I believe the Brockton and Wiedenhoeft argument for global citizenship is both convoluted and pretentious. This is because the two authors seem to believe that studying abroad is a innately powerful experience that connects itself with every aspect of one’s life. Rather than connecting it to the liberal arts, I side more with the Zemach-Bersein argument. This argument makes more sense to me because it identifies the possibility that studying abroad has no meaning if you simply are abroad … instead there is deeper meanings that can be formed while you are abroad. I believe that the same could be said about being in a domestic arena, one may simply live in their own country or one may find deeper meaning in the world around them. Studying abroad does offer one visible difference: the ability to see the world through a very different political lens. One’s own nation permeates into a persons biases in how they see the world and those biases are very different than an American bias. Understanding/respecting this difference and relating it to your own is the true value of an abroad experience.
I personally think that study abroad does offer more than just an eye opening to different political situations, like there are cultural differences to which you could become more aware of. But I understand and agree with you that we could have similar experiences while still remaining at home. I do believe that there are a lot of people that do not fully see every aspect of their hometowns and state. America is also such a vaste country to begin with that there are wide cultural variances in it too.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to seeing the world through a different political lens, I also like seeing it from my peers' viewpoints and comparing the thoughts between different country's citizens. But I agree that there is a big difference between living in a country and really assimilating into a country. You get out of the experience what you want!
ReplyDelete