Cosmopolitanism, 1st Draft
Running Head: Cosmopolitanism in schools
The practice of cosmopolitanism in schools: An emerging paradigm
Bradley W. Moser
For Erika Hasebe-Ludt
The University of Lethbridge
Introduction
Cosmopolitanism, a multinational philosophy of encorporating a knowledge and sensitivity to all cultures, races, and ethnic groups all over the world, is rapidly becoming widespread. One of the most exciting advances of this worldview is within the institution of education. But this new philosophy contrasts with the traditional, still existing paradigm of nationalism in today’s schools. In order for cosmopolitanism to thrive in today’s educational system, it must compete with and override nationalism. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the notion of cosmopolitanism and its practice within the institution of education. Arguments will be made against its oppositional force: nationalism, and its practice in education. Suggestions will also be offered on how schools and teachers can foster cosmopolitan rather than national ideologies in students.
Cosmopolitanism
This paper will begin with an introduction of this relatively new concept. Attention will be paid particulalry to its definition, meaning, associated beliefs, morals, and values, along with its practice within the institution of education. This next section will provide the same introduction for nationalism.
What is Cosmopolitanism?
The Greek translation of the term is "kosmopolitês", meaning literally, citizen of the world (Kleingeld & Brown, 2002). Most people know of the root word, Cosmopolitan, from the popular magazine and famous Martini by the same name. The Greek translation of Cosmopolitan is "cosmos", meaning the world, and "polis", meaning city or nation (Luke, 2004; Wikipedia. 2006, b).
The definition of cosmopolitanism is the act of connecting with all human beings in one’s family, culture, community, and world (Kriegman, 2003). Enacting the practice of comsmopolitanism means having a personal cultural identity within the international community, and therefore, having identity of one culture - one nation (Gunesch, 2004).
What Beliefs, Morals, and Values Embody Cosmopolitanism?
This idea that all of humanity belongs to a single moral community promotes the agency of human diversity. It helps citizens understand each another and understand important historical events of one’s and other’s nations. This movement is especially important in democratic societies, where basic human rights and freedoms is seen as important (Spinner-Halev, 2005). One can clearly see that cosmopolitanism contrasts with ideologies of patriotism and nationalism. The moral argument with this approach is that one does no wrong to people of other nation-states. The driving forces of cosmopolitanism are multinationalism, multiculturalism, globalization (Wikipedia, 2006, a), internationalism, and multilingualism (Gunesch, 2004). It takes into account a breadth of perspectives from moral and socio-political philosophy. Common to all of these perspectives is the idea that all human beings, regardless of political ideology, belong to a single community and this community should be cultivated (Wikipedia, 2006, a).
Different people hold different ideas as to what this ideal community should entail. This host of different ideas makes reference to peoples divergent values. Some envision this community in terms of political institution, others in terms of moral norms, still others see it in terms of relationships, shared markets or cultural expression. Some see this ideal community as involving a world or international government or an inclusive set of moral, economic, and political relationships between nations or individuals of different nations (Wikipedia, 2006, a).
Many people also hold philosophical interests in cosmopolitanism. This paradigm involves a challenge to commonly recognized attachments among all cultures, ethnic groups, and each other (Kleingeld & Brown, 2002). Cosmopolitanism also requires global citizenship and human agency (Kriegman, 2003). The role of cosmopolitanism in today’s society is an emerging social force within the establishment of individual identity and as an international educational curriculum (Gunesch, 2004). This international focus in schools is what this paper focuses on. Cosmopolitanism is interested in the survival of diverse cultural identities (Gunesch, 2004).
In order for cosmopolitanism to take place, a few conditions need to be met, including international travel or mobility, and the surrendering or reglinguishing of sole status and pride in one’s own culture. Thus, nations need to change terminology from "home" to "everywhere" (Gunesch, 2004). This involves the notion of multicultural respect; respecting others requires recognition of their cultural identity. Communication practices that support cross-cultural respect include speaking in recognition of others’ unique identities, speaking authentically with others, and recognizing the unique way in which one individual’s identity is constituted by a specific group cultural identity (McDonough, 1997).
With the rich ideology of cosmopolitanism comes the central belief that one cannot understand and respect people from divergent cultures simply by learning about shared identities, norms, beliefs held by group. Instead, an individual needs to understand each other individual he or she comes into contact with (McDonough, 1997). Doing so requires a skeptical and critical mindset of one's cultural commitments, beliefs, and practices. It also involves finding the value and developing a sense of pride in one's cultural commitments, beliefs, and practices (McDonough, 1997). Rather than coming from an ideology of cultural identity – which nationalism approves, cosmopolitanism comes from an ideology that an individual’s identity is a hodgepodge of cultural fragments (McDonough, 1997). Central to this premise is the idea that individuals have opportunity to develop a unique and evolving cultural identity through their plethora of different fragments (McDonough, 1997). Albeit, nationalism’s conception of identity based on the group can be disrespectful in a variety of ways (McDonough, 1997).
The cosmopolitan view (the root term) forms the crux of the cosmopolitanism philosophy. Essentially, this term refers to an environment where all cultures from around the world coexist, or simply a personal perspective that reflects exposure to many different cultures. Interrelated words are "worldly", "sophisticated", and "citizen of the world". Cosmopolitan implies identification with a world community rather than with a particular state, country, culture, ethnic group, nation or people. The cosmopolitan identity is contextual and situated. For instance, while acting as a cosmopolitan in one situation, a person could act as a nationalist in another situation (Wikipedia. 2006, b).
How is Cosmopolitanism Practiced in Schools?
Now that the definitions and philosophy behind cosmopolitanism has been introduced, the focus will shift towards its practice within education. Cosmopolitanism is all about accepting and respecting diversity. Central to this approach is the liberal, as opposed to the conservative, perspective. The liberal perspective of education postualates that the purpose of education is to connect identity and autonomy, albeit to teach students to be open to a variety of identities along with their own (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Moreover, liberalism encourages students to contemplate their own identity and perhaps how to change it (Spinner-Halev, 2005).
Probably the most essential stage of development in which the liberal cosmopolitamism philosophy makes shape is the teenage years (McEvoy, 1968). In fact, McEvoy states that some people advance through an adolescent developmental stage of cosmopolitanism. He sees this stage as a significant stage of moral development in which youth learn to view themselves, others, events, ideas, and things in a cosmopolitan perspective. The premise that only some people succeed this stage means that cosmopolitanism is a human growth potential. This is much like the peak developmental stage of self-actualization that Abraham Maslow’s writes about (McEvoy, 1968).
The goal of shifting the institution of education into a cosmopolitanism focus is the transmission of common culture in schools (Spinner-Halev, 2005). This could be cquired through shifting the focus on teaching individuals unbiased, non-judgemental, genuine accounts of different cultures and ethnic groups and group shared identities (McDonough, 1997). Ultimately, this cannot be reinforced through impressing the dominant culture on students, such as is followed intentionally or not, through the ideology of nationalism (McDonough, 1997). This counter-philosophy will be introduced next.
Nationalism
Whereas the liberal perspective enforces cosmopolitanism, nationalism is maintained by conservatism and inspired by traditional religions. Extreme nationalists oppose the liberal cosmopolitanism perspective, and rather favor patriotism (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Hence, they would more likely live their lives for the sake of their nation, rather than the sake of the world.
The driving forces behind the nationalism movement are ethnocentrism and patriotism (Gunesch, 2004). Believers and conformers in the ideology of nationalism criticize and oppose cosmopolitanism on a variety of grounds. Firstly, they argue that national affiliations are important to people’s identities (Wikipedia, 2006, a). In a similar vein, they argue that cosmopolitanism would remove an important component of social fulfillment and belonging from individuals, and that loyalty is a moral virtue (Wikipedia, 2006, a). One moral argument from the nationalism standpoint is that one's priority should be to the people of one's own country. Although extreme nationalists can be quite compelled in these arguments, they lack compelling arguments as to why people of one's own country are intrinsically more important than people from other countries (Wikipedia, 2006, a). Quite on the contrary, they are less interested in diverse cultural identities and more interested in personal cultural identities (Gunesch, 2004).
Consequently, nationalism reinforces the universal values of justice and right. It influeces people to identify themselves in a hierarchal fashion. Hierarchal, meaning people from a given nation, even members of a minority, would recognize themselves as being a member of the dominant culture first and their own unique culture as second (Nussbaum, 1994). For example, a Canadian Aboriginal woman might identify herself as Canadian first and Aboriginal second.
How is Nationalism Practiced Within the Insititution of Education?
Nationalism is the traditional paradigm in education, and is still widely practiced today (Luke, 2004). All across North America, schools impress a particular, partially shared identity on students. Partially, meaning schools still allow for differences among students ¾ differences that ought to be understood, at least to some extent. This widespread practice teaches a sincere history and political principles of one’s country (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Luke theorizes that nationalism is reflected as a commodification in the institution of education, which he terms the commodity of fetishism (2004). There is hope, however, as seen in the recent shift in educational paradigm from commodification to cosmopolitanism (Luke, 2004). This shift is the focus of this paper, and will be explored next.
The Transcending of Nationalism to Cosmopolitanism in Schools
More and more, the popularity of a cosmopotalinism ideology is being seen as important in the education of children and youth. This section investigates how both cosmopolitanism and nationalism are being transmitted in schools today, followed by techniques that schools and teachers can follow in promoting cosmopolitanism ideologies in students.
The Education of Cosmopolitanism
Schools that implement cosmopolitanism in their curricula share some common characteristics. This sub-section will interpret those characteristics, along with a discussion of the advantages, limitations, and challenges of implementing cosmopolitanism-focused curricula.
Most schools operating under a cosmopolitanism paradigm focus on teaching local variations of the national curriculum, such as education on various cultures and sub-cultures within a particular area (Spinner-Halev, 2005). This practice is advantageous because it welcomes a variety of individuals’ ideologies (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Many schools are proud to provide education on globalized citizenship, which means enlarging students’ horizons through exploring human diversity (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Another common practice involves teaching the history and culture of various local communities, including immigrant and refugee communities (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Whatever the practice, the general focus of is to educate on a wide scope of different cultures and ethnic groups and allow individuals to choose their own identity and their own perception of their identity, rather than teaching and impressing upon students the dominant cultural identity – as is practiced in schools promoting nationalism (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Spinner-Halev stresses the importance that schools should not concentrate on teaching a particular identity. Schools should instead teach an honest account of history about one’s country, history, and politics, yet provide an accurate and unbiased account of all cultures. For example, Canadian schools teach about Canada’s history of oppressing aboriginal populations, but also the more recent improvements in indigenous rights (2005).
A school curriculum centered on the ideals of cosmopolitanism follows the philosophy of harmony, cohesion, sharing, and respect across divergent cultures (Hirsch, 1992). It follows the belief that students will become cooperative, civilized adults who will feel a sense of belonging to their larger society and world (Hirsch, 1992). What’s more, students will advocate pluralism, expression of admiration for diversity, and sympathy for values to be found in all cultures (Hirsch, 1992).
There are many gains that students can receive from this form of education. This includes what Gunesch calls a cosmopolitanism competence – a skill set, state of readiness, and ability to connect with peoples from diverse cultures. This is functioned by the utilization of a skill set of looking , listening, empathizing, reflecting, and intuiting. These skills are thought of as developed along a continuum. Cosmopolitanism competence and the accomponying skills set can be prepared, measured, and taught in schools (2004).
Several countries around the world have nationally funded education programs aimed at improving students’ sense of multiculturalism. Some examples include, bilingual and heritage language education programs that reinforce and encourage flourishing of local languages, active dismissal of attempts to help minority language children to assimilate into the larger English speaking public culture, and reconfiguration of curricula to represent cultural values, experiences, and traditions of minority cultural groups (McDonough, 1997). McDonough supports that "individuals typically make meaningful choices in a cultural context that is much more heterogeneous, open-ended and fragmented than something we can call ‘our own’ cultural structure" (1997, ¶ 13). Facilitating and teaching of equal respect among all people involves the recognition of specific cultural identities, but even more specific attention towards the multicultural nature of each person’s identity and not merely to group identities (McDonough, 1997).
Advocators of cosmopolitan education seek to challenge the opposing paradigm. Reimers mirrors this in his argument: "many education systems [that promote nationalism] and reforms are insufficiently focused on quality, or focus instead on a very narrow and self-referenced definition of quality" (2006). Despite the growing popularity the paradigm of cosmopolitanism is receiving it is difficult to implement in the competition of nationalism. The major challenges with implementing cosmopolitanism over nationalism in education are economic competitiveness, the formation of national identity, and local relevance (Reimers, 2006).
There are several reasons why a cosmopolitanism focus is not followed in schools. First, there is a lack of political will from national governments, who see it as ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (Reimers, 2006). Second, there is insufficient development of a knowledge base to support effective citizenship and human rights education (Reimers, 2006). Third, there is a failure of implementation of educational change from international institutions. Fourth, there is a lack of strong institutions of global governance committed to this purpose (Reimers, 2006). Fifth, approaches to citizenship education are controversial; some agree but some also disagree with its implications (Reimers, 2006). Another limitation is the lack of clarity or insight on what citizenship education actually is. For instance, some believe it is about instilling patriotism; love for the country, and internalization of the institutions of the nation State. Still, others believe it is about recognizing basic rights of all persons, irrespective of their membership in their own nation. Unfortunately, many people do not understand that it is an education for cosmopolitanism – for egalitarian cosmopolitanism (Reimers, 2006).
In spite of the challenges of implementing an education of cosmopolitanism along with the assistance of traditional mainstream mindsets, nationalism is leaving behind some major problems in the teaching of today’s children. As a result, the present curriculum is starting to experience negative consequences, and unfortunately, the future looks even grimmer. Reimers describes some of these consequences thus:
On a global scale schools are not adequately preparing children to be tolerant, to understand and accept to live with a commitment to the human rights of all people and to be global citizens, and that it is unlikely that they will do anything very different in the future. We still see intolerance, hatred, and global instability in rich and poor nations alike and the cultural conflicts that some have predicted will extend and escalate (Reimers, 2006, p. 22).
The Education of Nationalism
The ideology of nationalism is transmitted in schools through such practices as teaching in a particular language, indicating the days of the week that school takes place, subscribing the roles and duties that parents are and are not expected to play, mandating dress codes or school uniforms, regulating lunch habits and food choices, teaching society’s political institutions, teaching about the history and literature of the dominant country, initiating nation-wide testing, enforcing nation or state/province-wide uniformity of the curriculum, insisting that all students understand the same things, encouraging a common culture or sub-culture, and issuing nationally monitored and certified textbooks, curriculum, and instruction (Spinner-Halev, 2005). This list of practices is clearly exhaustive and it is clear that some of them are unavoidable. This section will investigate specific practices of nationalism in schools, along with the advantages and limitations. Although this paper is clearly in favor of cosmopolitanism practices, the reader is entitled to maintain any pre-existing philosophies and contemplate both sides of arguments with an open mind.
Nationalism in schools has some clear advantages that keep the educational programs running. A nationalist paradigm centralizes curriculum and instruction and provides structure and standardization for instruction, monitoring quality, and evaluation (Spinner-Halev, 2005). These two advantages, however, seem outweighed by the costs. Students are, first of all, deprived of the ability to consent freely to the nation and dominant culture. This undermines their ability to examine the nation and dominant culture from a critical perspective (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Thus, they become deprived of creative and critical thinking processes; ones involved with ‘thinking outside of the box’. What’s more, nationalism in schools distorts the processes of cultural formation and reformation, damages loyalties and attachments relevant to social justice such as social class, presents idealized, nearly perfect and flawless accounts of the nation and dominant culture, and does not present a true account of history and social and political practices (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Nationalism can be detrimental especially for members of minorities. This paradigm can lead people to believe that the majority nation is oppressive and that any federal intervention into the minority is malevolent. This, in effect, reduces the probability of persons within minorities to exit their groups, even if they have good reason to do so and reduce their ability to seek outside assistance in case of need. These harmful potential consequences are even worse for minority children. (Spinner-Halev, 2005). There is a danger of imposing the dominant culture on students from diverse cultures. Cross-cultural students may feel ambivalence – feeling like one belongs to the infereior culture and hate at the same time for being a part of that culture (McDonough, 1997). Another negative consequence of nationalism on cross-cultural students is the feeling of failure for being a member of "failed" group (McDonough, 1997). One more feeling is that of resentment – feeling that one needs to conform to the dominant culture, when one does not want to do it (McDonough, 1997).
This resentment relates to cultural misrecognition – feeling left out and pressure to conform (McDonough, 1997).
Teachers with a nationalism point of view might be contributing to the overal problem. Ignorant teachers may not realize that many students come from a variety of different cultural backgrounds and fragments (both inherited and learned). For example, globalization has created the subscription of American values and beliefs unto many non-American cultures across the world (McDonough, 1997).
Luke points out to how the nationalism paradigm leads to a movement of commodity fetishism in the educational institution, meaning that schools’ adopt a mindset of mass commmodifying education. This movement leads to several negative effects, including, the reinforcement of structured, non-linear educational policy, practice of teaching, and expected student performance behavior. Generation upon generation of teachers become deskilled, deprofessionalized, and automated on a large-scale. What’s more, commodification of education leads to the reduction of students’ capacity for spontaneous and creative thought. It also reasserts definitions of teaching as a craft and as a profession; both of these definitions are limiting in reactions and responses to modern changes in economic conditions, policies, persons having and expressing divergent ethnicity and cultures, formulations of youth, multiple and divergent identities, and forms of work. This unfairly and unjustly targets teachers and the teaching profession. This movement attempts to deal with modern diversities through further standardizing and strengthening existing programs. In the end, teaching becomes more about following tradition, structure, and mandated standards rather than focusing on individual student and classroom needs, resulting in students being the third party rather than recipients of education (Luke, 2004).
Along with supporting a commodification of the institution of education, nationalist also works in opposition from cosmopolitanism. Nationalistic education practices teach the benefits of nationalism and individual ethnic identity (Hirsch, 1992), thereby critiquing cosmopolitanism as leading to cultural imperialism and loss of identity (Hirsch, 1992). The results of students adopting nationalism ideologies are, according to Reimers, maladapted in meeting the needs of modern citizenship, disengaged from the world, disconnected from others, and some drop out of opportunities for higher education (2006).
Guidelines for Promoting Cosmopolitan Ideologies in Students
Now that the importance of the cosmopolitanism paradigm in schools has been described, the focus will shift to how schools can promote this way of thinking in students. The purpose of this focus is explained by Reimers as such: "to educate people to understand and appreciate cultural differences and to understand and accept human rights in a framework of global values that includes compassion and caring, concern for others, respect and reciprocity" (Reimers, 2006, ¶ 3). Methods of promoting cosmopolitanism in schools can be carried out by changing definitions, educational curricula, and the profession of teaching. This section will introduce how these methods can be carried out, along with some suggestions for how to actually teach students the ideology of cosmopolitanism.
The first change that needs to be made is in the definitions of teacher, student, and education in academia and real life Luke, 2004). Teachers need to be looked at as knowledgable and powerful agents of exchange between persons of different backgrounds. Teachers need to remain interrelational with other societal and governmental institutions. Education needs to change from an objective, standard, science-based definition to a humanistic, meaningful, subjective-based definition. In all, teachers and students need to be viewed as world citizens, thinkers, intellectuals, and critics.
Educational curricula also must change. Programming, funding, and lobbying should be initiated in attempts of dealing with modern diversities in schools, including school psychology, behavior management, English as a Second Language, special needs, and speech and language pathology (Luke, 2004). In order to induct a transnational and focus in schools, curricula will need to move away from comprehensive, rigid, inflexible, standard, teacher-proof packages of textbooks, student workbooks, and teacher guidebook materials that operate by writings of B.F Skinner and E.L. Thorndike – theorists from the behavioral approach to psychology who believe that classroom discipline practices must be directed towards managing unwanted behavior. Such practices ultimately lead to what Luke describes as commodification of schools, or commodity fetishism (2004).
The entire focus of education into one of development will need to be in order to develop individuals with a cosmopolitanism identities (Gunesch, 2004). The world needs to adopt the importance of educational institutions, international organizations, groups, and individuals to) support the education of tolerance, human rights and global civility in students and future citizens (Reimers, 2006).
The practice and profession of teaching needs to change in order to follow suit with a change in the cosmopolitanism paradigm in schools. Teachers who teach, communicate, exchange, and act as liasion across national and regional boundaries with students, parents, other teachers, school personall and administration, educational researchers, curriculm developers, teacher educators, and educational politicians can and will follow this need (Luke, 2004). Cosmopolitan-minded teachers need to internalize global values, as Reimers supports: "effective citizenship includes the knowledge, ability and disposition to engage peacefully and constructively across cultural differences for purposes of addressing personal and collective needs and of achieving sustainable human-environmental interactions, this requires internalizing Global Values" (Reimers, 2006, ¶ 1).
After the definitions, ideologies, and practices of education, curricula, teachers, and students change the question remains, how can one teach tolerance, citizenship, and human rights to students? Reimers states that students need the instruction of cross-cultural and conflict resolution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in the United States), the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada), international history, cross-racial, ethnic, and cultural appreciation, international human rights, history of human rights, international government, social institutions. All these factors are important in the education of international tolerance (2006). The effective teaching of rights and ethics requires not enforcing (i.e., thou shalt not . . .), but engaging students in discussions and debates about relevant topics appropriate to their age levels. In short, it is not just about fact knowing, but understanding the implications of that knowledge for the capacity and disposition for personal responsibility and action (Reimers, 2006).
Nussbaum instructs that teachers should go further than teaching about histories, traditions, customs, beliefs held from people of divergent backgrounds, but teach about the underlying human condition – things shared by all people/human beings. Albeit, motivate students to continually learn about themselves, be self-critical and skeptical in order to examine the self from perspectives of others and thus, limiting the existence of ignorance (1994). Another cosmopoltanism-teaching practice involves teaching the value of international cooperation – working with people from around the world. Interpersonal communication that is clear, respectful, and honest is an effective teaching tool. So is teaching children to become bilingual and be able to speak languages other than their own (Nussbaum, 1994).
Students nowadays should also be taught about various forms of interpersonal respect. Respect for other’s traditions, commitments, and ways of living, respect for human dignity and the opportunity for every person to pursue happiness. Students should be incorporated the belief that all human beings are created equal and have rights to equal and fair treatment from others. Teachers should instruct students about self-awareness of personal values, beliefs, biases, judgments, and the confidence in defending them when required, along with awareness of one’s personal boundaries. Equally important it is for a student to learn to adopt a love for humanity and to relinquish the need to defend one’s position and portray oneself as right in an argument (Nussbaum, 1994).
Conclusion
Cosmopotalanism is an exciting new philosophy about international harmony and acceptance that is slowly gaining acceptance worldwide within all societal institutions. One of the greatest struggles in pusuing this ideology, however, is in the insititution of education, where the philosophy of nationalism still reigns. This paper has introduced both worldviews and provided suggestions for how schools may adopt a multinational focus in their curricula. Although the focus of this paper was primarily for cosmopolitanism and against nationalism, they are actually complimentary and may be integrated to promote a happy medium. Gunesch supports the idea that since these two paradigms are opposing forces, they cannot in fact exist without each other. Thus, the world requires both ideologies, as we cannot merely rid the world of nationalism all together. In a practical point of view, cosmopotalanism and nationalism may be combined in educational settings. Such teachings may lead to what is called the cosmopolitan patriot, one who is loyal to all levels of humanity: family, ethnic groups, cultures, sub-cultures, towns, cities, nation states, and world (Gunesch, 2004). This focus is ideal as well. Therefore, if, as it seems, nationalism is too prominent of a force to get rid of completely in society, why not integrate it with the benevolent powers of cosmopoltanism? That way, the world could adopt a worldview that is both practical in nature and all-accepting and all-loving.
References
Gunesch, K. (2004). Education for cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity model for and within international education. Journal of Research in International Education, 3 (3), 251-275.
Hirsch, E. (1992). Toward a centrist curriculum: Two kinds of multiculturalism in elementary school. Retrieved, November 17, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/d7/ba.pdf
Kriegman, O. (2003). Dawn of the cosmopolitan: The hope of a global citizens movement. Retrieved, November 21, 2006, from http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43
Luke, A. (2004). Teaching after the market: From commodity to cosmopolitanism. Teachers College Record, 106 (7), 1422-1443.
McDonough, K. (1997). Cultural recognition, cosmopolitanism andmulticultural education. Retrieved, November 22, 2006, fromhttp://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/97_docs/mcdonough.htmlMcEvoy, T. (1968). Cosmopolitanism: An opportunity for higher education in a shrinking world. Journal of Higher Education, 39, (2), 84-91.
Reimers, F. (2006). Citizenship, identity and education: Examining the public purposes of schools in an age of globalization. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Spinner-Halev, J. (2005). Teaching identity and autonomy. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.darius.uleth.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=119&sid=495c40af-6d28-4f6b-92ff-8ed654fa3f39%40sessionmgr106
Wikipedia. (2006, a). Cosmopolitanism. Retrieved, November 16, 2006, fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism
Wikipedia. (2006, b). Cosmopolitan. Retrieved, November 16, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitan
EDITING NOTE: There are 10 references in this paper.
The practice of cosmopolitanism in schools: An emerging paradigm
Bradley W. Moser
For Erika Hasebe-Ludt
The University of Lethbridge
Introduction
Cosmopolitanism, a multinational philosophy of encorporating a knowledge and sensitivity to all cultures, races, and ethnic groups all over the world, is rapidly becoming widespread. One of the most exciting advances of this worldview is within the institution of education. But this new philosophy contrasts with the traditional, still existing paradigm of nationalism in today’s schools. In order for cosmopolitanism to thrive in today’s educational system, it must compete with and override nationalism. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the notion of cosmopolitanism and its practice within the institution of education. Arguments will be made against its oppositional force: nationalism, and its practice in education. Suggestions will also be offered on how schools and teachers can foster cosmopolitan rather than national ideologies in students.
Cosmopolitanism
This paper will begin with an introduction of this relatively new concept. Attention will be paid particulalry to its definition, meaning, associated beliefs, morals, and values, along with its practice within the institution of education. This next section will provide the same introduction for nationalism.
What is Cosmopolitanism?
The Greek translation of the term is "kosmopolitês", meaning literally, citizen of the world (Kleingeld & Brown, 2002). Most people know of the root word, Cosmopolitan, from the popular magazine and famous Martini by the same name. The Greek translation of Cosmopolitan is "cosmos", meaning the world, and "polis", meaning city or nation (Luke, 2004; Wikipedia. 2006, b).
The definition of cosmopolitanism is the act of connecting with all human beings in one’s family, culture, community, and world (Kriegman, 2003). Enacting the practice of comsmopolitanism means having a personal cultural identity within the international community, and therefore, having identity of one culture - one nation (Gunesch, 2004).
What Beliefs, Morals, and Values Embody Cosmopolitanism?
This idea that all of humanity belongs to a single moral community promotes the agency of human diversity. It helps citizens understand each another and understand important historical events of one’s and other’s nations. This movement is especially important in democratic societies, where basic human rights and freedoms is seen as important (Spinner-Halev, 2005). One can clearly see that cosmopolitanism contrasts with ideologies of patriotism and nationalism. The moral argument with this approach is that one does no wrong to people of other nation-states. The driving forces of cosmopolitanism are multinationalism, multiculturalism, globalization (Wikipedia, 2006, a), internationalism, and multilingualism (Gunesch, 2004). It takes into account a breadth of perspectives from moral and socio-political philosophy. Common to all of these perspectives is the idea that all human beings, regardless of political ideology, belong to a single community and this community should be cultivated (Wikipedia, 2006, a).
Different people hold different ideas as to what this ideal community should entail. This host of different ideas makes reference to peoples divergent values. Some envision this community in terms of political institution, others in terms of moral norms, still others see it in terms of relationships, shared markets or cultural expression. Some see this ideal community as involving a world or international government or an inclusive set of moral, economic, and political relationships between nations or individuals of different nations (Wikipedia, 2006, a).
Many people also hold philosophical interests in cosmopolitanism. This paradigm involves a challenge to commonly recognized attachments among all cultures, ethnic groups, and each other (Kleingeld & Brown, 2002). Cosmopolitanism also requires global citizenship and human agency (Kriegman, 2003). The role of cosmopolitanism in today’s society is an emerging social force within the establishment of individual identity and as an international educational curriculum (Gunesch, 2004). This international focus in schools is what this paper focuses on. Cosmopolitanism is interested in the survival of diverse cultural identities (Gunesch, 2004).
In order for cosmopolitanism to take place, a few conditions need to be met, including international travel or mobility, and the surrendering or reglinguishing of sole status and pride in one’s own culture. Thus, nations need to change terminology from "home" to "everywhere" (Gunesch, 2004). This involves the notion of multicultural respect; respecting others requires recognition of their cultural identity. Communication practices that support cross-cultural respect include speaking in recognition of others’ unique identities, speaking authentically with others, and recognizing the unique way in which one individual’s identity is constituted by a specific group cultural identity (McDonough, 1997).
With the rich ideology of cosmopolitanism comes the central belief that one cannot understand and respect people from divergent cultures simply by learning about shared identities, norms, beliefs held by group. Instead, an individual needs to understand each other individual he or she comes into contact with (McDonough, 1997). Doing so requires a skeptical and critical mindset of one's cultural commitments, beliefs, and practices. It also involves finding the value and developing a sense of pride in one's cultural commitments, beliefs, and practices (McDonough, 1997). Rather than coming from an ideology of cultural identity – which nationalism approves, cosmopolitanism comes from an ideology that an individual’s identity is a hodgepodge of cultural fragments (McDonough, 1997). Central to this premise is the idea that individuals have opportunity to develop a unique and evolving cultural identity through their plethora of different fragments (McDonough, 1997). Albeit, nationalism’s conception of identity based on the group can be disrespectful in a variety of ways (McDonough, 1997).
The cosmopolitan view (the root term) forms the crux of the cosmopolitanism philosophy. Essentially, this term refers to an environment where all cultures from around the world coexist, or simply a personal perspective that reflects exposure to many different cultures. Interrelated words are "worldly", "sophisticated", and "citizen of the world". Cosmopolitan implies identification with a world community rather than with a particular state, country, culture, ethnic group, nation or people. The cosmopolitan identity is contextual and situated. For instance, while acting as a cosmopolitan in one situation, a person could act as a nationalist in another situation (Wikipedia. 2006, b).
How is Cosmopolitanism Practiced in Schools?
Now that the definitions and philosophy behind cosmopolitanism has been introduced, the focus will shift towards its practice within education. Cosmopolitanism is all about accepting and respecting diversity. Central to this approach is the liberal, as opposed to the conservative, perspective. The liberal perspective of education postualates that the purpose of education is to connect identity and autonomy, albeit to teach students to be open to a variety of identities along with their own (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Moreover, liberalism encourages students to contemplate their own identity and perhaps how to change it (Spinner-Halev, 2005).
Probably the most essential stage of development in which the liberal cosmopolitamism philosophy makes shape is the teenage years (McEvoy, 1968). In fact, McEvoy states that some people advance through an adolescent developmental stage of cosmopolitanism. He sees this stage as a significant stage of moral development in which youth learn to view themselves, others, events, ideas, and things in a cosmopolitan perspective. The premise that only some people succeed this stage means that cosmopolitanism is a human growth potential. This is much like the peak developmental stage of self-actualization that Abraham Maslow’s writes about (McEvoy, 1968).
The goal of shifting the institution of education into a cosmopolitanism focus is the transmission of common culture in schools (Spinner-Halev, 2005). This could be cquired through shifting the focus on teaching individuals unbiased, non-judgemental, genuine accounts of different cultures and ethnic groups and group shared identities (McDonough, 1997). Ultimately, this cannot be reinforced through impressing the dominant culture on students, such as is followed intentionally or not, through the ideology of nationalism (McDonough, 1997). This counter-philosophy will be introduced next.
Nationalism
Whereas the liberal perspective enforces cosmopolitanism, nationalism is maintained by conservatism and inspired by traditional religions. Extreme nationalists oppose the liberal cosmopolitanism perspective, and rather favor patriotism (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Hence, they would more likely live their lives for the sake of their nation, rather than the sake of the world.
The driving forces behind the nationalism movement are ethnocentrism and patriotism (Gunesch, 2004). Believers and conformers in the ideology of nationalism criticize and oppose cosmopolitanism on a variety of grounds. Firstly, they argue that national affiliations are important to people’s identities (Wikipedia, 2006, a). In a similar vein, they argue that cosmopolitanism would remove an important component of social fulfillment and belonging from individuals, and that loyalty is a moral virtue (Wikipedia, 2006, a). One moral argument from the nationalism standpoint is that one's priority should be to the people of one's own country. Although extreme nationalists can be quite compelled in these arguments, they lack compelling arguments as to why people of one's own country are intrinsically more important than people from other countries (Wikipedia, 2006, a). Quite on the contrary, they are less interested in diverse cultural identities and more interested in personal cultural identities (Gunesch, 2004).
Consequently, nationalism reinforces the universal values of justice and right. It influeces people to identify themselves in a hierarchal fashion. Hierarchal, meaning people from a given nation, even members of a minority, would recognize themselves as being a member of the dominant culture first and their own unique culture as second (Nussbaum, 1994). For example, a Canadian Aboriginal woman might identify herself as Canadian first and Aboriginal second.
How is Nationalism Practiced Within the Insititution of Education?
Nationalism is the traditional paradigm in education, and is still widely practiced today (Luke, 2004). All across North America, schools impress a particular, partially shared identity on students. Partially, meaning schools still allow for differences among students ¾ differences that ought to be understood, at least to some extent. This widespread practice teaches a sincere history and political principles of one’s country (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Luke theorizes that nationalism is reflected as a commodification in the institution of education, which he terms the commodity of fetishism (2004). There is hope, however, as seen in the recent shift in educational paradigm from commodification to cosmopolitanism (Luke, 2004). This shift is the focus of this paper, and will be explored next.
The Transcending of Nationalism to Cosmopolitanism in Schools
More and more, the popularity of a cosmopotalinism ideology is being seen as important in the education of children and youth. This section investigates how both cosmopolitanism and nationalism are being transmitted in schools today, followed by techniques that schools and teachers can follow in promoting cosmopolitanism ideologies in students.
The Education of Cosmopolitanism
Schools that implement cosmopolitanism in their curricula share some common characteristics. This sub-section will interpret those characteristics, along with a discussion of the advantages, limitations, and challenges of implementing cosmopolitanism-focused curricula.
Most schools operating under a cosmopolitanism paradigm focus on teaching local variations of the national curriculum, such as education on various cultures and sub-cultures within a particular area (Spinner-Halev, 2005). This practice is advantageous because it welcomes a variety of individuals’ ideologies (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Many schools are proud to provide education on globalized citizenship, which means enlarging students’ horizons through exploring human diversity (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Another common practice involves teaching the history and culture of various local communities, including immigrant and refugee communities (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Whatever the practice, the general focus of is to educate on a wide scope of different cultures and ethnic groups and allow individuals to choose their own identity and their own perception of their identity, rather than teaching and impressing upon students the dominant cultural identity – as is practiced in schools promoting nationalism (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Spinner-Halev stresses the importance that schools should not concentrate on teaching a particular identity. Schools should instead teach an honest account of history about one’s country, history, and politics, yet provide an accurate and unbiased account of all cultures. For example, Canadian schools teach about Canada’s history of oppressing aboriginal populations, but also the more recent improvements in indigenous rights (2005).
A school curriculum centered on the ideals of cosmopolitanism follows the philosophy of harmony, cohesion, sharing, and respect across divergent cultures (Hirsch, 1992). It follows the belief that students will become cooperative, civilized adults who will feel a sense of belonging to their larger society and world (Hirsch, 1992). What’s more, students will advocate pluralism, expression of admiration for diversity, and sympathy for values to be found in all cultures (Hirsch, 1992).
There are many gains that students can receive from this form of education. This includes what Gunesch calls a cosmopolitanism competence – a skill set, state of readiness, and ability to connect with peoples from diverse cultures. This is functioned by the utilization of a skill set of looking , listening, empathizing, reflecting, and intuiting. These skills are thought of as developed along a continuum. Cosmopolitanism competence and the accomponying skills set can be prepared, measured, and taught in schools (2004).
Several countries around the world have nationally funded education programs aimed at improving students’ sense of multiculturalism. Some examples include, bilingual and heritage language education programs that reinforce and encourage flourishing of local languages, active dismissal of attempts to help minority language children to assimilate into the larger English speaking public culture, and reconfiguration of curricula to represent cultural values, experiences, and traditions of minority cultural groups (McDonough, 1997). McDonough supports that "individuals typically make meaningful choices in a cultural context that is much more heterogeneous, open-ended and fragmented than something we can call ‘our own’ cultural structure" (1997, ¶ 13). Facilitating and teaching of equal respect among all people involves the recognition of specific cultural identities, but even more specific attention towards the multicultural nature of each person’s identity and not merely to group identities (McDonough, 1997).
Advocators of cosmopolitan education seek to challenge the opposing paradigm. Reimers mirrors this in his argument: "many education systems [that promote nationalism] and reforms are insufficiently focused on quality, or focus instead on a very narrow and self-referenced definition of quality" (2006). Despite the growing popularity the paradigm of cosmopolitanism is receiving it is difficult to implement in the competition of nationalism. The major challenges with implementing cosmopolitanism over nationalism in education are economic competitiveness, the formation of national identity, and local relevance (Reimers, 2006).
There are several reasons why a cosmopolitanism focus is not followed in schools. First, there is a lack of political will from national governments, who see it as ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (Reimers, 2006). Second, there is insufficient development of a knowledge base to support effective citizenship and human rights education (Reimers, 2006). Third, there is a failure of implementation of educational change from international institutions. Fourth, there is a lack of strong institutions of global governance committed to this purpose (Reimers, 2006). Fifth, approaches to citizenship education are controversial; some agree but some also disagree with its implications (Reimers, 2006). Another limitation is the lack of clarity or insight on what citizenship education actually is. For instance, some believe it is about instilling patriotism; love for the country, and internalization of the institutions of the nation State. Still, others believe it is about recognizing basic rights of all persons, irrespective of their membership in their own nation. Unfortunately, many people do not understand that it is an education for cosmopolitanism – for egalitarian cosmopolitanism (Reimers, 2006).
In spite of the challenges of implementing an education of cosmopolitanism along with the assistance of traditional mainstream mindsets, nationalism is leaving behind some major problems in the teaching of today’s children. As a result, the present curriculum is starting to experience negative consequences, and unfortunately, the future looks even grimmer. Reimers describes some of these consequences thus:
On a global scale schools are not adequately preparing children to be tolerant, to understand and accept to live with a commitment to the human rights of all people and to be global citizens, and that it is unlikely that they will do anything very different in the future. We still see intolerance, hatred, and global instability in rich and poor nations alike and the cultural conflicts that some have predicted will extend and escalate (Reimers, 2006, p. 22).
The Education of Nationalism
The ideology of nationalism is transmitted in schools through such practices as teaching in a particular language, indicating the days of the week that school takes place, subscribing the roles and duties that parents are and are not expected to play, mandating dress codes or school uniforms, regulating lunch habits and food choices, teaching society’s political institutions, teaching about the history and literature of the dominant country, initiating nation-wide testing, enforcing nation or state/province-wide uniformity of the curriculum, insisting that all students understand the same things, encouraging a common culture or sub-culture, and issuing nationally monitored and certified textbooks, curriculum, and instruction (Spinner-Halev, 2005). This list of practices is clearly exhaustive and it is clear that some of them are unavoidable. This section will investigate specific practices of nationalism in schools, along with the advantages and limitations. Although this paper is clearly in favor of cosmopolitanism practices, the reader is entitled to maintain any pre-existing philosophies and contemplate both sides of arguments with an open mind.
Nationalism in schools has some clear advantages that keep the educational programs running. A nationalist paradigm centralizes curriculum and instruction and provides structure and standardization for instruction, monitoring quality, and evaluation (Spinner-Halev, 2005). These two advantages, however, seem outweighed by the costs. Students are, first of all, deprived of the ability to consent freely to the nation and dominant culture. This undermines their ability to examine the nation and dominant culture from a critical perspective (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Thus, they become deprived of creative and critical thinking processes; ones involved with ‘thinking outside of the box’. What’s more, nationalism in schools distorts the processes of cultural formation and reformation, damages loyalties and attachments relevant to social justice such as social class, presents idealized, nearly perfect and flawless accounts of the nation and dominant culture, and does not present a true account of history and social and political practices (Spinner-Halev, 2005). Nationalism can be detrimental especially for members of minorities. This paradigm can lead people to believe that the majority nation is oppressive and that any federal intervention into the minority is malevolent. This, in effect, reduces the probability of persons within minorities to exit their groups, even if they have good reason to do so and reduce their ability to seek outside assistance in case of need. These harmful potential consequences are even worse for minority children. (Spinner-Halev, 2005). There is a danger of imposing the dominant culture on students from diverse cultures. Cross-cultural students may feel ambivalence – feeling like one belongs to the infereior culture and hate at the same time for being a part of that culture (McDonough, 1997). Another negative consequence of nationalism on cross-cultural students is the feeling of failure for being a member of "failed" group (McDonough, 1997). One more feeling is that of resentment – feeling that one needs to conform to the dominant culture, when one does not want to do it (McDonough, 1997).
This resentment relates to cultural misrecognition – feeling left out and pressure to conform (McDonough, 1997).
Teachers with a nationalism point of view might be contributing to the overal problem. Ignorant teachers may not realize that many students come from a variety of different cultural backgrounds and fragments (both inherited and learned). For example, globalization has created the subscription of American values and beliefs unto many non-American cultures across the world (McDonough, 1997).
Luke points out to how the nationalism paradigm leads to a movement of commodity fetishism in the educational institution, meaning that schools’ adopt a mindset of mass commmodifying education. This movement leads to several negative effects, including, the reinforcement of structured, non-linear educational policy, practice of teaching, and expected student performance behavior. Generation upon generation of teachers become deskilled, deprofessionalized, and automated on a large-scale. What’s more, commodification of education leads to the reduction of students’ capacity for spontaneous and creative thought. It also reasserts definitions of teaching as a craft and as a profession; both of these definitions are limiting in reactions and responses to modern changes in economic conditions, policies, persons having and expressing divergent ethnicity and cultures, formulations of youth, multiple and divergent identities, and forms of work. This unfairly and unjustly targets teachers and the teaching profession. This movement attempts to deal with modern diversities through further standardizing and strengthening existing programs. In the end, teaching becomes more about following tradition, structure, and mandated standards rather than focusing on individual student and classroom needs, resulting in students being the third party rather than recipients of education (Luke, 2004).
Along with supporting a commodification of the institution of education, nationalist also works in opposition from cosmopolitanism. Nationalistic education practices teach the benefits of nationalism and individual ethnic identity (Hirsch, 1992), thereby critiquing cosmopolitanism as leading to cultural imperialism and loss of identity (Hirsch, 1992). The results of students adopting nationalism ideologies are, according to Reimers, maladapted in meeting the needs of modern citizenship, disengaged from the world, disconnected from others, and some drop out of opportunities for higher education (2006).
Guidelines for Promoting Cosmopolitan Ideologies in Students
Now that the importance of the cosmopolitanism paradigm in schools has been described, the focus will shift to how schools can promote this way of thinking in students. The purpose of this focus is explained by Reimers as such: "to educate people to understand and appreciate cultural differences and to understand and accept human rights in a framework of global values that includes compassion and caring, concern for others, respect and reciprocity" (Reimers, 2006, ¶ 3). Methods of promoting cosmopolitanism in schools can be carried out by changing definitions, educational curricula, and the profession of teaching. This section will introduce how these methods can be carried out, along with some suggestions for how to actually teach students the ideology of cosmopolitanism.
The first change that needs to be made is in the definitions of teacher, student, and education in academia and real life Luke, 2004). Teachers need to be looked at as knowledgable and powerful agents of exchange between persons of different backgrounds. Teachers need to remain interrelational with other societal and governmental institutions. Education needs to change from an objective, standard, science-based definition to a humanistic, meaningful, subjective-based definition. In all, teachers and students need to be viewed as world citizens, thinkers, intellectuals, and critics.
Educational curricula also must change. Programming, funding, and lobbying should be initiated in attempts of dealing with modern diversities in schools, including school psychology, behavior management, English as a Second Language, special needs, and speech and language pathology (Luke, 2004). In order to induct a transnational and focus in schools, curricula will need to move away from comprehensive, rigid, inflexible, standard, teacher-proof packages of textbooks, student workbooks, and teacher guidebook materials that operate by writings of B.F Skinner and E.L. Thorndike – theorists from the behavioral approach to psychology who believe that classroom discipline practices must be directed towards managing unwanted behavior. Such practices ultimately lead to what Luke describes as commodification of schools, or commodity fetishism (2004).
The entire focus of education into one of development will need to be in order to develop individuals with a cosmopolitanism identities (Gunesch, 2004). The world needs to adopt the importance of educational institutions, international organizations, groups, and individuals to) support the education of tolerance, human rights and global civility in students and future citizens (Reimers, 2006).
The practice and profession of teaching needs to change in order to follow suit with a change in the cosmopolitanism paradigm in schools. Teachers who teach, communicate, exchange, and act as liasion across national and regional boundaries with students, parents, other teachers, school personall and administration, educational researchers, curriculm developers, teacher educators, and educational politicians can and will follow this need (Luke, 2004). Cosmopolitan-minded teachers need to internalize global values, as Reimers supports: "effective citizenship includes the knowledge, ability and disposition to engage peacefully and constructively across cultural differences for purposes of addressing personal and collective needs and of achieving sustainable human-environmental interactions, this requires internalizing Global Values" (Reimers, 2006, ¶ 1).
After the definitions, ideologies, and practices of education, curricula, teachers, and students change the question remains, how can one teach tolerance, citizenship, and human rights to students? Reimers states that students need the instruction of cross-cultural and conflict resolution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in the United States), the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada), international history, cross-racial, ethnic, and cultural appreciation, international human rights, history of human rights, international government, social institutions. All these factors are important in the education of international tolerance (2006). The effective teaching of rights and ethics requires not enforcing (i.e., thou shalt not . . .), but engaging students in discussions and debates about relevant topics appropriate to their age levels. In short, it is not just about fact knowing, but understanding the implications of that knowledge for the capacity and disposition for personal responsibility and action (Reimers, 2006).
Nussbaum instructs that teachers should go further than teaching about histories, traditions, customs, beliefs held from people of divergent backgrounds, but teach about the underlying human condition – things shared by all people/human beings. Albeit, motivate students to continually learn about themselves, be self-critical and skeptical in order to examine the self from perspectives of others and thus, limiting the existence of ignorance (1994). Another cosmopoltanism-teaching practice involves teaching the value of international cooperation – working with people from around the world. Interpersonal communication that is clear, respectful, and honest is an effective teaching tool. So is teaching children to become bilingual and be able to speak languages other than their own (Nussbaum, 1994).
Students nowadays should also be taught about various forms of interpersonal respect. Respect for other’s traditions, commitments, and ways of living, respect for human dignity and the opportunity for every person to pursue happiness. Students should be incorporated the belief that all human beings are created equal and have rights to equal and fair treatment from others. Teachers should instruct students about self-awareness of personal values, beliefs, biases, judgments, and the confidence in defending them when required, along with awareness of one’s personal boundaries. Equally important it is for a student to learn to adopt a love for humanity and to relinquish the need to defend one’s position and portray oneself as right in an argument (Nussbaum, 1994).
Conclusion
Cosmopotalanism is an exciting new philosophy about international harmony and acceptance that is slowly gaining acceptance worldwide within all societal institutions. One of the greatest struggles in pusuing this ideology, however, is in the insititution of education, where the philosophy of nationalism still reigns. This paper has introduced both worldviews and provided suggestions for how schools may adopt a multinational focus in their curricula. Although the focus of this paper was primarily for cosmopolitanism and against nationalism, they are actually complimentary and may be integrated to promote a happy medium. Gunesch supports the idea that since these two paradigms are opposing forces, they cannot in fact exist without each other. Thus, the world requires both ideologies, as we cannot merely rid the world of nationalism all together. In a practical point of view, cosmopotalanism and nationalism may be combined in educational settings. Such teachings may lead to what is called the cosmopolitan patriot, one who is loyal to all levels of humanity: family, ethnic groups, cultures, sub-cultures, towns, cities, nation states, and world (Gunesch, 2004). This focus is ideal as well. Therefore, if, as it seems, nationalism is too prominent of a force to get rid of completely in society, why not integrate it with the benevolent powers of cosmopoltanism? That way, the world could adopt a worldview that is both practical in nature and all-accepting and all-loving.
References
Gunesch, K. (2004). Education for cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity model for and within international education. Journal of Research in International Education, 3 (3), 251-275.
Hirsch, E. (1992). Toward a centrist curriculum: Two kinds of multiculturalism in elementary school. Retrieved, November 17, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/d7/ba.pdf
Kriegman, O. (2003). Dawn of the cosmopolitan: The hope of a global citizens movement. Retrieved, November 21, 2006, from http://www.gtinitiative.org/default.asp?action=43
Luke, A. (2004). Teaching after the market: From commodity to cosmopolitanism. Teachers College Record, 106 (7), 1422-1443.
McDonough, K. (1997). Cultural recognition, cosmopolitanism andmulticultural education. Retrieved, November 22, 2006, fromhttp://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/97_docs/mcdonough.htmlMcEvoy, T. (1968). Cosmopolitanism: An opportunity for higher education in a shrinking world. Journal of Higher Education, 39, (2), 84-91.
Reimers, F. (2006). Citizenship, identity and education: Examining the public purposes of schools in an age of globalization. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Spinner-Halev, J. (2005). Teaching identity and autonomy. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.darius.uleth.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=119&sid=495c40af-6d28-4f6b-92ff-8ed654fa3f39%40sessionmgr106
Wikipedia. (2006, a). Cosmopolitanism. Retrieved, November 16, 2006, fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism
Wikipedia. (2006, b). Cosmopolitan. Retrieved, November 16, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitan
EDITING NOTE: There are 10 references in this paper.
posted by Brad | 5:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home