Osler, Audrey & Starkey, Hugh (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Reviewed by Michael Ernest Sweet, Concordia University

Osler, Audrey & Starkey, Hugh (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. New York: Open University Press. 229 pp.     ISBN 0-335-21181-X Reviewed by Michael Ernest Sweet Concordia University October 11, 2007 Citizenship is changing. From Canadian Marshal McLuhan's (1967) coining the term "global village" in 1967, to the globalizing decade of the 90s, our world has been witness to great change. Who we deal with and how we deal with them has undergone a radical metamorphosis. We are indeed, in many ways, a global village. Within this framework it only makes sense that people, as citizens, have changed also. Albert Schweitzer’s (1987) idea of the global citizen is no longer a mere idealist image, but something much closer to reality. Citizens are now presented with increasing opportunities to act in new ways on a global level. The globalization of media has brought world issues into our living rooms and our consciousness. Sustainable development, peace, and social progress are global priorities and affect us all. The idea of global or world citizenship has been a controversial one and too often misunderstood. Martha Nussbaum’s (1994) essay “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” published in the Boston Review returned the Hellenistic concept to center stage in academia. Published with nearly thirty responses, it quickly became clear that cosmopolitanism was not going to be easily accepted as the panacea to contemporary world issues, as Nussbaum optimistically hoped. Despite its obvious attraction in the contemporary world, given the reality of globalization, it is simply not an easy concept to position as practical. Scholarship illustrating such a point is still prevalent, the most recent of which is Naseem and Hyslop-Margison’s (2006) article titled Nussbaum’s Concept of Cosmopolitanism: Practical Possibility of Academic Delusion? Authors Audrey Osler and Hugh Starkey in their book Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education lay bare the notion of global citizenship, not as the outward force of a world government, but as a world community based on common human values, a difficult, but not impossible, notion to support. Hannah Arendt (1955) famously declared world citizenship impossible stating, “A citizen is by definition a citizen among citizens of a country among countries. His rights and duties must be defined and limited, not only by his fellow citizens, but also by the boundaries of a territory” (p. 81). Although a debatable claim even in her time, this statement in today’s world of interconnectivity, especially given the internet, seems easily challenged. As Osler and Starkey point out, “Citizenship is changing as citizens have greater opportunities to act in new international contexts” (p. 8). Additionally, the authors highlight international instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as examples of rights available external to states. No longer are citizen rights and duties limited by territorial boundaries, which in the 21st century amount to little more than lines on a map. As a result of this contemporary reality, Osler and Starkey reposition, indeed re-imagine, citizenship as requiring cosmopolitan vision not unlike that of Nussbaum’s. “The consequence of globalization suggests that approaches to citizenship need to be reconsidered…. We are increasingly able to make these connections [between ourselves and our identities and others and their concerns] and feel solidarity with others at local, national, regional (e.g. European) and global levels” (p. 8). Our concerns and considerations as citizens and our moral vision must extend beyond the local and even national like our very real actions and their often deleterious consequences. Osler and Starkey not only make a convincing case for cosmopolitan citizenship in such a manner, but essentially join with the likes of Blades and Richardson (2006) and declare it morally imperative. Blades and Richardson (2006) stated, “What is urgently needed is a shift towards reclaiming our civic responsibility as inhabitants of the earth: A global citizenship. Central to this new direction is the moral imperative to, in the words of Zygmund Bauman, 'restart… the interrupted discourse of the common good'" (p. 117). One crucial point the authors make is that globalizing citizenship, what they present as cosmopolitanism, does not entail erasing community or national identity. Osler and Starkey note: Cosmopolitan citizenship implies recognition of our common humanity and a sense of solidarity with others. It is insufficient, however, to feel and express a sense of solidarity with others elsewhere if we cannot establish a sense of solidarity with others in our own communities….” (p. 93) This distinction is of paramount importance to the text’s value as it effectively breaks down the too often invoked binary between global and more traditional national/local forms of citizenship, thus making "global citizenship" not only practicable but attractive. The popular slogan “act local, think global” takes on a degree of resonance and promise cast in such a light. Returning to the work of Naseem and Hyslop-Margison (2006), which criticizes both Nussbaum’s work and more generally cosmopolitanism, their claim, in précis, is that such a vision violates local sensibilities largely due to its lack of moral sophistication. Their claim is an example of the all too common binary of global versus local citizenship. For example, Naseem and Hyslop-Margison assert that in calling for moral evaluation from reason and self-evaluation, cosmopolitanism erases certain communities (e.g., Islam) which do not accept such as the basis for acquiring moral knowledge but rather turn to metaphysical beliefs or sacred texts. Although I am willing to accept that Naseem and Hyslop-Margison have identified a potentially difficult area of cosmopolitanism in theory, I nevertheless believe in a higher level sharing of human hopes, dreams and fears which do in fact transcend individual races, religions and geographical regions. In fact, to deny such seems devastatingly pessimistic for the fate of mankind. The very idea that a moral belief in the general flourishing of human life, in the dignity and worth of the human person, does not rise above certain dogmatic and situated moral codes is all the more reason to promote an ideal – such as cosmopolitanism – which aims to transcend. Believing, in the vein of Naseem and Hyslop-Margison, that we cannot build a contemporary notion of citizenship on universal human values is, essentially, to give in to the demise of humanity. If we are to live in a global village, we must require a global citizenship. Osler and Starkey make this poignant thus establishing a solid basis for advancing a cosmopolitan vision as necessary to contemporary notions of citizenship. Changing Citizenship is divided in three parts: a) Changing citizenship; b) Learning for inclusion; and c) Democratizing schools. Each part is then divided again into a series of logical and well thought out chapters making the text especially user-friendly and accessible. Following the opening section on changing citizenship – establishing a cosmopolitan vision – ones finds a natural passage to how contemporary schooling is construed in such a way as to obstruct educating for cosmopolitan, in fact merely democratic, citizenship. Osler and Starkey make clear that education as a right is fundamental to not only accessing citizenship in general, but to affecting a cosmopolitan vision among future citizens. Citizenship and education are bound up; if education is inaccessible and inadaptable, citizenship will likewise be difficult to obtain and unlikely to be open and fair to all. Osler and Starkey elucidate: In this way the struggle for the right to education can be seen as part of the struggle for citizenship. Full citizenship depends on accessing not only the right to education but a number of rights in education and through it. Thus the right to education is critical in the struggle for citizenship. It is only when schooling is made accessible, acceptable and adaptable to learners’ needs that the right to education can be realized. (p. 77) Changing Citizenship is equipped with a number of useful appendices, as well as an extensive index and up-to-date in-depth bibliography. Appendix One, The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Appendix Three, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (selected articles) are particularly helpful as they underpin the authors' assertions throughout the book. Moreover, both of these documents allow as concrete an imaging of the cosmopolitan vision as possible. That is, they provide an approach to understanding elements of humanity which are truly shared across racial, ethnic, religious, and geographic boundaries. Most democratic societies recognize the pivotal function of schooling in educating students for their role as citizens. Indeed, as Dewey (1916) made apparent, public education can be a powerful force for either social transformation or social reproduction depending on how it is structured and carried out. In the final section of the book “Democratizing Schools,” Osler and Starkey describe the tensions between schooling and democratic practices using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as a backdrop. They claim, “The entitlement of all children to an education where their views are taken into consideration (article 12, CRC) and which is based on democratic dialogue is not yet realized” (p. 137). It is not just that schools do not model the human rights and democratic values which they teach within formal citizenship education but that they consistently contravene them (Alderson, 1999, as cited on p. 139). The problem of school as an undemocratic space, as highlighted by the authors, is pervasive and real. Recently, I had my own high school students write poetry on the political imprisonment of the Cuban Five. When the final drafts were complete, I suggested that we send their creative writing, distinctly imbued with their political voice, to various world leaders as part of a international call for justice in this case. My administrator was not on board claiming that “it was too sensitive of an issue and that if it were, say, global warming – something where everyone is on board – it would be different.” Thus, we should distance children from "sensitive" political issues and submerge them in popular abstractions which are safe. This is clearly at odds with the CRC and democratic education; it denies children the opportunity to engage in open, frank, and even controversial, democratic dialogue, a fundamental element of democratic living (Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006). This political interference by the administrator is precisely the type of educational experience which Osler and Starkey, in the concluding chapters of their book, rightly assert interferes and inhibits the fostering of democratic citizenship. As the authors note, “It is not enough to rely on the commitment of school leaders to educate for citizenship, diversity and equality” (p. 183). School administrators need support from government and community leaders in addition to proper training. In my case, clearly, the administrator was ignorant of current pedagogical approaches in educating for democratic living. The authors do illustrate, through a series of case studies mostly in Britain that educating for democratic citizenship and changing the nature of educational space is possible. The major contribution of this text to the field of citizenship education and its literature is Osler and Starkey’s carefully unfolded model of cosmopolitanism. The authors, while not entirely overcoming such common criticisms of Nussbaum's construction as those advanced by Naseem and Hyslop-Margison, do position the cosmopolitan vision as not only a practical element of citizenship education in general, but a necessary one given our contemporary reality of globalization. In summary, the authors advance cosmopolitanism beyond the realm of impossible and undesirable to a place of seriousness within the contemporary discourse of citizenship education. Also noteworthy is their treatment of "responsibilities" within the concept of citizenship as illustrated in Chapter 9. Too often we see citizenship literature centered on rights. It is important also, as the authors make clear, to educate future citizens to fulfill their responsibilities, which, in effect, guarantee and protect the rights of others. In identifying the major shortfall of this text I have to agree with Lynch (2006) who highlights the authors' neglect in addressing the current debate surrounding citizenship in feminist theory. As Lynch wrote, “Implicitly the citizen that is at the centre of analysis in this book is the public citizen, the citizen as paid worker, or migrant worker living in a public place” (2006, p. 285). Lynch rightly reveals that feminists across disciplines have shown citizenship to encompass those who are involved in unpaid labor, such as caregivers and care recipients, that citizens have lives other than the merely political such as, a personal life – a love life. Osler and Starkey fail to expand citizenship models beyond political and economic boundaries. Schools that embrace open dialogue and outward looking cosmopolitan visions, as outlined by the authors, will, undoubtedly, journey toward a more sustainable environment for democratic education. As one concerned with citizenship and democratic education, Changing Citizenship is always on my desk. This book aptly illustrates the very reality of citizenship that transcending boarders – as a cosmopolitan vision. Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education is well positioned in contemporary citizenship literature, filling most especially the obvious need for an alternative view of cosmopolitanism. Osler and Starkey’s message is poignant – citizenship has changed. References Arendt, H. (1955). Men in dark times. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Blades, D. W., & Richardson, G. H. (2006). Restarting the interrupted discourse of the public good: Global citizenship education as moral imperative. In G. H. Richardson & D. W. Blades (Eds.), Troubling the canon of citizenship education (pp. 115-123). New York: Peter Lang. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education, by John Dewey. New York: The Macmillan company. Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Sears, A. M. (2006). Neo-liberalism, globalization and human capital learning: Reclaiming education for democratic citizenship. New York: Springer. Lynch, K. (2006). Book review: Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(3), 283-285. McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the message. New York: Bantam. Naseem, A., & Hyslop-Margison, E. J. (2006). Nussbaum's concept of cosmopolitanism: Practical possibility or academic dilusion. Paideusis, 15(2), 51-60. Nussbaum, M. (1994). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. Boston Review, XIX(5), 3-16. Schweitzer, A. (1987). The philosophy of civilization (C. T. Campion, Trans.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Michael Ernest Sweet lives, writes and teaches in Montreal, Quebec. He is both a graduate student at Concordia University and founding director of The Learning for A Cause Institute (LearningforaCause.org) which explores the relationship between democracy and the imagination. Forthcoming publications include “Citizenship for Some” in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services.