in the face of
globalization’ disregarding the democratic deficits they involve (Rizvi & Lingard,
2000, p. 421). Such deficits affect detrimentally, among other things, gender sensitive
state policies and educational practices (Blackmore, 2000).


True, there is a positive side in the relation of globalisation and education which
seems to relate chiefly to new modes of encouraging multiculturalism, group dif-
ferentiated citizenship, diversity and cross-cultural encounters. However, this
admission should not be overgeneralized and exaggerated lest the negative side will
be obscured and covered up. Some educationalists have already acknowledged that
the educational systems of the newer states emerging as a result of recent developments
in world affairs ‘may be shaped by some degree by colonialism’ (Dale, 2000, p.
446). Bagnall argues that the internationalisation of higher education may be seen
as ‘counter-ethical to the extent that it is irremediably cultural hegemonic regard-
less of the efforts that are made to be sensitive and responsive to the cultures into
which it is marketed’ (2002, p. 85). Others diagnose a homogenizing linguistic
imperialism operating in educational systems worldwide endangering linguistic
diversity and plurality (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2001; Phillipson, 2001). And, in spite of
the fact that the extent of global educational curricular homogeneity is contestable,
it is evident that it imposes, at least to some degree, a kind of world culture. This
favors unity rather than plurality since isomorphism of curricular categories across
the world applies ‘irrespectively of national, economic, political and cultural differences’
(Dale, 2000, p. 430). To summarize, globalisation regarding education is guilty of
a promotion of unity over plurality through cultural imperialism (Porter & Vidovich,

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

2000, p. 451) and the cultivation of antagonism.


Via market imperialism, it is
guilty of vocationalization of higher education, privatisation of educational respon-
sibility and benefit, dependence of accountability on educational outcomes and
‘competitive marketization of educational institutions and their services’ (Bagnall,
2002, p. 78).

Overall, this kind of educational globalist critique of the unethical consequences
of globalisation shares nothing—in most cases—with reactionary or conservative
notions attached to narrow conceptions of value, identity and cultural homogeneity. It
also reflects the concerns of the equivalent tendencies within general globalism.
What is more important is that this educational critique displays a very ‘healthy’
reaction to the connection of globalisation and competitiveness. It seems to be well
aware of the fact that the system encourages self-regarding rather than ethical conduct
through an assumption of ‘enlightened self-interest through individual choice’
(Bagnall, 2002, pp. 81-2) and condemns it relentlessly. ‘Education has been seen
as the key factor in honing states’ competitive edge with respect to each other’ (Dale,
2000, p. 441), which means that local diversity is promoted only to the extent that
it is conducive to the goals of the market. Thus, situational sensitivity serves a largely
Western, privatized, and ego-centred set of cultural values (Bagnall, 2002, p. 86).
Due to a conflation of conflict and antagonism, postmodernism often becomes a
secret accomplice of the market by associating dissent, pluralism and competition.
The awareness ‘that highly competitive, unregulated, marketised systems do not,
in fact, encourage educational (or any other “product”) diversity, at least beyond a
particular minimal level’ (p. 82), should lead us to questioning this hasty identifica-
tion of antagonism as the inexhaustible source of the new and the unknown.


As I mentioned in my introductory comments, educational philosophical globalism
performs diagnostic interventions rather than concrete and deontological sugges-
tions for change. Or, it draws from the suggestions offered within general glo-
balism. The latter has produced a wide spectrum of speculations about the future
of the globalizing world, some of which have a clearly normative character and
mirror the position one takes regarding the significance of globalisation. I shall
examine some of these ideas (regardless of whether they have been used in educa-
tion or not) in order to move to my own suggestions.

First of all, I believe, identity politics sometimes approximates conservatism and
purism wishing cultures to remain as they are, supposedly uncontaminated by
obtrusive otherness. It tries to arrest time and sees change as violation and distor-
tion. The solutions it offers do not touch upon issues of power but rather on issues
of communal bonds and preservation of the ‘spirit’ of collectivities. More than
anything, the emphasis on the idea of community is no antidote to globalisation
‘but one of its indispensable global corollaries simultaneously products (


) and
conditions’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 43).

Part of the postmodernist discourse that seems to be less troubled by globalisa-
tion imagines a future in which diversity and hybridity will effect new forms of


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

solidarity. Kristeva’s position seems to me to be exemplary of this trend. Admitting
that one is strange to oneself creates a sense of solidarity among us because ‘we all
belong to a future type of humanity which will be made entirely of foreigners/strangers
who try to understand each other’ (1998, p. 323). To my mind, this position betrays
overgeneralizations, is completely negligent of the complex politics of difference
and normalizes the experiences of one as being those of all.


Worse, it not only
misses all the tensions and negative effects that material and symbolic competitive-
ness produces but it even justifies them through a very misguided and conservative
pragmatism. This is evident by the following. Kristeva mentions cultural difference
as something we have to pay attention to but, as she adds, ‘still, we are fully aware of
the risks that may come with such an attitude: ignorance of contemporary economic
reality, excessive union demands, inability to take part in international competition,
idleness, backwardness. This is why we need to be alert and always remember the
new constraints of our technological world, of “causes and effects” ’ (1998, p. 329).
Kristeva’s main suggestion, however, reflects a psychoanalytic rather than a socio-
political problematic—and a very dubious one—as the next citation shows. ‘In
order to fight the state of national depression that we have in France (and in other
countries as well) as a result of globalization and the influx of immigrants, and also
in order to oppose maniacal reactions to this depression (such as that of the
National Front), it is important to restore national confidence’ (p. 326). Here, the
association of national depression with globalisation and the influx of immigrants
is negligent of other important factors. As for the idea of restoring national confidence,
in its vagueness, it accommodates the worldwide pressures for more competitive
nation-states instead of fighting them.

Other approaches along similar lines derive a ‘critical’ aspect of globalisation
from the very lack of coherence and unity characterizing this phenomenon. As I
have mentioned previously, this move takes a leap of thought that is arbitrary and,
arguably, in underestimating the negative signs of globalisation, it makes unwit-
tingly common cause with the market. A more sophisticated variation of this theme
connects the unpredictability of globalizing realities with the possibility for the
emergence of a critical localism (Fitzsimons, 2000). But as Habermas argues, local
governmental measures ‘would bring about local advantages, but would not change
the pattern of international competition between countries. Economic globalisa-
tion, no matter how we look at it, destroys a historical constellation in which, for
a certain period, the welfare state compromise was possible. This compromise, to
be sure, is by no means the ideal solution of a problem inherent to capitalism, but
it has after all succeeded in keeping the social costs within accepted limits’ (1998,
p. 316).

Now, Habermas seems to opt for the opposite solution, i.e. instead of critical
localism he defends the idea of differentiated international publics. To him, welfare
functions may be rescued if transferred from the nation-state to larger political
units that can catch up with transnationalized economy (1998, p. 317). A supra-
national politics catching up with markets would promote the transformation of
the world into a community of solidarity placing the emphasis on generalizable

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

However, this solution is also problematic for nothing guarantees that these
publics will truly serve the interests of all people. Habermas admits a similar
weakness when he writes that ‘the creation of larger political units leads to defen-
sive alliances opposed to the rest of the world, but does not change the mode of
competition between countries as such’ (p. 317). Hence he sets the following
precondition that he hopes it will have a reforming effect on human relations. ‘Only
under the pressure of the changing consciousness of citizens, and of its impact on
the field of domestic affairs, may those collective actors capable of acting globally
come to perceive themselves differently, that is, increasingly as members of a
community that leaves them no choice but cooperation and compromise’ (pp. 318 –
9). Now, if we consider the role education plays in the shaping and change of the
consciousness of future citizens, we realize that the need for new pedagogical ideals
is compelling. These will undo the effects of dominant ideals such as the individ-
ualist and the technicist that have elevated antagonism to a major given of human
coexistence. I suggest, then, that we search for or construct those ideals the edu-
cational cultivation of which will encourage a different way of relating to otherness.
And here is where cosmopolitanism enters the picture.

There has been a revived interest in cosmopolitanism recently that has created,
in my opinion, two major tendencies: one is to understand cosmopolitanism in a
pragmatist way as mobility, rootlessness, openness to different lifestyles and detach-
ment from the nation-state;


the other adds to it strong legal and ethical dimensions.
The former derives from a confused and under-theorized equation of the everyday
use of the term with the philosophical one whereas the latter attempts to reformu-
late the notion drawing from the philosophical tradition but couching it in a more
adequate philosophical idiom. The former, light-hearted, sense of cosmopolitanism
can be encountered in the work of many contemporary and influential political
philosophers like Jeremy Waldron (2000) and to a lesser degree even in Bruce
Ackerman (1994). The latter, deeper, sense of cosmopolitanism can be found in
Nussbaum’s renegotiation of Stoicism and in neo-Kantian and post-Kantian polit-
ical philosophies. The notion of cosmopolitanism I see as compatible with the
above mentioned educational suggestion is this latter one, but as I argue elsewhere,
it has first to address some serious criticisms, which here I shall only briefly
summarize. First, it must distance itself from a ‘tourist’ conception of cosmopoli-
tanism. It must also show that it does not rest on obsolete philosophical accounts
of the self i.e. accounts that give antagonism ontological citizenship and establish
it as an inescapable human reality (Papastephanou, 2002). Then it must prove that
it is not a secret accomplice of ethnocentrism and finally that it does not express
the concerns of a paternalistic and elitist small group of intellectuals (Lu, 2000).

What is important here is that only a reformulated conception of cosmopolitanism
and its transference to educational goal-setting can address the need for a change
of consciousness and frame it legally and ethically. The relevance of the legal
dimension is demonstrated by the fact that all efforts to counterbalancing the
negative side of globalisation founder upon a fundamental lack. As Habermas
writes, ‘what is lacking is the emergence of a cosmopolitan solidarity, less binding,
of course, than the civic solidarity that has emerged within nation-states’ (1998,


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

p. 319). The ethical dimension concerns the fact that true cosmopolitanism is not
just about openness to alternative ways of life but involves also the duty to material
aid and transnational redistribution (Nussbaum, 2000).

In this context, it becomes apparent that, whereas globalisation regarding edu-
cation concerns new global policies and the structural changes of schooling they
are causing, the cosmopolitan pedagogical ideal should concern the cultivation of
resistant, critical and reflective subjectivities. It should concern the effort to mini-
mize the risks for individuals and cultures and maximize the positive potentialities
of globalisation in a fairer way by encouraging non-competitive feelings to others
and acknowledging that there are more than just negative duties towards them.


A very powerful objection to what I have suggested above would involve the
assumption that the cultivation of non-competitive attitudes is unrealistic because
antagonism is—supposedly—intrinsic in human nature. Because people are self-
centred beings, the excessive competitiveness we notice nowadays among individuals
and nations is not a pathology but rather a side-effect of an otherwise much desired
freedom of thought and action. However, one of the very few points on which
postmodernist trends—and globalism that concerns us here—converge is that post-
modern discourse is de-essentializing, although the implications of this appear not
to be fully recognized yet. Had they been recognized, the objection would have lost
its meaning. For, if there are no essential characteristics of humanity, then no
possibility of becoming could be blocked from the start. A rejection of assumptions
such as the antagonistic nature of people should become part of anti-essentialism
as much as the questioning of identity, transcendentalism, rationalism and absolute
truth. Consequently, a discourse or practice that relies tacitly on the idea that
people are self-serving and interest-driven cannot be de-essentialist or at least not
all the way. Some postmodernists are led astray by their conflation of agonistics
with antagonism and their hasty glorification of conflict. By omitting to draw the
necessary distinctions within conflict, they weaken its explanatory power and tran-
scendentalize it by making it an almost mystical source of innovation and progress.
They do so as they hope that in this way they protect heterogeneity and lose sight
of the fact that antagonism is the worst enemy precisely of that kind of cosmo-
politanism that recognizes and defends plurality. If the major issue is to change the
consciousness of people, then education has a heavy burden, because people often
become what they are taught that they are. Thus, in the endeavour to problematize
external borders, many postmodernists forget that borders are sometimes internal
and their overcoming presupposes a dismantling of the binarisms (e.g. internal vs
external, nature vs culture etc.) that have grounded them. By emphasizing so much
the overcoming of external borders we overlook the complex interplay of internal
and external. Such an ‘internal’ border—philosophical, psychological, and moral—is
the one created by the assumption of closed and competitive subjectivities.

Habermas states that ‘the Hobbesian problem of how to create and to stabilize
social order is too big a challenge, on the global scale as well, for the capacity of

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism


© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

rational egotists to cooperate’ (1998, p. 319). Postmodernist philosophers have
taken great pains to demonstrate that the rational egotists are not exactly rational.
It remains now to demonstrate that they are not necessarily egotists either. It is perhaps
then that the intellectual and emotional significance of the physical annihilation of
space that Dewey mentioned will be secured.


1. It should be noted here that not only philosophers and academics but many others
participate in the constitution of globalization as discourse, e.g. government officials,
journalists, social movements, artists, managers, politicians, etc.

2. ‘There can be little doubt that there has been an intensification of economic competition
among nations, regions, and industries with dramatic changes in state policies, markets,
and work’ (Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 453).

3. On how the international competitiveness places the nation-states in a self-contradictory
position, see Habermas (1998, p. 316).

4. On the dangerous impact of competitiveness and the pursuit of self-interest on gender issues,
see Blackmore (2000, pp. 480 –1) and on personal relations generally, see Haynes (2002, p. 108).

5. Many educationalists also see neoliberalism as the underpinning logic of the most recent
wave of globalization (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 505; Blackmore, 2000).

6. Knowledge economy ‘allegedly differs from the traditional economy with an emphasis
on what I shall call the “economics of abundance”, the “annihilation of distance”,
“deterritoralisation of the state”, the importance of “local knowledge”, and “investment
in human capital” (and its embedding in processes)’ (Peters, 2002, p. 94).

7. ‘Not least of the ironies is that in the knowledge economy, knowledge and its legitimation
is controlled by the consumers rather than the producers of knowledge’ (ibid.).

8. As for the optimist view that schooling can now better contribute to a meritocratic
stratification structure, it is debatable first and foremost due to the philosophical
challenges the notion of meritocracy faces today.

9. Grubb uses the book

A Nation at Risk

(US Government Printing, 1983) as a source of
a major strand of new vocationalism in American education and he writes that this book
epitomizes the insistent economic rhetoric of this strand of new vocationalism ‘the great
threat to our country’s future was “a rising tide of mediocrity” in the schools, causing
a decline in competitiveness with the Japanese, the South Koreans, and the Germans’
(Grubb, 1996, p. 2).

10. This becomes more apparent when she writes (1998, p. 323), ‘whatever its ostracisms and
difficulties with foreigners, on American soil I feel foreigner just like all the other foreigners’.
The problem here is the equation of all foreigners and their feelings and experiences.

11. Consider, for instance, the following comment: ‘the new professional-managerial groups
have become less concerned about national interests and turned their back on the
nation-state: they display cosmopolitan tendencies’ (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 101).


Ackerman, B. (1994) Rooted Cosmopolitanism,


, 104:3, pp. 516 – 535.
Andrews, G. (1999). Modernity, Managerialism and the Third Way,

Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on The Liberal Order

(Olomouc-Czech Republic, Palacky University).
Bagnall, R. G. (2002) Globalisation and its Consequences for Scholarship in Philosophy of


Educational Philosophy and Theory

, 34:1, pp. 103 – 114.
Bauman, Z. (1998) On Glocalization: Or Globalization for Some, Localization for Some Others,

Thesis Eleven

, 54, pp. 37– 50.


Marianna Papastephanou

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Blackmore, J. (2000) Warning Signals or Dangerous Opportunities? Globalization, gender, and
educational policy shifts,

Educational Theory

, 50:4, pp. 467–486.
Blum, L. (2001) Recognition and Multiculturalism in Education,

Journal of Philosophy of

, 35:4, pp. 539– 559.
Coxon, E. (2002) From Patronage to Profiteering? New Zealand’s educational relationship with

the small states of Oceania,

Educational Philosophy and Theory

, 34:1, pp. 57–75.
Dale, R. (2000) Globalization and Education: Demonstrating a ‘Common World Educational

Culture’ or locating a ‘Globally Structured Educational Agenda’?

Educational Theory

pp. 427– 448.

Derrida, J. (2001)

Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness

(London & New York, Routledge).
Dewey, J. (1993)

The Political Writings

, D. Morris & I. Shapiro (eds) (Indianapolis, Hackett).
Fitzsimons, P. (2000) Changing Conceptions of Globalization: Changing conceptions of


Educational Theory

, 50:4, pp. 505 – 520.
Giddens, A. (2001)

The Global Third Way Debate

(Cambridge, Polity).
Grubb, W. N. (1996) The ‘New Vocationalism’ in the United States,

Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 28:1, pp. 1– 23.

Gur-Ze’ev, I. (2001) Philosophy of Peace Education in a Postmodern Era, Educational Theory,
51:3, pp. 315 – 336.

Habermas, J. (1998). Learning by Disaster? A diagnostic look back on the short 20th Century,
Constellations, 5:3, pp. 307– 320.

Haynes, B. (2002), Globalisation and its Consequences for Scholarship in Philosophy of
Education, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34:1, pp. 103 – 114.

Heath, G. (2002) Introduction to Symposium on Globalisation, Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 34:1, pp. 37– 39.

Held, D. (1997) Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: a new agenda, in: J. Bohman
& M. Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal
(Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press).

Hobsbawm, E. (1998) The Nation and Globalization, Constellations, 5:1, pp. 1– 9.
Isin, E. F. & Wood, P. K. (1999) Citizenship & Identity (London, Sage).
Kelly, J. D. & Kaplan, M. (2001) Nation and Decolonization: Toward a new anthropology of

nationalism, Anthropological Theory, 1:4, pp. 419 – 438.
Kristeva, J. (1998) Europhilia, Europhobia, Constellations, 5:3, pp. 321–333.
Lu, C. (2000) The One and Many Faces of Cosmopolitanism, Journal of Political Philosophy, 8:2,

pp. 244 – 267.
Nussbaum, M. (2000) Symposium on Cosmopolitanism. Duties of Justice, Duties of

Material Aid: Cicero’s problematic legacy, The Jour nal of Political Philosophy, 8:2, pp.
176 – 206.

Papastephanou, M. (2002) Kant’s Cosmopolitanism and Human History, History of the Human
Sciences, 15:1, pp. 17– 37.

Peters, M. (2002) Education Policy Research and the Global Knowledge Economy, Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 34:1, pp. 91–102.

Phillipson, R. (2001) English for Globalisation or for the World’s People? International Review of
Education, 47:3 – 4, pp. 185 – 200.

Porter, P. & Vidovich, L. (2000) Globalization and Higher Education Policy, Educational Theory,
50:4, pp. 449– 465.

Risvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2000) Globalization and Education: Complexities and contingencies,
Educational Theory, 50:4, pp. 419– 426.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2001) The Globalisation of (Educational) Language Rights, International
Review of Education, 47:3 – 4, pp. 201– 219.

Smith, D. G. (1999) Globalization and Education: Prospects for Postcolonial Pedagogy In a
Hermeneutic Mode, Interchange, 30:1, pp. 1–10.

Spencer, J. (2001) Commentary on Kaplan and Kelly ‘Nation and Decolonization’. Anthropolog-
ical Theory, 1:4, pp. 439– 444.

Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism 551

© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Taylor, S. & Henry, M. (2000) Globalization and Educational Policymaking: A case study,
Educational Theory, 50:4, pp. 487– 503.

Toulmin, S. (1992) Cosmopolis (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press).
Usher, R. (2002) Putting Space Back on the Map: Globalisation, place and identity, Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 34:1, pp. 41– 55.
Wogan, P. (2001). Imagined Communities Reconsidered: Is print-capitalism what we think it is?

Anthropological Theory, 1:4, pp. 403 – 418.

Transnationalism and Anti-Globalism
Johannes Voelz

College Literature, Volume 44, Number 4, Fall 2017, pp. 521-526 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

[ Access provided at 30 Aug 2022 05:58 GMT from The University of Arizona Global Campus ]

Print ISSN 0093-3139 E-ISSN 1542-4286
© Johns Hopkins University Press and West Chester University 2017



The recent resurgence of nationalism in the United States finds
expression in a whole vocabulary, made up of slogans, rallying
cries, and buzzwords. Most prominent among them may be “Make
America Great Again” and “America First,” but there is another
buzzword—anti-globalism—which is particularly suggestive of the
conundrum transnationalism faces in the Age of Trump. The term
anti-globalism results from an act of rhetorical appropriation and
resignification, and as I want to suggest, the idea of transnationalism
plays an important role in this repackaging effort.

Anti-globalism recalls the anti-globalization movement of the
1990s and early 2000s, but this resonance brings out the differences
rather than similarities between the two: where anti-globalization
was concerned with a critique of the economic system, anti-global-
ism attacks what is perceived as a larger ideology of globalism that
allegedly promotes free trade as well as cultural and racial mixing.
From the view of the leftist anti-globalization movement, globaliza-
tion was driven by the institutions that backed the Washington Con-
sensus (such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank,
and the US Treasury), global corporations that exploited the waning
sovereignty of nation-states, and national governments that colluded
with the forces of global capital, for instance by entering into inter-
national free trade agreements, such as the North American Free

522 COLLEGE LITERATURE | 44.4 Fall 2017

Trade Agreement. The targets of that earlier movement were there-
fore the profiteers and structures of economic globalization.

This economic understanding of globalization opened up a space
for alternative conceptions of globalization that could compete with
the economic version. It is no coincidence, therefore, that it was also
in the late 1990s and early 2000s that the academic field of Amer-
ican Studies turned to the transnational as an emerging paradigm.

American Studies entered its transnational phase by engaging in
profound soul-searching about the possibilities of altering the object
of study seemingly prescribed by the field’s name (see, for instance,
Janice Radway’s 1998 Presidential Address at the American Studies
Association, titled “What’s in a Name?”). Although rather diverse
manifestos appeared in quick succession, there emerged a consensus
that sticking to the nation form was a sign of ideological backward-
ness, whereas transcending the nation held out the potential for pro-
gressive change. From the get-go, transnational American Studies
aimed to transcend the nation on two different conceptual planes:
first, on the level of methodology, where transnationalism in essence
meant adopting a particular perspective; second, on the level of the
object of study, where transnationalism referred to phenomena that
went beyond the limits of the nation. This blending of method and
object of study meant in effect that the transnational wasn’t some-
thing one could neutrally observe, describe, and chart. Rather,
studying the transnational meant affirming the transnational. This
is because the approval for the new method jumped over, as it were,
to an approval of the phenomena studied. If, in other words, the
transnational perspective of scholars was greeted as the successful
overcoming of critical parochialism, then phenomena embodying
the transnational were themselves to be commended. This valua-
tion guided the choice of what was to be studied: Preferred objects
included oppositional social movements that traversed national
boundaries, aesthetic forms that traveled beyond the confines of the
nation, and ideas that circulated in similarly unbounded ways (clearly,
this list is not meant to be comprehensive). In short, transnational
American Studies provided the opportunity to salvage a “globaliza-
tion from below” (to use a phrase popular with the anti-globalization
movement), and to favorably contrast it to both nationalism and eco-
nomic globalization (or “globalization from above”).

One of the problems faced—but rarely addressed—by propo-
nents of transnationalism emerged from this differentiation of eco-
nomic and cultural globalization. Did the idea that these two forms
of globalization are principally different really hold up? Didn’t both

Johannes Voelz | CRITICAL FORUM 523

visions of globalization rely on some of the very same images: flows
(of goods, people, ideas) as something natural, borders and bound-
aries as artificial? Wasn’t there, in fact, a deep affinity between the
longing for cultural transnationalism and the ideology of economic
globalization, despite the political differences that seemed to keep
them both neatly separated? I have argued elsewhere that conceptu-
ally (though not politically) transnational American Studies is indeed
indebted to economic globalization, and that it is nonetheless advis-
able to pursue the project of transnationalism, albeit in a self-re-
flexive manner (Voelz 2011). But rather than revisiting this debate
at this point, suffice it to say that the question of transnationalism’s
oppositional purity emerged from the somewhat tenuous conceptual
framework shared by the anti-globalization movement and transna-
tional Americanists: globalization, according to this framework, had
an economic and a cultural aspect, which were to be seen as opposed
to one another.

Quite some time has passed since the early 2000s. By now, aca-
demic transnationalism in American literary and cultural stud-
ies has been solidly institutionalized. Think only of the Journal of
Transnational American Studies, the recent Cambridge Companion to
Transnational American Literature, edited by Yogita Goyal (2017), or
the founding of the “Obama Institute for Transnational American
Studies” at the University of Mainz, Germany. Meanwhile, pre-
dictably, the hype that initially attended the “transnational turn”
has faded rather quickly. The anti-globalization movement, on the
other hand, has largely run out steam, mostly because center-left
parties across North America and Europe failed to support it; they
embraced neoliberal reforms instead, a decision which has cost many
of them a good share of their votes. (One could add that the move-
ment only petered out after the demise of Occupy, or that, in fact,
it has survived in places like Spain, where Podemos has managed
to transform the protest against neoliberal globalization into party
politics—but these are nuances that don’t change the big picture.)
Along with the overall decline of anti-globalization came the rise of
anti-globalism (itself a movement of transnational scope), and thus
the seemingly miraculous transformation of a left-wing into a right-
wing movement.

How in the world could that happen? In moving the critique
of globalization across the political spectrum, anti-globalists have
rejected the foundational premise of anti-globalization and academic
transnationalism: they refuse to differentiate between two differ-
ent kinds of globalization, be they “from below and from above,”

524 COLLEGE LITERATURE | 44.4 Fall 2017

“cultural and economic,” or simply “good and bad.” As London-based
blogger Jacob Stringer has aptly summarized it on opendemocracy.
net: “[Anti-]Globalisation refers to certain processes in the interests
of corporate trade. [Anti-]Globalism refers to a global outlook, bor-
ders too open, a feared mingling of cultures, implied dangerous liai-
sons with aliens” (March 26, 2017). Anti-globalists, in other words,
have tied the critique of economic globalization to xenophobia, rac-
ism, and a disdain for global elites, and have thus conceptualized
economic and cultural globalization as hanging together.

Anti-globalists’ longing for cultural isolationism, it must be
admitted, has rendered the economic dimension of anti-globalism
strikingly toothless. It is as if they offered cultural anti-globalism as
a solution to the problems caused by global capitalism: their implied
economic platform seems to be limited to the call for protectionism
(the economic dimension of “America First!”) and the hope for more
high-paying manufacturing jobs. In Strangers in Their Own Land,
sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild (2016) has recently shown just
how deeply the Tea Party members and Trump supporters she inter-
viewed in Louisiana are invested in the free market, and how much
they detest the welfare state. Their critique of economic globaliza-
tion spares multinational corporations (even if these corporations,
like the petrochemical companies in Louisiana, ruin the environ-
ment and cause a virtual cancer epidemic) because they are seen as
the older siblings of small businesses run by local entrepreneurs.

Though the anti-globalists’ mix of economic and cultural anti-glo-
balism may be rife with logical faults and moral deficiencies, their
triumph should not be simply dismissed as racist and xenophobic
(though it is that, too). Instead, their rise should prompt scholars
of transnationalism to reflect on the involvement of the idea of the
transnational in the political struggle that divides the United States
and, increasingly, other countries in which right-wing populism
has taken hold. In this context, it becomes newly significant that
transnational Americanists have tended to politically identify with
the transnational formations they study and that they have thus, as
described earlier, conflated method and object of study. As a result
of this conflation, academic transnationalism has come to embody
the idea of globalism targeted by the anti-globalist agenda. Econom-
ically, transnationalism encapsulates the privileged status of a global
elite (here, transnationalism refers to the scholars) and culturally, it
raises fears of migration, hybridity, and the demise of white hege-
mony (here, transnationalism refers to the phenomena studied).
Seen in this light, the idea of globalism embodied by transnational

Johannes Voelz | CRITICAL FORUM 525

American Studies becomes a tailor-made point of attack for what
John Judis, in The Populist Explosion (2016), has described as the tri-
angular scapegoating of right-wing populism. Right-wing populism
is triangular in that it claims to defend “the people” against two per-
ceived enemies: the elites (situated above) and undeserving “others”
(situated below).

The challenge of anti-globalism, then, is not only that it rejects
transnationalism’s starting premise of the two kinds of globaliza-
tion, but, more crucially, that it brings to light the degree to which
transnationalism is itself involved in the divisive struggle currently
rocking the United States. This challenge, I think, can be seen as
a welcome opportunity to generate a new kind of knowledge from
within transnational American Studies. It calls for an approach that
is more self-reflexive than the identificatory stance taken by many
scholars of transnationalism so far. Rather than starting from the
presumption that studying transnational formations means helping
to fight the good fight, transnational American Studies could begin to
chart how the transnational itself has become a currency, or capital,
in the struggle for symbolic advantages in a starkly divided society.

This isn’t to devalue the study of transnational formations, but
rather to come to realize that embracing and valuing the transna-
tional is a maneuver that helps secure symbolically advantageous
positions. This is the case both in the academic field of American
Studies, which has long been organized around a moral economy of
political engagement, and in the larger public sphere of the United
States. The idea (taken from Bourdieu) is not that we consciously
try to amass as much symbolic capital as possible—as if we were
rational-choice actors in the field of symbolic capital—but instead
that trying to carve out for ourselves a recognized position in the
field of transnational American Studies is what it means to “have
an investment in the game” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 98).
The same goes for the other side of the divide: the embrace of
anti-globalism speaks to the specific value of the ideas and princi-
ples captured by the term transnationalism in the broader political
discourse of the United States. Here, too, the currency of the idea
of transnationalism has a particular valuation. The fact that we may
think of this value as “negative” when used by anti-globalists begins
to suggest that taking stock of transnationalism as a currency helps
us capture its political existence. I am suggesting, in other words,
to incorporate a self-reflexive and relational sociology of the trans-
national into the program of transnational American literary and
cultural studies.

526 COLLEGE LITERATURE | 44.4 Fall 2017

One of the welcome ramifications of such an extension of Amer-
icanist transnationalism, it seems to me, would be to overcome the
harmful dualism of nation and trans-nation. Ultimately, this dualism
suggests that by turning to the transnational, we will have to learn
to stop worrying about the nation-state. But Trump’s rise to power
should make it apparent that American Studies needs to be able
to provide explanations of what goes on inside the United States.
The truly surprising suggestion to be taken away from the rise of
anti-globalism is this: a self-reflexively and relationally revamped
transnational American Studies may provide a necessary tool for
coming to terms with the nationalist resurgence.


Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociol-
ogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goyal, Yogita, ed. 2017. The Cambridge Companion to Transnational American
Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2016. Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and
Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press.

Judis, John. 2016. The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed
American and European Politics. New York: Columbia Global Reports.

Radway, Janice. 1999. “What’s in a Name? Presidential Address to the
American Studies Association, 20 November, 1998.” American Quarterly
51.1: 1–32.

Stringer, Jacob. “Why did anti-globalisation fail and anti-globalism suc-
ceed?” Open Democracy. March 26, 2017. Last vis-
ited: May 28, 2017.

Voelz, Johannes. 2011. “Utopias of Transnationalism and the Neoliberal
State.” In Re-Framing the Transnational Turn in American Studies, edited
by Winfried Fluck, Donald E. Pease, and John Carlos Rowe. Hanover,
NH: University Press of New England.

JOHANNES VOELZ is Heisenberg-Professor of American Studies,
Democracy, and Aesthetics at Goethe-University Frankfurt, Ger-
many. He is the author of Transcendental Resistance: The New Amer-
icanists and Emerson’s Challenge (UP New England, 2010) and The
Poetics of Insecurity: American Fiction and the Uses of Threat (Cambridge
UP, forthcoming 2017).


Week 1 Assignment Two

Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

Student’s Name

The University of Arizona Global Campus

GEN499: General Education Capstone

Instructor’s Name


Due Date

Note: This assignment should be written in the correct format per APA guidelines. Please click on the Writing Center & Library tab at the left-hand toolbar of the course. You will then click on the “

Writing a Paper

” link, which goes over the basics of writing an essay. For information on how to write in-text citations in APA format, click on the “

Citing Within Your Paper

” link within the Writing Center & Library tab. This paper needs to consist of 750 – 1,000 words (excluding the title and reference page).

Start your paper with the title of this assignment:

Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

The introduction paragraph of this paper should inform the reader of the topic you are writing about while providing background information and the purpose or importance of addressing this topic of global citizenship. You should prepare the reader by stating the concepts you are about to address further in your paper. Typically a good introduction paragraph is made up of 5 – 7 sentences.

Create Short Title of First Prompt (i.e., Distinction between “Globalism” and “Globalization”)

After viewing the required video “Globalization at a Crossroads”, you need write a paragraph of 5 – 7 sentences addressing the distinction between “globalism” and “globalization” It’s important to cite the video per APA guidelines within this paragraph.

Create Short Title of Second Prompt

Write a paragraph (about 5 sentences) describing how being a global citizen in the world of advanced technology can be beneficial to your success in meeting your persona, academic, and professional goals.

Create Short Title of Third Prompt

After reading the article by Reysen and Katzarska-Miller, you need to write a paragraph of 5 – 7 sentences explaining why there has been a disagreement between theorists about the definition of global citizenship. Within the article, the authors address how specific schools of thought define global citizenship. It would be a good idea to paraphrase this information in your own words and cite the article per APA guidelines. Also, within this paragraph, you should provide your own definition of global citizenship after reading what other ideas are from the article.

Create Short Title of Fourth Prompt

Note: Based on the article, you need to write two paragraphs: a paragraph on each of the two outcomes of global citizenship you chose (intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and the level of responsibility to act for the betterment of this world).

Name of First Outcome Addressed (i.e., Valuing Diversity)

Within this paragraph you need to explain why this outcome is important in becoming a global citizen. It’s a good idea to first define the outcome in your own words and then provide a thorough explanation on why it’s important for your own development as a global citizen.

Name of Second Outcome Addressed (i.e., Social Justice)

Same instructions as the first paragraph above.

Short Title for Fifth Prompt

First Personal Example on (Name First Outcome)

You need to write a short paragraph describing a personal experience that has corresponds to the first outcome you addressed in the third prompt and has assisted or resulted in your development as a global citizen.

Second Personal Example on (Name of Second Outcome)

You need to write a short paragraph describing a personal experience that has corresponds to the second outcome you addressed in the third prompt and has assisted or resulted in your development as a global citizen.

Create Short Title of Sixth Prompt

You need to write a 5 – 7 sentence paragraph that identifies two specific education courses and explains how each of those courses assisted or influenced your development in becoming a global citizen.


In this paragraph, you need to summarize the main points of this assignment and include a description of why this topic is important to address when it comes to the development of global citizenship. Typically a good conclusion paragraph consists of 5 – 7 sentences. Keep in mind that you should not share new information in the conclusion paragraph. This means that there should not be any in-text citations. You are basically summarizing what you have written.


Note: References are written below in the correct format per APA guidelines. In addition to these two required resources, you must locate another scholarly source from the University of Arizona Global Campus Library that applies to this topic and can be used to support your perspective. For help with formatting your references, see this guide:

APA: Formatting Your References List


Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870.

Stucke, K. (Writer). (2009). Globalization at a crossroads [Series episode]. In M. Stucke & Claudin, C. (Executive Producers), Global issues.

Add one more scholarly source per the requirements.

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Confidentiality Guarantee

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

24/7 Support

Our specialists are always online to help you! We are available 24/7 via live chat, WhatsApp, and phone to answer questions, correct mistakes, or just address your academic fears.

See our T&Cs
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYHELP