"Authentically" Coming to Global Citizenship Education From "Hard Spaces"? Ethics, Sensitivities, and Liminalities

• In Event: Global Citizenship Education and Sustainability Theories, Practices, and Policies

Abstract

This paper is rooted in a larger conceptual and qualitative book project grounded in feminist and critical praxis, including work around sensitivities (self-citation) and in de Sousa Santos concept of “epistemologies of the South.” The larger project aims to develop a grounded theory around Global Citizenship Education work in hard spaces in the Global South, a term I will discuss in this paper.

For this paper, I want to specifically explore the part of the project focused on the liminalities of the research on the UNESCO GCE cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavior learning outcomes (UNESCO, 2014, 2015) in such contexts. For example, considering one of the two key socio-emotional learning outcomes, “learners experience a sense of belonging to a common humanity, sharing values and responsibilities, based on human rights” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 22), how should the researcher navigate this learning outcome in a place where this is not a taken-for-granted base/starting point? How to navigate the socio-emotional learner attribute, “they develop an understanding of difference and diversity (for example, culture, language, gender, sexuality, religion), of how beliefs and values influence people’s views about those who are different, and of the reasons for, and impact of, inequality and discrimination,” in a country context where (some of) these differences are not openly discussed? Furthermore, a search of the term political sensitivity yielded no results on the UNESCO Clearinghouse on GCE (https://gcedclearinghouse.org/). The term sensitivity yielded just one result on gender sensitivity in an article on gender equity.

Beyond international pressure, working where a context is at, can there be new ways to more “authentically” come to GCE from within these spaces instead of just doing lip service to these targets? Instead of being a self-fulfilling prophecy of non-authentic engagement? This idea of lip service reminds me of Graham Hingangaroa Smith’s (2016) reflection that ethics are “not just a voyeuristic tool to describe our pathologies.” I believe there is much work to be done on understanding how a researcher-practitioner examines inéditos viáveis (Romão, 2007, pp. 133-137) navigates GCE in a square peg-round hole situations, on supporting critical research on GCE that can address nuance in harder country contexts.

I argue that the UNESCO site’s undoubtedly and purposefully aspirational learning outcomes leave much in doubt for these researchers, working in many UNESCO partner countries.

Considering Sarah Ahmed’s idea that emotions work to shape the “surfaces” of individual and collective bodies (2004, pg. 1), in the context of this doubt caused by these aspirational learning outcomes, I ask, what do hegemonic GCE discourses (including the performativity of these discourses) do to actors in these contexts, including to me? Considering issues of equity in GCE, I will consider sensitive issues of emotionality of scholars working from the Global South, such as resentment towards these “international” learning outcomes and those (“objects of resentment”) who benefit from their implementation.

Author

• Lauren Ila Misiaszek, Beijing Normal University