From Development Education to Citizenship Education: starting the definition debate* the difficulties of the modern world will

not be solved by surrendering politics, but only by the development and transformation of 'politics' in ways that will enable us more effectively to shape and organize human life. We do not have the option of 'no politics'. David Held (1) the core problems of the future are political problems. We do not lack the natural resources, technology or capital to deliver a sustainable high quality of life for a population of ten billion. but we are woefully bad at putting them together properly. At the heart of so many contemporary crises is the crisis of legitimate authority: how do we construct political mechanisms, including global ones, that have the power to resolve real differences and yet retain enough legitimacy for those resolutions to hold? Tom Burke (2) My starting point is social illiteracy. Few young people or adults have a basic understanding of the social structures and processes which shape their lives. They are unable to explain how the economy, politics, society and culture work; how everyday events reflect and shape underlying structures and processes operating at all scales from the local to the global; and what changes to these structures and processes might lead to more just, democratic and sustainable futures. Education generally fails to enable people to 'read and write' their society and to contribute to the governance of social affairs as conserving, participative, and critical citizens. Few have a theoretical and practical understanding of their existing rights and responsibilities and a considered view on how these should be modified and extended in order to resolve pressing social problems and create a 'better' world. Failure to develop an empowering social or citizenship education for the majority of people in England, has been traced to the subversion of those processes of democratisation and education which flow from the Enlightenment and form part of the overall process of modernisation (3). Classical conceptions of democracy involving popular power, self government and self regulation, have largely been supplanted with contemporary conceptions in which democracy is merely a means of legitimating technocratic decisions endorsed by elected representatives. While education for genuine democracy meets the needs of free and equal citizens to actively participate in the common life of their community by cultivating appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes, education (or schooling) in our contemporary democracy marginalises social and citizenship education for the majority, and serves as a contested instrument of social reproduction and control. The struggle to extend democracy in and through education has brought significant gains including a wider curriculum and more progressive pedagogy. There have been periodic attempts to introduce social or citizenship education: the latest being the new social curriculum (comprising such 'adjectival' educations as development education) linked with integrated humanities (4). But the subject based academic curriculum, originating in the old aristocratic order, continues to dominate the lives of most teachers and pupils and has recently been strengthened by conservative educational reform. Ideas and policies based on the liberal educational tradition and the ideology and power of the new Right, have further marginalised critical forms of education, but in responding to moral uncertainty and growing social problems, the Government has taken initiatives which create space and contradictions for critical educators to exploit. The curriculum guidance document on citizenship education (5) and the more recent National Forum for Values in Education and the Community (6) are two such spaces which point to the inevitable contradictions that arise when education is too strongly orientated towards vocationalism and the market. They allow glimpses of a worthwhile general education which supports the 'good' society by developing general understanding, social intelligence, cultural awareness, and democratic participation. As support for the Right fades and the prospect of a social democratic UK government looks more certain, the task of the Development Education Commission should be to convince politicians and the public that a new and appropriate form of social or citizenship education is needed to help create a more ecologically, economically and socially sustainable global society. The nature and politics of such education can only follow from an analysis of the 'good' society 1

and those kinds of citizenship and education which can best contribute to its sound governance. My tentative analysis will draw on a report on global governance and the writing of David Held to outline the form of the 'good' global society, and on two suggested frameworks for political/citizenship education to suggest how education might assist its realization. In conclusion it will link the strengths and weaknesses of development education to the emergence of postmodernity and postmodernism and will argue that such 'adjectival' educations should now be subsumed within a critical social education linked to a utopian realism. Towards global governance The last fifty years has brought the global neighbourhood nearer to reality: a world in which citizens are increasingly dependent on one another and more and more issues call for global cooperation or neighbourhood action. There is an urgent need to develop a vision of a better world and the strategies, institutions and will to achieve it. This is the message of Our Global Neighbourhood (7), the report of the Commission on Global Governance published in 1995 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the UN. It outlines the 'great transformation' through which we are currently living, a transformation which others describe as the advent of disorganised capitalism (8) or postmodernity (9). The deregulation of capital and trade, together with changes in information and communication technologies, has facilitated the restructuring and greater integration of the global economy, a continuing redivision of the world's labour, a worsening of poverty and environmental degradation in many areas, and new uncertainties linked to such processes as the continuing arms race, the break-up of the former Eastern bloc, the rise of new nationalisms and fundamentalsms, and control of the world's media. Globalisation, or the process whereby events, decisions and activities in one part of the world come to have significant consequences for individuals and communities in distant locations, has accelerated and is linked by social theorists to the new forms of economy, politics and culture which are seen to characterise the postmodern era. What is new with regard to globalisation is its pace and spread via such new dimensions as the technological, organisational, administrative, and legal. These each have their own logic and dynamics and contribute to a situation in which we must rethink the meaning and scope of democratic politics and contending models of democracy. Processes of economic, political, legal, military and cultural connectedness change the nature, scope and capacity of sovereign states from above, challenging their regulatory capacity and legitimacy. At the same time local groups, movements and nations question the state's legitimacy from below and globalisation creates complex chains of interlocking political decisions and outcomes which both states and citizens find difficult to comprehend. In this situation the redesign of democracy must meet three requirements. It must recast the territorial boundaries of systems of accountability to better enable democratic control of such issues as trade and pollution; rethink the role and place of regional and global regulatory and functional agencies to make them more coherent and useful; and assist the articulation of political systems with key groups and actors within international civil society so that civil groups become part of the democratic process. Against this background, Our Global Neighbourhood welcomes the good news of decolonisation, widespread economic improvement, the spread of democracy and the growth of civil society, before turning to address pressing global problems. It suggests that the new communication technologies have fostered the growth of a global civil society consisting of a multitude of institutions and groups which channel the interests and energies of communities outside government. Their growing size, diversity and influence reflects a large increase in people's capacity and will to take control of their own lives and to improve and transform them. New movements in civil society are offering people new or rediscovered meanings of identity, democracy and solidarity, while the old technocratic politics and parties are losing their credibility and appeal. The new politics focuses on issues relating to the quality of life, draws on classical conceptions of democracy, and is skilled in the use of those technologies and cultural signs and symbols which characterise the postmodern economy. It has a particular appeal to young people who are generally alienated from the old politics. The Commission's answer to a global neighbourhood beset by instability and insecurity, is to 2

argue for greater regulation or governance of global affairs. Governance is defined broadly and clearly raises difficult issues about the redistribution of power and the co-ordination of decision making across different levels, scales, and policy areas while allowing for significant subsidiarity. Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest. . . . It is a broad, dynamic, complex process of interactive decision making that is constantly evolving and responding to changing circumstances. . . . governance must take an integrated approach to questions of human survival and prosperity. . . . . . Effective global decision-making thus needs to build upon and influence decisions taken locally, nationally and regionally, and to draw on the skills and resources of a diversity of people and institutions at many levels. It must build partnerships networks of institutions and processes - that enable global actors to pool information, knowledge and capacities and to develop joint policies and practices on issues of common concern. (CGG, 1995, pp. 2 - 4) Examples of governance include neighbourhood co-operatives, town councils, a regulated stock exchange, boards of private companies, local Agenda 21 fora, national parliaments and government departments, European Union Directorates, national pressure groups or NGOs, the World Trade Organisation and International Monetary Fund. Governance involves private, public, and community sectors and all these interact with each other and the media. The United Nations has a central role since it is the only forum where the governments of the world come together on a regular basis to try and resolve the world's problems. Following reform it could serve as the principal effective mechanism through which governments collaboratively engage each other and other sectors of society in the multilateral management of global affairs The Commission recommends that global governance be based on a global civic ethic or set of core values that all humanity should uphold: respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, and integrity. These values are reflected in a suggested set of common rights and responsibilities for all humanity (CGG, 1995, pp. 336 - 7). All global citizens have the right to: A secure life, Equitable treatment, An opportunity to earn a fair living and provide for their own welfare, The definition and preservation of their differences through peaceful means, Participation in governance at all levels, Free and fair petition for redress of gross injustices, Equal access to information, and Equal access to the global commons. All global citizens share a responsibility to: Contribute to the common good, Consider the impact of actions on the security and welfare of others, Promote equity, including gender equity, Protect the interests of future generations by safeguarding the global commons, Preserve humanitys cultural and intellectual heritage, Be active participants in governance, and World to eliminate corruption.

In considering what forms of political economy, democracy, or 'good' society can deliver these core values, along with common rights and responsibilities, the Commission makes the case for participative democracy and the exercise of collective sovereignty in certain areas such as the protection of the global commons. It suggests that a multifaceted strategy for global governance will involve: reforming and strengthening the existing system of intergovernmental institutions, and improving its means of collaboration with private and independent groups; articulating a collective ethos based on the principles of consultation, 3

transparency and accountability; fostering global citizenship and working to include poorer, marginalized and alienated segments of national and international society; seeking peace and progress for all people, working to anticipate conflicts and improve the capacity for the peaceful resolution of disputes; subjecting the rule of arbitrary power - economic, political or military - to the rule of law within global society. (CGG, 1995, p. Clearly such a strategy must result in a system of governance which has the capacity to bring about the transition to a sustainable global society. Such a system is also advocated in such reports as Agenda 21 (10) and The Politics of the Real World (11) but as with our Our Global Neighbourhood the politics of the authors and their preferred model of democracy is not openly revealed and has to inferred from the clues they provide. While these reports are generally an attempt to update social democracy or managed capitalism for changed times, political scientists such as David Held provide a broader and a more open analysis encompassing past, present and future models of democracy. Models of democracy In his writing on models of democracy Held suggests that modernity brought a growing preoccupation with the principle of autonomy: Individuals should be free and equal in the determination of the conditions of their own lives; that is, they should enjoy equal rights (and accordingly, equal obligations) in the specification of the framework which generates and limits the opportunities available to them, so long as they do not deploy this framework to negate the rights of others (12) This principle suggests that individuals should be free and equal in determining the framework or system of governance which shapes their lives and the meanings of democracy and citizenship. The framework and meanings are continuing matters for political disagreement and such reports as Our Common Neighbourhood represent current attempts to redefine them in more enlightened ways. In arriving at a system of governance or model whereby the principle of autonomy can best be enacted, Held reviews nine models of democracy, including both classical and contemporary accounts. Liberalism and Marxism give differing amounts of attention to individual and collective values; civil, political and social citizenship; the free market and state regulation and planning. Held believes that both can contribute to a proper understanding of the conditions of enactment for Liberalism's scepticism regarding political power complements Marxism's scepticism regarding economic power. Liberalism's central failure is to see markets as powerless mechanisms of coordination while Marxism's central failure is to reduce political power to economic power and thus discount the danger of centralised political power. Since Marxism ties the political too strongly to the economy and Liberalism equates politics with government, both have too narrow a view of politics. Held provides a much wider definition which accords with Our Global Neighbourhood's definition of governance: In my view politics is about power: that is, it is about the capacity of social agents, agencies and institutions to maintain or transform their environment, social or physical. It is about the resources that underpin this capacity and about the forces that shape and influence its exercise. Accordingly politics is a phenomena found in and between all groups, institutions (formal and informal) and societies, cutting across public and private life. It is expressed in all the activities of co-operation, negotiation and struggle over the use and distribution of resources. It is involved in all the relations, institutions and structures which are implicated in the activities of production and reproduction in the life of societies. Politics creates and conditions all aspects of our lives and its is at the core of the development of problems in social and the collective modes of their resolution. (13) He then proceeds to outline and advocate a model of democratic autonomy, or liberal socialism, 4

which would best enact the principle of autonomy in the contemporary situation. This model recasts the form and limits of the state and civil society in an institutional framework involving direct participation and proportional and statistical representation, and has strong similarities to models offered by the green left. It is when Held turns his attention to the international situation that his proposals begin to more closely echo Our Common Neighbourhood. In outlining a cosmopolitan model of democracy (13) as a transnational affair he recognises multiple and overlapping networks of power within which all groups and associations are to be attributed rights of self-determination specified by a commitment to individual autonomy and a specific cluster of rights within and across each network. Taken together these rights constitute an empowering legal order. Laws are made and enforced at a variety of locations and levels with regional and international courts extending their influence. The form and scope of individual and collective action within the state and civil society is limited by legal principles, and human rights are specified which no political regime or civil association can legitimately violate. The principle of non-coercive relations governs the settlement of disputes (force only as last resort) and the overall collective priorities for cosmopolitan democracy are the defense of self-determination, the creation of a common structure of action, and the preservation of the democratic good. Principles of social justice follow for the production, distribution and exploitation of resources must be compatible with the democratic process and an agreed framework of action. Consideration of the Commission's report and David Held's political theory suggests that citizenship is a means of defining, protecting and exercising our rights and responsibilities, at all scales from the local to the global, and updating them in changing times. Globalisation and its associated problems and opportunities reveal tensions between our values, our existing rights and responsibilities, and the institutions of state and civil society. They prompt the kind of progress whereby we formulate and realize new notions of global citizenship and this can be facilitated by appropriate kinds of education (14). The challenge for education If the key problem facing the world is the lack of an adequate system of global governance to bring about sustainable development then the key challenge for education is to educate not for development but for global citizenship. A considerable body of theory and practice relating to political and citizenship education exists in the UK and other countries, but as stated above, periodic attempts to introduce significant elements of citizenship education into the curriculum of all pupils have been frustrated and defeated. The consideration of two initiatives is again sufficient to support my case for a reconceptualisation of development education. The Programme for Political Education (PPE) originated in the work of the Politics Association and the Hansard Society in the 1970s. In Political Education and Political Literacy, published in 1978, Bernard Crick, Alex Porter and others (15) outlined the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by the political literate person and suggested democratic pedagogy whereby these might be developed. The politically literate person is one who has: learnt what the main political disputes are about, what beliefs the main contestants have of them, how they are likely to affect you and me. It also means that s/he is likely to be predisposed to try to do something about the issue in question in a manner which is at once effective and respectful of the sincerity of other people and what they believe. (16) The PPE suggested that political education should be issue focussed, adopt a broad view of politics, advocate procedural rather than substantive values, and concern itself with intellectual, communication and action skills as much as propositional and practical knowledge, and attitudes and values. It attracted a good deal of attention but largely disappeared in the 1980s and was almost entirely overlooked when citizenship education came back on the agenda in the late 1980s and 1990s. While some associate the PPE with liberal notions of politics and political education its broad view of politics can accommodate Our Global Neighbourhood's definition of governance and Held's 5

definition of politics. Its curriculum framework can be widened to embrace economic, political and cultural democracy and to focus both on the state and civil society at all levels from the local to the global. Its attention to procedural values and discursive democracy also means that it can accommodate radical views of the state such as those advocated by the new right, the new left and sections of new social movements. The What We Consume module of the World Wide Fund for Nature's Global Environmental Education Programme (17) uses the framework for political literacy in this way, linking it to a framework of key questions and ideas which ensure that pupils and teachers consider issues of governance and politics when learning about issues of environment and development around the world. A second framework for global citizenship education is provided by James Lynch and parallels with an extended PPE framework can be detected from his outline of a new approach to education for citizenship which can develop concerned and active participants in local, national and international life, who can critically appraise and judge the merits of domestic, national and international policies against a clarified and reflective system of values, grounded in human rights and social responsibilities. . . . an essentially emancipatory concept of citizenship education which can address issues of power and hegemony, human rights and social responsibility at local, national and international levels. (18) His framework recognises local, national and international levels of personal consciousness and social participation which are interdependent and mutually supportive. They comprise an interrelated network of human rights and social responsibilities across all domains (the social, cultural, environmental and economic) and each level and domain is symbiotic with others. For all practical purposes, for example, the achievement of justice is considered as indivisible across all levels and domains for there can be no just citizenship of a just national society which ignores social justice to other societies and communities, through social, cultural or environmental insensitivity, ignorance, exploitation or unequal economic, environmental or political covenants (19). Lynch bases his concept of the 'equally just global society', which education for global citizenship should promote, on Rawl's principle of equal basic liberties. This suggests equal right for each person to the most extensive system of equal basic liberties consistent with a similar system for all. It is compatible with Held's principle of autonomy and suggests that a just world order needs to include many of the legal, economic and social 'taken for granteds' of the wealthy western democracies. Citizenship at local, national and international levels, is a process of self and social awareness and actualization which empowers individuals and groups for the creative extension of rights and responsibilities. Education for global citizenship has cognitive, affective and conative objectives in the dimensions of human rights and social responsibilities, and requires enhanced capacity from teachers at systemic, institutional and individual levels inorder that education systems, schools and teachers, become expressive of the values and assumptions on which the just global society should be based. There is much in Lynch's slim book which deserves attention from the DE Commission. It includes for example a list of basic rights or freedoms which a multi-cultural global citizenship education should support (p. 21/2); criteria for a democratic and participatory pedagogy (p.22); a consideration of the aims of general education and global citizenship education (p. 36-41); learning outcomes for school pupils in terms of understandings, skills and behaviours, and attitudes and values (p. 42/3) and whole chapters devoted to translating principles into policies and processes, school and classroom practice, and assessment and evaluation. He agrees with the arguments concerning education and social control raised in my introduction and provides much guidance on a genuinely emancipatory alternative. citizenship education has tended to function as a mode of ideological domination, bringing about acceptance of vast inequities in wealth and power, shaping students to the demands of dominant groups nationally and internationally, and ignoring the current environmental depredation and degradation, rather than enhancing the capacity of learners to reconstruct their communities and societies according to principles of human sensitivity and reciprocity, social justice, wise 6

environmental stewardship and greater economic equity. (page 31). Like the PPE Lynch's book had little impact on educational reform. It finds echoes in Good EarthKeeping, the report of the UNED-UK to the Rio Earth Summit (20), but the NCC's curriculum guidance on citizenship is far less radical in its analysis and scope. Before examining whether development education should reconstruct itself as global citizenship education it is necessary to return briefly to the nature of postmodernism. The significance of postmodernism and new politics According to many social theorists the process of postmodernisation accelerates individualisation, secularisation, and the erosion of traditional institutions, The foundations of social cohesion, solidarity and conformity crumble away and individuals are faced with new risks and uncertainties together with a vast array of cultural choices. Knowledge and values are relativised, contextualised, deconstructed and demystified, to the extent that more and more people experience a sense of existential loss. They are required to construct their own meanings, identities and life narratives from the array of cognitive and aesthetic resources on offer and while this can be empowering it can also be deeply alienating and frustrating. Postmodernism challenges the old moral, intellectual and political certainties, questions grand narratives such as science and development, and brings a new sensitivity to multi-culturalism and difference. In this situation questions of life politics, or how we should live individually and collectively in a world where what used to be fixed by either nature or tradition is now subject to human decision, loom large. As the distinction between society and culture seems to disappear, young people use new cultural products and services to experiment with new individual and collective identities, and new forms of life politics which focus on issues of consumption and culture rather than production and the state. The challenge for citizenship education is to find ways of connecting the old and new politics in helping young people form their identity. This means giving much attention to Lynch's cultural domain and may well entail the cultivation of a utopian realism linked to a new grand narrative of global citizenship and sustainable development which allows for cultural pluralism while fostering the continuing evolution of human and non-human nature (21). The rise of life politics with the advent of postmodernity largely explains such adjectival educations as development, environmental, multi-cultural, anti-racist, human rights, peace, global and futures educations. These represent different but related responses to the pathologies of modernity which were overlooked to varying extents by social democracy and forms of education which failed to seriously challenge the content of the academic curriculum. All have developed a significant theory and practice along with related curriculum materials and have done much to make classrooms more relevant, democratic and empowering learning environments. Nevertheless we have to ask whether they now represent obstacles to the type of global citizenship education I have outlined. The future of development education Many advocates of development education would claim that it already promotes global citizenship and that its practitioners are well aware of the arguments I have just outlined. This may be the case, but I wish to suggest that: a profusion of adjectival educations which is still increasing in number draws attention away from the case for a core of social or citizenship education for all. that development and underdevelopment are products of social structures and processes. Social or citizenship education provides a more direct way of addressing these structures and processes than does development education. political/citizenship/social education has better developed theory and practice than development education. While development education has drawn on the former it remains somewhat under-theorized in the minds of many of its practitioners. dominant notions of development are largely discredited. The same can be said of citizenship 7

but it currently commands more support and debate and may be more redeemable. it is easier to make the case for citizenship education and democracy than it is to make the case for development education and development. The former is less likely to be perceived as the vested interest of NGOs and the development lobby. development and other adjectival educations have sometimes suffered from trying to hide their politics and the fact that they represent political/citizenship education under another label. A mature political debate on political/citizenship education in England is long overdue. citizenship education is too important to leave to chance. If we trust that pupils will develop social literacy by picking up relevant learning from academic subjects, cross-curricular elements, adjectival infusions, and the hidden curriculum of the school, we delude ourselves. Social/citizenship education needs to be recognised and taught for what it is. The concerns of the adjectival educations should find their proper places within such provision. my argument meets strong opposition from vested interests in academic subject associations, (eg. the Geographical Association) and in social justice and development NGOs. It gains some support from teachers of politics, social studies, and integrated humanities, who are in a tiny minority, and other NGO staff. Politicians and the general public do not regard social or citizenship education as a top priority but as mentioned in my introduction, there are an increasing number of spaces and contradictions which could be used to extend the current debate.

There are already signs that members of the DE Commission are debating a new focus and meaning for development education (22). I offer you citizenship as the most viable candidate in the belief that it will bring the political realism which Hall and Burke call for in the quotes at the start of this paper.
(1) Held, D (1987) Models of Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, p. 267 (2) Burke T (1997) "Green blinkers" (a book review), New Statesman, 7.3.97., p. 47 (3) Carr, W & Hartnett, A (1996) Education and the Struggle for Democracy, The politics of educational ideas, Open University, Buckingham. (4) Dufour, B (ed.) (1989) The New Social Curriculum, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (5) NCC (National Curriculum Council), (1990) Curriculum Guidance 8, Citizenship, York (6) SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority) (1996) Report of National Forum for Values in Education and the Community, London (7) Commission on Global Governance, (1995) Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford University Press, Oxford (8) Lash, S & Urry, J (1987) The End of Organized Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge (9) Jenks, C (1996) What is Postmodernism?, Academy Editions, London (10) Quarrie, J (1992) Earth Summit 1992, Regency Press, London (11) Jacobs, M (1996) The Politics of the Real World, Earthscan, London (12) Held, D (1987) Models of Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, p. 290 (12) Held, D (1987) Models of Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, p. 275 - 277 (13) Held, D (1993) Prospects for Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge (14) Huckle, J (1996) Globalisation, Postmodernity and Citizenship, in Steiner, M (ed.) Developing the Global Teacher, Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent (15) Crick, B & Porter, A (eds.) (1978) Political Education and Political Literacy, Longman, London (16) Crick, B & Porter, A (eds.) (1978) Political Education and Political Literacy, Longman, London, p.13 (17) Huckle, J (1988) What We Consume, The Teachers Handbook, World Wide Fund for Nature/Richmond Publishing, Richmond (18) Lynch, J (1992) Education for Citizenship in a Multi-Cultural Society, Cassell, London, p. 2 (19) Lynch, J (1992) Education for Citizenship in a Multi-Cultural Society, Cassell, London, p. 2 (20) Sterling, S (1992) Good Earth-Keeping, UNED-UK Group, London (21) Giddens, A (1994) Beyond Left and Right: the future of radical politics, Polity Press, Cambridge (22) Joseph, J (1996) Global Youth Work: reconceptualising development education, The Development Education Journal, 5, pp. 10 - 13 Wegimont, L (1996/7) Imagination not globalisation, The Development Education Journal, 6, pp. 21 - 24

John Huckle DeMontfort University Bedford March 1997 8