Challenging Eurocentrism while Promoting China-Centrism in Global Citizenship Education: A Critical Analysis of Two Chinese Curricula

• In Event: Analyzing challenges, innovations, and intentions in Global Citizenship Education

Proposal

Introduction
Over the past three decades, China has evolved from a typical Global South country into a nation that, while still developing, wields significant power over both other Global South and Western developed countries. Although it remains a hub for low-skilled, low-wage manufacturing in global production, an increasing number of students now have the opportunity to participate in international events and study or travel abroad.
While Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is often critiqued for being Eurocentric or perpetuating inequity (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2022), critical elements and approaches have begun to gain more prominence in research and practice. Nevertheless, the case of China presents an intriguing example for understanding criticality.
This proposal, therefore, examines two curricula published in two consecutive yet drastically distinctive time period and seeks to answer the overarching research question: How do critical and non-critical elements manifest in China’s citizenship education curricula across different time periods in response to globalization? Three subsidiary questions are: (1) How do the curricula portray the relationship between China and the world? (2) What types of identification do the curricula aim to cultivate in response to globalization? (3) What actions do the curricula expect students to take in response to globalization?

Theoretical Framework: Global Citizenship Education
While various GCE typologies exist, within each typology, approaches can be broadly divided into critical and non-critical models. Critical elements, even if not fully developed, include any critique against the status quo. Non-critical models, on the other hand, often incorporate liberal and/or neoliberal ideas, which tend to uphold the status quo and are criticized for being based on Western values that claim universality. Purely critical models are rare; more commonly, they are mixed with liberal and/or neoliberal ideas, with criticality appearing more in the realm of knowledge acquisition than in actionable change (Goren & Yemini, 2017; Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pashby et al., 2020).

Research Design
The data sources for this study are two series of textbooks, published in 2003 and 2016, related to China’s citizenship education for middle school students (7th-9th graders). The selected versions are the most widely used in their respective time periods, and all students are expected to read and memorize them for a high-stake standardized test in their 9th grade. Published 13 years apart, these textbooks reflect the two consecutive yet drastically distinctive stages of China’s global involvement. I used critical discourse analysis because this methodology is particularly suited for examining how texts reproduce and legitimize social power abuse and inequality (van Dijk, 2015).

Findings
Knowledge: a greater emphasis on introducing China’s impact in the world
While both curricula embrace Chinese exceptionalism, the 2016 version places a much greater emphasis on China’s global impacts. Culturally, the 2003 version offers a more extensive introduction to the cultures of various countries, with only a brief mention of Chinese culture, positioning it within a global context. Economically, the 2003 curriculum justifies China’s integration into the global economy by emphasizing the need for capital and technology from developed countries. In contrast, the 2016 version extensively highlights China’s contributions to the world economy, both in manufacturing and technology, , as well as the need for China to engage in rule-making. Politically, the 2016 textbooks were somewhat critical to the negative aspects of globalization, which was absent in the earlier version, and advocate for Xi’s “Community of Common Destiny for Mankind” as a solution to these global challenges. To emphasize China's interaction with the world, the 2016 textbooks even erase the history of China’s centuries-long isolation, which was included in the earlier edition.

Attitude: a strengthened promotion of pride in CCP’s achievement
Both curricula portray the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the representative of China and the Chinese people, with the later version placing greater emphasis on promoting pride in CCP leadership. The 2003 textbooks position China as a learner from other countries, especially the developed countries, across cultural, economic and pollical dimensions. In contrast, the 2016 textbooks highlight the influence of the party-state, notably through Xi’s “Community of Common Destiny for Mankind.” This concept is used to show how China and the CCP’s ideas are embraced by the international community and to cultivate pride in party leadership. Additionally, the textbooks emphasize the CCP’s success in leading the Chinese people to overcome adversity by criticizing Western powers for their attempts to colonize China.

Action: from understanding other countries to contributing to and defending China
The expectations for student action in these two curricula differ significantly, shifting from understanding other countries to contributing to and defending China. While the 2003 textbooks provide specific examples and cases developing intercultural skills, the 2016 version offers much less scaffolding. Instead, the 2016 textbooks focus on teaching students to defend China by sharing positive stories about China in response to foreign criticism. Additionally, rather than encouraging students to engage in global issues, the 2016 textbooks urge them to prioritize China, even at the cost of their rights and freedoms (Author, 2024), framing this as a more practical way to contribute to the world.

Discussion
This proposal, by comparing the 2003 and 2016 curricula, demonstrates how China seeks to promote China-centrism as well as partisan sentiment in response to globalization. While the earlier curriculum justifies China’s integration into global communities through reforms and adaptation, the 2016 textbooks emphasize China’s and CCP’s achievements, oftentimes accompanied by explicit and implicit criticism of Western countries.
This case offers a compelling example for examining criticality in GCE. Given China’s rapid development across various dimensions, the 2016 curriculum occasionally conveys critical ideas about Eurocentrism and the Western-dominated world order. Nevertheless, it also justifies domestic inequality by emphasizing sacrificing individual rights and freedoms. Additionally, the extensive promotion of partisan sentiments can lead to a narrow, one-sided perspective that stifles critical thinking and open dialogue.

Contribution
Using China’s curricula as example, this proposal offers a unique lens to examine criticality in GCE and highlights the danger of replacing Eurocentrism with other forms of nation-centered approaches, rather than embracing a genuinely critical approach to GCE.

Author

• Yubing Liu