journal

u nderstood not sim ply as introducing n ew cultures but rather as d econ­ structing and revaluing them.

The pragm atic stance also allow s for incom patibility and seeks a rea­ soned eclectic approach. Each approach described above reveals both prob­ lem s and possibilities, particularly w h e n view ed in light of their ideas about p o w er and culture. I suggest hum bly that teachers, teacher educa­ tors, and curriculum designers first need to be clear about the nature of various approaches and then reflectively to m ake choices about h ow , w h en , and w h y to teach from a particular paradigm. Globalization, w h ic h increases the moral reach o f hum an concern, has the potential to increase the critical, im aginative, and ethical dim ensions of our education and ou r capacities and dispositions to respond to our w orld. W e face a se e m in g battle o f theoretical camps and paradigm s about the intentions and form s o f education that requires u s to reconcile the national and global, th e ethical and the technical, and to deny neither. We can be criti­ cal in our approaches to national histories and yet embrace the com m it­ m ents to rights and justice at the core of the nation; w e can be cosm opolitan in orientation to hum ans elsew here in the w orld and yet be practical in terms of participation in national politics and policy. The p ossib ility for a more just world rests on the educated im agination.

H - " T o v W r d a l o i o ^ Y d F C r i o \0 0 JL . X p n ' T . p . d -

i S i O k i i (jrW ociJ^.

" X U x d f - C u r n i M i n i w J V v “í e c t c X r C " & å m o a .'b 'ü M

¿fc/Lül S g M o o I J U- ' f v t w n Cl**M OLC(fit

\A a -C

Y o v ^ y H Y ' .

( C h a p t e r 5

~ j ~ o w a r d a p h i l o s o p h y o f ( j l o b a l E d u c a t i o n

M ílart) L a n d o r f

E ven w hile cherishing o u r diversity, w e need certain sh ared values if we are to w ork together for o u r com m on g o o d —p erh ap s o u r survival as a species.

— Kofi Annan, 1999

H um an rights play an integral part in today's process of globalization. They h ave becom e the language of global political dialogue and the basis of a moral im perative for a global w orld order. In education the increas­ ing pace o f globalization has resulted in increasing dem ands to bring global perspectives into the K-20 curriculum. Global education is at the forefront o f this m ovem ent to international hum an rights.

It is m y belief that global educators need to clearly and publicly ar­ ticulate the central concepts and philosophy u p on which our field is based. U p o n exam ination o f its content, it is evident that global educa­ tion is philosophically based on hum an rights, and especially on the core hum an rights concept o f moral universalism. H ow ever, this phenom enon is rarely acknow ledged or discussed. I believe that such an articulation w o u ld allow those w orking in global education to have a voice in fram­ ing the conversation and policies regarding its scope, methods, curricu­ lum, and direction.

In this chapter, I sh ow h o w the fundam ental concepts of human rights are em b ed d ed in global education by exam ining global education docum ents and policies revealing the similarities o f global education and hum an rights in terms of goals and content, the som ew hat parallel ex ­ pansion in the developm ent o f global education and human rights, and their conceptual convergence. In order to fully appreciate and under­ stand the dynam ic betw een human rights and global education, we must first exam ine hum an rights—what they mean, w hat they are today, their origins, and the values they bring to the philosophical underpinnings of global education.

¡_ a n d o rf

M eanin g, H istorical D evelopm en t, and A pplication o f H um an R ights

H um an rights usually refers to a b o d y o f rights based on public moral behavioral norm s and a ttitu d es h e ld by all p eo p le in all countries that are respected and protected b y nations throughout the w orld. Today, in m ost d iscu ssion s of hum an rights it is accepted that w e are referring to those rights codified in the articles o f the UDHR (1948) and the subse­ quent expansion of those rights in various international docum ents, covenants, and treaties.

The field of hum an rights is large and com plex w ith origins and m odern-day relevance to the fields o f philosophy, jurisprudence, relig­ ion, econom ics, dem ocracy, governm ent, and legal system s. A lthough it is often claim ed that the concept of hum an rights originated in Western p hilosophy, the values and justifications for hum an rights are found in a com bination o f w o rld w id e religious practices, cultural traditions, p h i­ losop h ical constructions o f universal, natural moral rights, and dem ands for certain standards of behavior from civil society. M any of the issues and controversies in today's discussion of hum an rights have their gen e­ sis in the diverse historical and topical perspectives and docum ents that have contributed to our contemporary understanding o f hum an rights. To understand these issu es in their relationship to global education, it is help fu l to exam ine the definition and the develop m en t o f hum an rights.

A n y d iscussion o f hum an rights is prem ised on the philosophical definition o f rights. R ights determ ine our abilities and freedom to take a place in the world; rights form the basis of the rules and norm s of inter­ action o f people in civil society. To have a right to som ething m eans that one h as an entitlem ent to exercise, enjoy, or claim it. A right belongs to an individual, but it can involve others if they have the ability to prevent or influence the exercise of that right. As such, rights can also im p ose re­ straints on other individuals or groups. For exam ple if on e has a right to vote, then the p eo p le adm inistering the voting s y s te m h ave a d u ty not to interfere w ith the voter.

W hile all rights are "human rights," legally and p hilosophically h u ­ m an rights are defined as a special class of rights. First, hum an rights are essentially moral rights; they relate to h o w w e sh ou ld behave in civil so­ ciety. H ow ever, they d o not present them selves as a fully com prehensive m oral doctrine such as a religion or a code of ethics. Rather they repre­ sent a lim ited set of specific, public high-priority moral norms of behav­ ior w ithout w h ich civil society w o u ld fall apart. Second, b elief and

T o w a r d a f K i l o s o p b ^ o f Q o b a l E L d u c a tio n

respect for hum an rights are inherent in all hum an beings. It is this char­ acteristic that makes hum an rights universal, as they transcend all indi­ vidual communities, cultures, ethnicities, governm ents, and nations (Donnelly, 2003). Third, hum an rights are not inalienable although they are often referred to as such. A rightholder can alw ays lose a right in a particular situation (consider defamation versus free speech). By the sam e token, human rights require very little trade-off in most situations, for example, torture is considered indefensible (Nickel, 2006). Today it is a com m only held v ie w that the protection of hum an rights transcends national interests and provides the fundam ental moral imperative for regulating the contemporary political world order and justifying interna­ tional intervention in cases o f hum an rights abuse.

H istorical Background o f H um an Rights

The underlying concept o f hum an rights com es from the notion of a moral w orld order, on e that can be found in m ost religions in Western philosophy going back to the Greeks. Many Western philosophers have lon g maintained that there is a rationally identifiable moral world order, one that applies to all hum an bein gs everyw here and the legitimacy of w hich precedes any social or political organization. Usually described as moral universalism, this concept claims that there exist certain identifi­ able trans-cultural and trans-historical moral truths. This perspective is strongly tied to the origins o f hum an rights and is still important to the defense and justification of m uch of hum an rights doctrines today. The origins of this moral universalism are usually attributed to Aristotle and the Stoics, w ho asserted the existence o f a natural and rational moral or­ der as distinguished from m an-m ade legal system s. This concept w as adopted by the Roman Stoics and m any Christian theologians. In a paral­ lel developm ent, several charters codifying freedoms and rights that em ­ bodied a concept of rights w ere drawn up in Europe. These included the M agna Carta (1215), the U n ion of Utrecht (1579), and the English Bill of Rights (1689) am ong others. These docum ents specified rights and free­ dom s in relation to a ruler that could be claimed in specific circumstances by virtue o f rank, although they did not embrace a philosophical concept of universal hum an liberty.

The developm ent o f hum an rights concepts based on one's status as a human being came in the eighteenth century, European A ge of Enlight­ enment. Philosophers such as Locke, Kant, and Rousseau developed the concept of natural rights, rights that belonged to a hum an being regard­ less of status, m emberships, or citizenship. These rights included life,

5 0 |_ a n d o r f

liberty, and property. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centu­ ries, hu m an rights served as an ideology for effecting political change and produced docum ents such as the U nited States Declaration of Inde­ pendence (1776), the U nited States Bill of Rights (1789), and the French Rights o f M an and the Citizen (1789) ( Declaration des Droits de I'Homme et du Citoyen). These docum ents reflect the em erging international theory of universal rights and the particular enum eration of specific rights. These concepts of universality and particularity are important characteristics of hum an rights and are considered essential for the transformation o f a cause or issu e into a protected hum an right today.

The develop m en t of rights continued throughout the nineteenth and tw en tieth centuries in different forms. The classic rights of the individual and the freedom of equality in the French and A m erican declarations w ere incorporated in alm ost all subsequent national constitutions. Claim ing rights becam e a force for effecting political and social change and w a s u sed as the philosophical basis for political activity tied w ith ethnic, religious, or political struggles to end or protest op p ressive or co ­ lonial regim es. Other specific civil rights m ovem ents centered on issues such as slavery, suffrage, and workers' rights

It w a s only after World War II that it becam e clear that hu m an rights w ere n o t a dom estic or local issu e and that state sovereign ty cou ld n o t be absolute. The defeat'of the A xis pow ers caused international alliances to be galvan ized by the idea of fundam ental and universal freedom for all hum ans. The prominence of hum an rights as a m oral im perative in the war is clearly evident in President Franklin D. R oosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedoms" speech.1 The subsequent revelations o f the violations of h u ­ m an rights during World War II pointed to a n eed for the protection of in d ivid u als from w ithout as w ell as from within. Thus, there em erged a consensus that hum an rights w ere a universal concern for all individuals, that there w a s a com pelling n eed for the international protection and prom otion of these rights, and that this should be a fundam ental goal of the n e w international body, the United Nations.

The U n ited N ation s The U n ited N ation s Organization Charter o f 1945 com m itted the United N ation s to prom oting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedom s. Subsequently the U niversal Declaration of H um an Rights (UDHR) w a s adopted b y the U nited N ations A ssem b ly in December 1948. This docum ent is based on the recognition o f the inherent dignity

o w a r d a ^ h ilo so p liL ) o f ( j l o b a l jT - d u c a tio n 5 I

and equal and inalienable rights o f all m em bers o f the hum an family that are the foundations o f freedom, justice, and peace in the world. The docum ent consists of a Preamble and 30 articles that identify specific hum an rights. These rights ate divided into tw o classes: (1) civil and p o ­ litical rights articulated in Articles 3-21, and (2) cultural, social, and eco ­ nom ic rights articulated in Articles 22-27. The last three articles o f the declaration, Articles 28-30, place the enum erated rights in the context of lim its, duties, and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.

The UDHR w as follow ed by a large num ber o f international conven­ tions and treaties particularly designed to protect the rights stated in the d o c u m e n t The m ost important o f these are the U nited Nations Interna­ tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (U nited Nations, 1966a) and the U nited N ations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cul­ tural Rights (United Nations, 1966b). The UDHR and these two cove­ nants are also referred to as the International Bill o f Human Rights. Other im portant conventions cover su ch areas as racial discrimination, g en o ­ cide, and w om en's rights. Especially relevant for global education is the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). All these conventions and treaties have been ratified by m ost countries of the United Nations and incorporated in national constitutions o f m o st countries of the w orld grounded in specific laws.

The importance o f the UDHR cannot be overstated. It represents the first tim e in hum an history that an international b od y has presented a standard o f basic civil, political, econom ic, social and cultural rights to w h ich all hum an beings are entitled, together w ith the intent to promote and protect those rights for individuals. The U DH R is more than a dec­ laration. Its writers and signatories assert a belief in a universal moral w orld order, one w here all hum ans are equally entitled to human rights. A lthough there is still philosophical discussion of rights without specific reference to the UDHR, our kn ow led ge and discussion of human rights today are largely based on the list o f rights contained in the UDHR. What began as a declaration o f hum an equality an d dignity and the intent to provide rights for all people by im posing specific moral standards on national governm ents has becom e the foundation o f a human rights m ovem ent, the basis o f international law, and a cornerstone o f world p o ­ litical dialogue.

[ _ a ti d o r f

T he T hree G enerations o f Human R ights The evolu tion of hum an rights since the creation o f the UDHR is often couched in terms of three accumulating generations o f rights as initially p rop osed by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak (1977) and corresponding to the th em es of the French Revolution: liberté, egalité, and fraternité.

C iv il a n d Political Rights. First generation rights (liberté) consist of the first rights in the UDHR, the group of civil and political rights that pro- m ote classical freedom s and ensure security, property, and political par­ ticipation. The constant theme in these rights is the liberty o f the in d iv id u a l and the protection of that individual against the abuse of au­ thority b y government. They also include the fundam ental freedom s as­ sociated w ith democracy: freedom o f expression, association, assem bly, opinion, b elief and religion, and m ovem ent. After World War II these w ere the rights that dom inated the discussion and activity in hum an rights u p until the 1970s. M any n ew countries w ere b o m during this time and m u ch of the political struggle to gain self-determination in volved the claim ing and protection of these classical freedoms. A s such these first generation rights are associated w ith this postcolonial era of national lib­ eration culm inating in the triumph o f the antiapartheid m ovem ent in South Africa. M any o f the constitutions of the world today incorporate these rights, y e t there are still m any that d o n o t respect or protect these

rights.

Socia l, E conom ic, and C ultural R ights. Second generation rights (egalité) are essentially claims to social equality: social, econom ic, and cultural rights. T h ey began to be recognized in the early part o f the tw entieth cen­ tury and are associated w ith the UDHR (Articles 23-29) and the Interna­ tional C ovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). These rights ensure such things as a right to work, education, housing, health care, and social security. In contrast to the first generation rights that fo cu s o n individual entitlem ents, these rights are often referred to as gro u p rights or collective rights, in that they refer to the w ell-b ein g of w h o le societies and are rights that are held and exercised by all the peo­ p le collectively or b y specific subsets o f people. In contrast to first gen ­ eration rights, second generation rights require affirmative governm ent

action for their realization.

T o w a r d a P b i i o s o p h q o f ( j ^ o b a l E d u c a t i o n 5 5

There is still considerable debate as to w hether these rights should be recognized as hum an rights because courts are generally unable to e n ­ force affirmative du ties o n states and such rights can be considered only as statem ents o f aspiration. Similarly, few states h ave the economic re­ sources for the realization of affirmative obligations such as education, health, and an adequate standard o f living (Wellman, 1998). Despite con ­ siderable discussion on h ow these rights should be quantified and im ­ plem ented, they are still considered underdeveloped.

Solidarity R ights. Third generation rights (fraternité) are still evolving and com prise a broad spectrum o f rights know n as "solidarity rights." They took h o ld in the 1990s and assum ed particular importance in h u ­ m an rights d iscu ssion s today. Solidarity refers to the m utual support and cohesiveness w ithin a group, especially am ong individuals with strong com m on interests, sym pathies, or goals. These rights include the right to self-determ ination, the right to peace, the right to a clean environment, the right to participate in and benefit from the Earth, and the right to d e ­ velopm ent. Third generation rights are quite com plex and interdepend­ ent on other rights, which m akes recognition, justification, or enforcem ent very difficult (Weston, 2006, p. 22). These rights have been recognized in various docum ents such as the 1972 United Nations Stock­ holm Declaration on the Human Environment, the Declaration on the Right to D evelop m en t (1986), and the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environ­ ment and D evelopm ent.

Other R ights. Three of these rights reflect the rising expectations of d eveloping countries in terms o f global redistribution o f power, wealth, and other im portant valu es or capabilities. These are self-determination, developm ent, and the right to participate in and benefit from the Earth. These rights are associated w ith different approaches to thinking about hum an rights such as the human capability approach of Amartya Sen (1999) and philosopher Martha N ussbaum (2000). Some writers have suggested a fourth generation of hum an rights that should include w om en's rights, rights for future generations, rights o f access to informa­ tion, and rights to communication.

H ow ever, as usefu l as it is to see the progress o f contemporary hu­ man rights in terms o f these generations o f rights, it should be empha­ sized that w h ile Vasak's m odel suggests a linear process in which one generation o f rights e v o lv e s or gives w ay to the next generation, this is not the case. Rather, in this m odel all rights are still v iew ed holistically; certain rights d o not have priority over others; and all rights exist to­

gether at the sam e time. This was affirmed in the Vienna Declaration and Program m e of A ction of the World Conference on H um an Rights (1993) w h ich states, "All hum an rights are universal, indivisible and interde­ p endent and interrelated" (para. 5).

T oday the idea o f hum an rights has w idespread international accep­ tance. T he hum an rights doctrine forms the basis o f a robust and im por­ tant international hum an rights m ovem ent outside national governm ents. Increasingly, m ost social, econom ic, and political issues are framed as hum an rights issues, be it the issue o f Tibetan monks protest­ ing a C hinese regime, poor fisherm en in Thailand protesting m ultina­ tional corporations, w om en raped in the Congo, starvation in Darfur, or M exicans trying to cross the border into the U nited States. The d rive for social justice and an ideal w orld is usually described in hum an rights term s a n d an y group w h o w ants a say in the future global w orld order seeks to gain recognition of their cause in terms of formal hum an rights w ith the attached protection and enforcement o f national and interna­ tional bodies.

E volu tion o f a Philosop hical Framework fo r G lobal Education

Som e global educators have stated that there is a moral imperative u n ­ derlying global education (Darling-Farr, 1994; H eilman, 2007; Kirkwood, 2001a; Tucker, 1982b). It is m y contention that the source of this moral im perative lies in the concepts of hum an rights. W hen one exam ines the various definitions of global education, k ey global education docum ents, the parallel d evelop m en t o f global education and hum an rights, and the issu es m o st frequently discussed in both hum an rights and global educa­ tion, it is clear that global education is based on a hum an rights philoso- phy.

T he M ean in g o f G lobal Education Since the inception of global education, scholars and practitioners have defined global education in a variety of w ays. Global education has been referred to as a field o f study (Gaudelli, 2003; Heilm an, 2007; Merryfield, 1996), a m ovem ent (Tye, 1991), a curriculum (Gaudelli, 2003; Kniep, 1986; Lamy, 1991), an approach to learning (Werner and Case, 1997), and, for m any, as com ponents and objectives (Becker, 1979; Case, 1993; H anvey, 1976; Heater, 1984; Merryfield 1997b; 2006). K irkwood (2001a) in her analysis o f principal definitions o f global education concluded that the com m onalities am ong the various definitions far outw eigh their differ-

_f"o w ard a P h ilo s o p h y o f ( j l o b a ! P d u c a tio n 25

enees. N o matter h o w global education is defined, the key elements of the endeavor clearly relate to four of H anvey's five dim ensions of a global awareness: m ultiple perspectives, state o f the planet awareness including global issues, com prehension and appreciation of other cul­ tures, the w orld as an interrelated system, and the significance of human choices. These dim ensions of developing a global perspective are a criti­ cal com ponent o f the contemporary philosophy of hum an rights.

A lthough H anvey's (1976) dim ensions of global education avoid an overt discussion of any overarching moral imperative in global education comparable to the philosophy o f moral universalism in human rights, hum an rights have played a key role in global education since its incep­ tion. Early global educators such as Tucker (1982b) and Torney-Purta (1982b) argued that hum an rights should form the framework of global education. Tucker (1982a, b), for example, w rites that the International Bill of Rights can provide a normative framework for the content of global education. He cites UNESCO's 1974 Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding to illustrate that human rights should be a part o f this framework. Subsequently, global educators have claimed, as I do, that hum an rights and global education are grounded in the concept that all p eop le are created equal and are entitled to certain unalienable rights (Kirkwood, 2001a; Kirkwood-Tucker, 2003; Reardon, 1995). For exam ple, in Our Global Age Requires Global Education: Clarifying Definitional Ambiguities, Kirkwood (2001a) writes that, among the four assum ptions that constitute the philosophical underpinnings of global education, is the n otion that "human beings are created equal regardless of age, ability, class, ethnicity, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, so ­ cioeconom ic status, or race" (p. 10).

G lobal Education in a H um an Rights Context

The premise of this chapter is that hum an rights concepts form a moral imperative that is the basis of global education as evidenced by global education policy, documents, and curricula. Before reviewing global education, it is u sefu l to exam ine the developm ent and convergence of contemporary hum an rights and global education (Figure 3.1). Here w e can see that the three generations of hum an rights are dearly tied to the three stages of global education, fust as the first generation of hum an rights deals w ith individual freedom and participation in political and civil life, the first stage of global education focuses on the individual's place in an interconnected world system. Second generation hum an rights are related to social and cultural equality, similar to the second

stage o f global education, in w hich the em phasis is on respect for other cultures. Third generation global education terms like cosmopolitanism and global responsibility/ are indistinguishable from the right-based ap­ proach to develop m en t and global hum an rights w ith an em phasis o n individual responsibility com bined w ith a collective consciousness.

Figure 3.1. Global Education and H um an Rights D evelop m en t

GLOBAL EDUCATION

HUMAN RIGHTS

2010 Global H u n u n S e c u n t y ^ Human Development. ? -

iohte-Based OevtíojMwiw, TrttemaboftaJ OversKpit^/

•'̂ Cosntopolitartisitt ■- Gtobat ResponsfoiWy

G lo b al C itiisn s h ip -

2000

S o i ^ t ajnd C Uftitra iØiveisity

1980

1970

The developm ents o f global education and hum an rights are also con­ tem poraneous w ith developm ents and priorities in hum an rights subse­ quently reflected in global education. In addition, the developm ents of both global education and hum an rights are expansive. In the first stage, the focu s is on the individual; the second stage encom passes the com m u­ nity; in the current stage rights and responsibilities span the globe. By exam ining the docum ents and policies in each o f these three stages of global education and considering them in the context o f the equivalent generation in hum an rights, the hum an rights basis of global education

clearly emerges.

First Stage G lobal Education: Equality, In te r c o n n e c te d n e ss, a n d C om m on V alu es

The first stage o f global education em phasizes equality, interconnected­ ness, and com m on values. This w as also the apex of the time o f first gen­ eration hum an rights, those fundam ental civil and political rights that

ow arci a p h ilo s o p h y o f ( j l o b a l P d u c a tio n 5 7

include, am ong other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, and voting rights. The birth o f m any n ew countries based on claiming these rights to self-determination and these freedoms along w ith a changing international w orld order coincided w ith the birth o f the concept of international education.

According to Tucker (1996) one o f tw o docum ents that marked the beginning of global education in the 1960s is a "landmark report by the Foreign Policy Association, funded b y the U.S. Office o f Education, titled An Examination of Needs, Objectives and Priorities in International Education in U.S. Secondary and Elementary Schools" (p. 47). At the beginning of this report, authors Lee Anderson and James Becker (1968) state that in their search for prevailing conceptions of international education they found that n o one claimed a philosophy of the field, "This does not mean that school curricula are not grounded in, or conditioned by, operating, albeit unarticulated, conceptions of w hat w orld affairs education is all about" (p. 17). Belief in the civil rights for all hum ans to be treated as equals w as the unstated framework for the call for curriculum, research, and training in international education at this time, though it w ou ld take until almost the 1980s, during the "golden years" of global education, that human rights w o u ld be voiced and accepted as such.

Beside the landmark global education document published by the Foreign Policy A ssociation (FPA) m entioned earlier, the importance of global education w as also highlighted by U.S. governm ent policy docu­ m ents o f the time. The tw o most significant were the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act in 1961 follow ed by the International Educa­ tion Act in 1966. A lthough the latter act w as not funded, both acts sig­ naled recognition on the part of U.S. governm ent policy-makers that in order for the U nited States to grow and prosper as a country, it was es­ sential that U.S. students learn to understand and respect people from other econom ic, political, social, and cultural contexts.

Man: A Course of Study, know n as MACOS, directed by Jerome Bruner (1965), w as one of the first elementary social studies curriculum projects in which exploration of the hum an being's place in the world entailed a cross-cultural analysis o f human behavior (see chapter 1). Bruner wrote, "The content of the course is man: his nature as a species, the forces that shape and continues to shape his humanity" (p. 4). Similar to the framework o f the 1968 FPA docum ent, in which the rights of hu­ man being in the w orld w ere the unstated focus, the MACOS curriculum is d esign ed for students to exam ine an individual's relationship to the world. In both the FPA docum ent and the MACOS curriculum, the role

53 l_ a n d o r f

of a hum an being is as an individual faced w ith an increasingly global­ ized w orld.

A lo n g w ith the political and civil hum an rights concepts inherent in the founding docum ents and curricula associated w ith global education, global educators in the 1970s u nderstood that hum ans w ere livin g w ith in a w orld system and asked each individual to gain know ledge and respect for him self or herself and others w ithin this system . In Schooling for a Global Age, James Becker (1979) explicitly situates global education in a hum an rights framework, one that focuses on both the rights an d th e re­ sp onsibilities of the individual. Becker g ives exam ples o f w a y s in w hich hum an rights and hum an responsibilities are tied to each goal, w hile p rovid in g curricular content that includes hum an rights docum ents such as the U D H R and the C onvention of the Child. N otew orthy in this chap­ ter is that w h ile Becker concurred w ith his colleagues in placin g the rights and needs of the in d ivid u al as primary in the face o f a grow ing recognition of the w orld as a system , he also foresaw the convergence of global education and hum an rights b y em phasizing the essential role of global responsibilities.

S eco n d Stage of G lobal Education: C om m unities and Cultures

W hereas the first stage o f glob al educators em phasized the w orld as a system w ith the goal that the in d ivid u al w o u ld learn to take care o f h is or her w orld, the second stage in the 1980s and 1990s focused on com m uni­ ties and cultures, w ith an em phasis on respect for all (Case, 1993; Heater, 1984; Kniep, 1986; Merryfield, 1993; W ilson, 1982). A round this tim e the w orld of hum an rights w a s expanding w ith an increasing em phasis on the second generation rights; the social, econom ic, and cultural rights that seek to ensure that all citizens o f all states receive equal treatment a n d equal econom ic conditions n o matter w hat their culture, ethnicity, or status. This second stage mirrors these developm ents in hum an rights w ith an increasing em phasis o n the collective, holistic approach to a global perspective. Second generation global educators also advocated for a m ore active approach to the individual's role in the w orld w ith the n otion that students sh ou ld seek know led ge and understanding so they can participate in the pow er dynam ics of our interdependent cultures, societies, and econom ies. This social justice approach is also integral to the prom otion of second generation hum an rights. Exam ples in teacher education sh o w that the sphere of global education m o v e d from high­ lighting the individual's stew ardship of the world system to the need of

T o w a r d a f h i lo s o p b y o f G lo b a l E d u c a t i o n 5 ?

both the individual and the group for k n ow led ge o f and respect for cu l­ tural diversity based on a value system .

In an article titled "Reflective Practice in Global Education: Strategies for Teacher Educators" (1993), M erryfield highlights the social and cu l­ tural com petencies in global education. In this article, she gives three e x ­ am ples o f h o w she u ses reflection w ith her graduate students to increase their learning of global education. In the first example, she has her stu­ dents sketch a "tree of life" to sym bolize their o w n lives and to reflect on the values and beliefs that shaped them as people. As Merryfield de­ scribes the goal o f this exercise, it is for students to "identify and reflect u pon w hat values, beliefs, experiences, and know ledge have shaped their multicultural and global perspectives" (p. 28). In other words, the point of tlris exercise is for students to reflect on and share with others the w ay s in w h ich they learn cultural norms.

Another exam ple is found in "Education for a Global Perspective: A Plan for N e w York State, 1982-2000" (1981) for infusing global education in to the,curriculum . Its purpose w a s to provide K-16 students w ith op ­ portunities to learn about the past an d the future interdependence of n a­ tions, political and social change in clu d in g learning to understand and live w ith p eo p les w h o are different from oneself w h ile preserving one's o w n cultural traditions. In both its p urpose and its content, there w ere tw o foci to the N e w York State plan: learning to understand the w orld as a system and gaining m ulticultural competence.

Postcolonial and anti-imperialism studies w ere a part of this second stage of global education (McCarthy, 1998; Said, 1993; Willinsky, 1998). By facilitating the learning of the history, form, and content o f hegem onic relationships betw een the core and the periphery states, global educators sought to raise student awareness of issues o f pow er between nations and social and cultural groups. Global educators also tried to give stu­ dents the tools w ith which to fight against pow er and gain acceptance and respect, both as individuals and as members of their natural and their self-selected groups.

W ith th is e m p h a sis on a ck n o w led g m en t o f and respect for other cultures, h u m a n rights con tin u ed t o b e the grou n d in g o f secon d stage global education; this ack n o w led g m en t an d resp ect for other cultural and so c ia l structures is e n c o d e d in the U D H R as w e ll as in the Inter­ national C o v en a n t o n E conom ic, S ocial an d C ultural Rights. The fact that h u m a n rig h ts w a s in the forefront o f glo b a l educators’ v isio n of the fie ld is also ev id e n t in d o cu m en ts in w h ich hu m an rights is the subject, s u c h as: R eardon's (2005) b o o k Educating for Human Dignity:

6o L a n d o r f

Learning about Rights and Responsibilities', B o u ld in g 's (1988) Building a Global C ivic Culture: Education fo r an Independent World; an d T orney- Purta's (1982b) co-ed ited NC SS B ulletin o n International Human Rights, Society, and the Schools.

In th e 1980s an d 1990s, h u m a n rights ed u cation also b eca m e a subject o f stu d y in itself. Tibbitts (1996), w h o called for h u m a n rights e d u c a tio n in an article that appeared in Social Education, later b eca m e the d irector o f H u m a n R ights E ducation A sso cia tes (HREA), a center for h u m a n righ ts ed u ca tio n activity and a rep ository for h u m a n rights e d u c a tio n resources. O ther ed u cators w h o h a v e com e to b e associated w ith h u m a n righ ts ed u ca tio n th rou gh their pu b lication s an d a d v o ­ cacy in c lu d e N a n c y F low ers, G eorge A n d r e o p o u lo s, D a v id Shim an, P au l S p ector, and Garth M eintjes, just to n a m e a few .

In a ch ap ter in Human Rights, Education, and Global Responsibilities, T arrow (1992) d isc u sse s d ifferen t ty p es and le v e ls o f h u m a n rights p ro g ra m s and curricula. A fter a d d ressin g the content, p ro cess, and c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n o f h u m a n rights ed u ca tio n in d ifferen t settin gs, Tarrow p o in ts to the d istin ctio n s others su c h as Shafer (1987) h a v e m a d e b e tw e e n h u m a n rights ed u cation , m oral ed u cation , g lo b a l e d u ­ cation, a n d civics and so cial ed u cation . She then d escrib es h o w she h erself v ie w s h u m a n rights as the lin k b e tw e e n th ese v a r io u s p ro­ gra m s o f ed u ca tio n for global citizenship: "H um an rights can serve as the u n ify in g factor w h ich cuts across current efforts to p ro d u ce in ­ fo r m e d an d active citizen s of their com m u n ities, their n ation s a n d an in te r d e p e n d e n t world" (p. 30).

Third Stage o f G lobal Education: G lobal C itizen sh ip v is-å -v is Solidarity Rights

Global responsibility, cosm opolitanism , and global citizenship—these are som e o f the terms associated w ith the third and current stage of global educators. These terms, w hich em phasize the role of the individual, have also b een u sed w ith reference to the third generation hum an rights. They in clu d e such rights as the right to peace, developm ent, and a clean envi­ ronm ent. These "solidarity" rights are based on an understanding that their realization is predicated not only on the actions of states, but also o n the social behavior of each in d ivid u al w ithin a com m unal context. N o n e o f these objectives is possible w ith ou t the concept of global respon­ sib ility and the actions and support o f like-m inded global citizens. It is at this intersection o f individual responsibility w here w e see-th a t global

X o w a r d a p h i l o s o p h y o f Q o b a l E d u c a t i o n 6 s

education today is firm ly grounded in hum an rights philosophy and practice.

A s global education has com e into the p o s t - 9 /I l age, its researchers have becom e m ore num erous, its advocates com e from a w ider political and social spectrum, and its needs are more important than ever. M uch as the 1960s, w h en President Lyndon Johnson passed the International Education Act, and the Foreign Policy A ssociation defined international education in broad terms, the terrain for global education has opened w id ely again. W hile there has been a m ovem ent to co-opt global educa­ tion in the nam e o f global security, accountability, and international aca­ dem ic competition, there have also been exciting positive developm ents in global education. Theorists such as Martha N ussbaum (2000) and A m y Gutmann (2003) have written of the critical need for an ethical and moral citizenship education that facilitates respect for the other, the world, and the planet. Educational psychologist Gardner (2006) has classified respect for differences am ong hum an beings and fulfillm ent o f responsibility toward others am ong the five cognitive abilities need ed to live success­ fully in the tw enty-first century. N am ing these abilities "the respectful mind" and "the ethical mind," Gardner pinpoints the n exus of the cur­ rent generation of global education concepts, global recognition o f h u ­ man rights, and hum an responsibilities as essential capacities for the future. In linking hum an rights w ith education in our increasingly glob­ alized world, these researchers go a long w ay toward validating the infu­ sion o f hum an rights based global education into the curriculum.

C osm opolitanism

In the field o f global education, several researchers have recently turned to cosm opolitanism as a prom ising concept for articulating, teaching, and enacting responsible global citizenship (Banks, 2004; Gaudelli & H eil­ man, 2009; Merryfield, 2006). Just as the third generation of hum an rights is focused on the rights and responsibilities o f individuals as members of a world com m unity, cosm opolitanism also em bodies the notion that h u ­ man beings are citizens of the world and as such are entitled to certain rights and responsible in certain w ays to and for one another. Cosm o­ politans are "people w h ose allegiance is to the w orld w id e community of human beings" (Nussbaum , 2002, p. 4). A s such, one tenet that cosm o­ politans hold is that every hum an being has obligations to every other human being (Appiah, 2006). Third generation h u m a n rights, such as the right to developm ent, the right to natural resources, and the right to a healthy environm ent, also require that human beings act responsibly. For

61 ( _ a n d o r f

exam ple, in order to guarantee that an individual in N e w York has access to safe drinking water, individuals in V ancouver h ave a responsibility n o t to pollute their o w n waters. A ccording to Banks (2004), individuals w h o exem plify cosm opolitanism are at the h ighest stage of developm ent o f glo b a l citizenship, possessin g the "know ledge, skills, and attitudes n eed ed to function effectively w ithin their o w n cultural com m unities, w ith in other cultures w ithin their nation-state, in the civic culture of their nation, and in the global community" (p. 297).

G lobal R esp on sib ility In addition to advocating cosm opolitanism , som e global educators have focu sed on global responsibility as a w a y to prom ote a m ove from the insistence on rights alone to recognition o f the obligations inherent in hum an rights (Kirkwood-Tuckcr, 2003). W hen referring to global respon­ sibility, they articulate the idea that all hum ans are equally charged w ith obligations toward hum ankind to participate in creating a m ore just and peaceful world (Bickmore, 2002; Carter, 2002).

T he U niversal Declaration o f H um an Responsibilities, proposed by the U nited N ations Interaction C ouncil under the leadership of former W est German Chancellor H elm ut Schmidt (1997) and exp ou n d ed by Germ an philosopher H ans K üng (1991), encapsulates this balance be­ tw e e n freedom and responsibility. Formulated b y 24 former h eads of state, this docum ent is m eant to serve as an explicit com plem ent to the U D H R . It consists o f 19 Articles that are d iv id ed into five sections: (1) Fundam ental Principles for Hum anity; (2) N on-V iolence and Respect for Life; (3) Justice and Solidarity; (4) Truthfulness and Tolerance; and (5) M utual Respect and Partnership. Each article proclaim s a responsibility that i s tied to a hum an right as expressed in the UDHR. Thus, for exam­ ple, under N on-Violence and Respect for Life, Article 5 begins w ith the statem ent, "Every person has a responsibility to respect life," and go es on to proclaim that n o one has the right to torture, injure, or kill another person. This is a com plem ent to Article 5 of the UDHR, w h ich proclaims the right of an individual not to be "subjected to torture or to cruel, in­ h u m a n or degrading treatment or punishm ent" (U nited N ations, 1948). W hile the UDHR Article 5 is a negative right, in the sense that it states w h a t the governm ent cannot d o to an individual, the U niversal Declara­ tion o f H um an Responsibilities' corresponding Article 5 clearly couches the right of one in terms of the responsibilities of others. It begin s with the individual's obligation and goes on to state that an individual is for­ b id d e n to torture and to injure another. By spelling out the responsibili­

T o w a r d a P h ilo so p h y o f G l o b a l E d u c a t i o n

ties that g o along w ith hum an rights, the U niversal Declaration of H u ­ m an Responsibilities can serve as an im portant docum ent in global ed u ­ cation pedagogy and practice. It can give students the support to m ove actively from a freedom o f indifference to a freedom of involvement.

G lobal G tize n sh ip Education

A third key discussion in current global education is global citizenship education (Gaudelli & Heilman, 2009). Often interchangeable with cos­ m opolitan education (Marshall & A m ot, 2008), global citizenship educa­ tion attempts to bridge the lo v e o f country, highlighted by traditional citizenship education, w ith respect for the other, the purview of global education. The goal o f global citizenship education is to "enable y ou n g p eop le to learn about their rights and responsibilities and equip them w ith skills for democratic participation, at all levels, from local to global" (Ibrahim, 2005, p. 27).

Gaudelli and Heilm an envision a global citizenship education cur­ riculum that combines hum an rights, w h ich they see as part of cosm o­ politan education, environm ental education, and education for social justice (Gaudelli & Heilman, 2009). H ow ever, hum an rights are not only part o f cosm opolitan education. They are also the basis of environmental education, as in the right to a healthy, clean environment, and education for social justice. H um an rights are at the root o f all current iterations o f global education. The conceptual basis and values advocated in global citizenship education, cosm opolitan education, and global responsibility are the sam e as the conceptual basis for the third generation of human rights—a fundam ental respect for all people that balances individual rights and ethical responsibility to the global and local community that one calls home.

Important Issu es in G lob al Education and H um an Rights

The v iew that hum an rights concepts form the grounding of a philoso­ phy for global education is further supported by the convergence of is­ sues and challenges in hum an rights and global education today that can be seen in tw o key areas of discussion: cultural relativism and globaliza­ tion.

C ultural R ela tiv ism

One o f the long-standing argum ents against the U D H R and, indeed, the concept of hum an rights is that they im pose obligations o n countries

j_ a n d o r i

w ith ou t regard to the cultural and social mores o f that country. For ex ­ am ple w h a t w o u ld be considered a right in on e country is forbidden in another, such as child betrothal versus the freedom to m arry w h o m one chooses. This debate betw een the universalists and the relativists is lon g­ standing and is in the forefront of discussion, im plem entation, and en­ forcem ent o f hum an rights today. D espite the globalization process, or perhaps because of it, w e are assailed w ith m any exam ples o f rights be­ in g in vok ed to protest the behavior of one side, w h o th en invokes the cultural difference argument to justify that behavior. From a legal stand­ point, how ever, there is general international consensus that cultural dif­ ference should not be allowed to obscure the universality o f fundamental human rights, w h ich d o not depend o n the culture or status of the individual. There is also general consensus through international covenants and treaties that cultural relativism should not be u sed as a strategy to place lim itations o n speech, subjugation of w om en, torture, im prisonm ent, and other violation s of hum an rights.

Likew ise one of the m ain criticisms of global education is that it is culturally Telativistic, that it espouses the notion that because each cul­ ture is unique, there are no universal standards b y w h ic h to ju d ge actions w ith in a culture. The Fordham Foundation's report, "Where did Social S tu d ies g o Wrong?" (Burack, 2003), su ggests that "by discouraging stu­ dents w h o m ight w ish to criticize negative aspects o f other cultures, teachers seek to suppress w hat is likely an irrepressible natural human tendency to make moral judgments. Such pressure and hectoring proba­ b ly fosters cynicism and indifference in students, not a true spirit of tol­ erance" (p. 48).

It w o u ld seem as if global education and hu m an rights are at od d s on the issu e o f cultural relativism. A hum an rights b a sed approach claims that hu m an rights exist w ithout regard to social and cultural mores. For exam p le yo u can't u se cultural differences to justify torture. U sin g the cultural relativism argument, global education curriculum w o u ld be criticized for sanctioning torture because it is culturally appropriate in certain circumstances. H ow ever, by clarifying that the basis of global ed u cation is hum an rights, the cultural relativism criticism is no longer relevant. There is general international consensus that cultural difference sh o u ld not be allow ed to obscure the generally accepted universality of. hum an rights that d o not depend on the culture or sta tu s o f the individ­ ual.

T o w a r d a f T l o s o p h y o f G l o b a l E d u c a t i o n

G lob alization

In light of the intensity o f the present globalization process, global educa­ tion is crucial to help students understand and navigate the complexity of issu es and the various dom ains o f global activity. It is especially im ­ portant that in today's w orld even seem ingly sm all decisions taken by in d ivid u als can have considerable global impact. Global education has responded to the globalization process by focusing on notions like cos­ m opolitanism , global citizenship, and global responsibility.

H o w is globalization affecting hu m an rights? A lthough globalization has b een characterized as a locom otive for productivity, opportunity, technological progress, and uniting the w orld, the integration of markets, free trade, and increased econom ic and political migration, along w ith the grow th of m ultinational companies, also creates an environment ripe for increased im poverishm ent, social disparities, and violations of h u ­ man rights. In addition, globalization has created a situation where the rights o f an individual n ow depend on a w id e range o f global forces and institutions, m any of w hich are outside sovereign state governments w ith w h o m the individual has no connection, let alone is able to influ­ ence. Thus the World Bank, m ultinational corporations, NGOs, and in­ ternational peacekeepers increasingly affect and control the lives of m illions of p eo p le throughout the world.

On a positive note for hum an rights, globalization has resulted in the growth an d com m unication o f international prescriptive norms and insti­ tutions for the protection o f hu m an rights. Global civil society provides opportunities for appeal and support for those citizens w ho are op ­ pressed b y their o w n states. A n international regim e for human rights, new forms of advocacy and communication, humanitarian intervention, and global m onitoring by w atch dogs such as Am nesty International have led to increased awareness of hum an rights entitlement and protec­ tion from abuse (Donnelly, 2003).

G lobalization has created n ew opportunities to challenge the state from above, through international bodies, state governments, and IN- GOs, and from below , through grassroots international movements aided by N G O s lik e A m nesty International and H um an Rights Watch (Brysk, 2002). G lobal education can enable students to understand that many decisions affecting their o w n liv e s are m ade outside traditional national, state, and local governm ents.

L a n d o rf

C onclu sion

A s global educators, w e have a responsibility to prom ote the idea that processes of globalization should be subject to moral considerations, in­ cluding the ethical and legal principles entailed by human rights. The former U N H igh Com m issioner for H um an Rights, Mary Robinson (2002) asks whether, in the upw ard or dow nw ard shifting of pow er, hu­ m an rights scrutiny should not also follow in both directions—in a w orld w here markets, ideas, and peop les im pact one another as never before, the tim e has com e to reconsider h ow w e think about hum an rights and d ev elo p a shared sense o f responsibility for their realization.

O n the eve of the tenth anniversary o f the signing of the UDHR, El­ eanor Roosevelt (1958) declared that "the destiny of hum an rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities" and urged people everyw here to improve hum an rights conditions "in sm all places, close to hom e" (para. 2) as the first step toward global progress.

In countless incidents and events, the international com m unity is charged w ith the prom otion and protection of hum an rights. Today hu­ m an rights is the language of international dialogue in alm ost all global issu es, be they social, political, cultural, or economic, or disputes betw een sovereign states. It is the task of global educators to facilitate students acquiring the know ledge, skills, and attitudes that w ill allow them to un­ derstand these challenges so that they w ill actively participate in support of com m unity efforts and prom ote actions. Realization of this task starts w ith understanding that students n eed to be able to bring a hum an rights perspective to issues, that all p eop les sh ou ld enjoy the protection and im plem entation of hum an rights not just in their local com m unities but in their global com m unity as w ell, a perspective based on a philosophy of unequivocal moral universalism .

Global educators need to embrace hum an rights as a philosophy and w ork to make global education replete w ith a moral im perative for g lob al citizenship based on hum an rights. To those w h o question the case for hum an rights in global education, I ask the reader to im agine a w o rld w ithout hum an rights.

N ote 1. In his annual address to C ongress on January 6, 1941, Franklin D. R oosevelt pre­ se n te d his reasons for continued A m erican involvem ent in W orld W ar IT, w hich at th a t stage consisted of continued aid to G reat Britain and greater p ro duction of war industries at hom e. P resident R oosevelt stated th at the U nited States w as fighting for the u niversal freedom s that all peo p le possessed: the freedom of speech, the freedom ;

T o w a r d a F T Io s o p h y o f G lo b a l E d u c a t i o n

of w o rsh ip , th e freedom from w ant, an d the freedom from fear. Once America e n ­ tered the w ar, these 'T o u r Freedom s" becam e the m o ral b asis of America's aim in fighting th e w a r (Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential L ibrary and Museum, n.d.).