There’s a lot that can be said about global citizenship. There are many possible definitions, but at its root the idea is that of students becoming more “globally minded” by traveling and having international experiences. Unfortunately, the concept of global citizenship also rests on certain assumptions - the ability to step outside of one’s identities and their implications, for one thing.
The article “The Liberal Arts and Global Citizenship” by Brockington and Wiedenhoeft discusses different ways studying abroad is done. One of the models proposed that students would have a project of some kind, and would work under supervision of the local community or organization, so that they do not overstep their bounds as learners. But the fundamental assumption of Brockington and Wiedenhoeft is that global citizenship is attainable, and they criticize one student's perspective that it is not (she will be mentioned later) by saying that she was inadequately prepared by her university and call her frustrated as a result.
While it was interesting reading the perspective of Brockington and Wiedenhoeft on how study abroad ought to be done, I found that I did not agree with the central idea of global citizenship.
Byers, in his article “Are You a Global Citizen?” expresses some of these concerns. He questions the definition of citizenship, and wonders how that can apply globally. Transposing the sense of national citizenship and the set of rights that go with is not possible globally. If one takes the sense of citizenship as a set of obligations toward a community, then how is global citizenship biased? Where do we lend our support (in the ways the community asks for)? Where do we ignore? How do we “help” in ways that are un-asked for and un-wanted? And in addition to the question of who we help and who we don’t, he asks how we benefit from global misery. He says, “If we're going to talk about global citizenship, let's talk frankly about how and where power vests and is wielded in today's world, about our own country's complicity in the global power game, and about the hypocrisies and hollowness of less rigorous or more benevolent conceptions of global citizenship.”
If our country is complicit in this power game, how is it possible to step beyond our national identity as Americans in our host destinations while we benefit from those structures? While I am in France (also complicit in this power game), I still have to recognize the ways that being American affects my interactions with others, especially at university, where I am in constant interaction with people from all around the world.
While Byers stands for a reclamation of the term to refashion it from contemporary imperialism to something more positive, Zemach-Bersin completely rejects the idea in her article “American Students Abroad Can’t Be Global Citizens.” She talks about her commodified relationships with her host family and the ever-present position of privilege she held: “As a first world student, I had literally purchased a third-world family for my own self-improvement as a global citizen.” She contrasts her experience with that of her host family: she and the other Americans able to go where they liked, whereas her host family could not. She criticizes the current model of international education for the purpose of creating global citizens, saying that rather than creating greater understanding, this system perpetuates ignorance and prejudice.
It’s necessary to examine the power dynamics of where we come from, where we are, and the ideas we are taught. Isn't it imperialist to be able to claim "global citizenship" while at the same time so many people are trying to close the borders of our country to immigrants, while we are privileged enough to be able to go where we want while the same is not true for so many others? Aren’t we then claiming a right, in a sense, to the rest of the world, while at the same time denying that option to others? Because even if we personally did not create the system, we are still a part of it, and it’s necessary to examine and reexamine our thoughts and actions. As Zemach-Bersin proposes, we can all stand to become more internationally conscious and more self-aware, but like her, I do not believe I can call myself a global citizen.
As for my personal experiences here, I’ve been spending some time noticing how similar the United States and France are. From walking through touristic cities with friends to listening to lectures in class, I noticed a lot of shared problems between the two countries. In touristic cities, guards, restaurant owners, or completely unknown individuals on the street try to guess people’s nationalities from their appearances and then try to greet them in that language. So, they assume that everyone they group into the category of Asian is Chinese, and assume that all people who are Chinese speak Mandarin, and greet them in the one word they know from that language, sometimes while putting their hands together and bowing, because their knowledge of an entire continent is a few cobbled together stereotypes. Like France, we tend to conceptualize entire continents as one unit, referring to them as such: “Africa” or “Asia,” as though there is no need to further specify, whereas we are able to talk about individual countries in, say, Europe.
The other day, my literature professor said something interesting while giving us context for our study of L’Étranger by Albert Camus on France and Algeria. She talked about the second wave of colonisation, when the goal was to “bring civilization to others,” and said that France has a superiority complex (so does the United States). That superiority complex is imperialism. These ideas persist today, in both countries. As long as these power structures exist, I can not pretend to be a global citizen. Because conceptions of "global citizenship" ignore that this citizenship is not open to everyone, it ends up perpetuating, or falling too close to, second wave imperialism. "You have a right to the entire world," it says, "but only if you have these certain identities which make it possible for you."
No comments:
Post a Comment