… but do they know what they are signing? At DEEEP and CONCORD, I am part of the team that is currently campaigning for a European Parliament “written declaration on development education and active global citizenship“. There is still a long way to go to convince a majority of MEPs (377!) to sign the declaration, which “calls on the Commission and the Council to develop a long-term, cross-sectoral European strategy for development education, awareness-raising and active global citizenship” (see very useful background paper by the EP library here). How to engage with these usually very busy deputies, who deal with a broad range of issues and, in their overwhelming majority, never heard of development education before? We produced a number of postcards in all 23 EU languages, showing a Peters projection of the world, South up, and playing with the aspect of changing perspectives and questioning representation. However, what proved to be more effective, was playing with them: We went from office to office with a Earth balloon and proposed to take pictures. Who doesn’t want to hold the world in the hands? It raised interest, and sometimes even some more substantial exchange with MEPs emerged from this situation. But it is result driven campaigning, not development education what we are doing. Let’s hope it helps, anyway…
We proudly present the first guest post on this Blog: Vanessa de Oliveira, Global Education chair at the University of Oulu, Finland, writes about a new educational tool – HEADS UP – which was created as a response to the Kony2012 discussions (see also previous post “Kony2012: The devil is on YouTube“).
Big thanks to Vanessa for sharing this inspirational text!
HEADS UP checklist
by Vanessa de Oliveira (Andreotti)
HEADS UP is an educational tool to help people engage critically with local and global initiatives created to address problems of injustice. It is based on the principles that, if we want to work towards ideals of justice, we need to understand better the social and historical forces that connect us to each other.
For example, if people saw many young children drowning in a river, their first impulse would probably be to try to save them or to search for help. But what if they looked up the river and saw many boats throwing the children in the water and these boats were multiplying by the minute? How many different tasks would be necessary to stop the boats and prevent this from happening again? I suggest there are at least four tasks: rescuing the children in the water, stopping the boats from throwing the children in the water, going to the villages of the boat crew to understand why this is happening in the first place, and collecting the bodies of those who have died – honoring the dead by remembering them and raising awareness of what happened. In deciding what to do, people would need to remember that some rescuing techniques may not work in the conditions of the river, and that some strategies to stop the boats may invite or fuel even more boats to join the fleet – they may even realize that they are actually in one of the boats, throwing children with one hand and trying to rescue them with the other hand. Therefore, I suggest that education, more than the media, should help people in the task of learning to ‘go up the river’ to the roots of the problem so that the emergency strategies down the river can be better informed in the hope that one day no more boats will throw children in the water. Going up the river means asking questions such as: What creates poverty? How come different lives have different value? How are these two things connected? What are the relationships between social groups that are over-exploited and social groups that are over-exploiting? How are these relationships maintained? How do people come to think and relate like this? What are the roles of schooling in the reproduction and contestation of inequalities in society? What possibilities and problems are created by different stories about what is real and ideal in society? When do institutionalized initiatives, such as the human rights declaration or military interventions, become helpful in promoting justice and when do they help reproduce the problems they are trying to address? If people believe in the human rights declaration, does it mean they are good people and not part of the problem? How would people respond if they realized that bringing justice to others meant going against national/local interests? Why and for whose benefit are relationships among people framed through and mediated by the Nation States identified in their passports?
HEADS UP was designed as a possible entry point to these types of questions. It proposes that if education is to prepare people to engage with the complexity, plurality, inequality and uncertainty of our inter-dependent lives in a finite planet, we need to ‘raise our game’ and expand the legacy of possibilities that we have inherited:
– we need to understand and learn from repeated historical patterns of mistakes, in order to open the possibilities for new mistakes to be made
– we need more complex social analyses acknowledging that if we understand the problems and the reasons behind them in simplistic ways, we may do more harm than good
– we need to recognize how we are implicated or complicit in the problems we are trying to address: how we are all both part of the problem and the solution (in different ways)
– we need to learn to enlarge our referents for reality and knowledge, acknowledging the gifts and limitations of every knowledge system and moving beyond ‘either ors’ towards ‘both and mores’
– we need to remember that the paralysis and guilt we may feel when we start to engage with the complexity of issues of inequality are just temporary as they may come from our own education/socialization in protected/sheltered environments, which create the desire for things to be simple, easy, happy, ordered and under control
HEADS UP aims to support people in moving from naive hope towards skeptical optimism and ethical solidarities where we learn to face humanity, the world and our place in it without fear and with courage and strength to go through the difficulties and discomforts of confronting our past legacies and current inequalities in order to pluralize the possibilities for living together in the present and the future. Ultimately, this is about remembering how to love, to be open, and to be taught in a plural world where justice starts with the forms of relationships we are able to create.
HEADS UP is a checklist that can be used to start conversations about local/global initiatives (documentaries, campaigns, articles, teaching resources, etc) that may inadvertently reproduce seven problematic historical patterns of thinking and relationships:
HEGEMONY (justifying superiority and supporting domination): 1a)does this initiative promote the idea that one group of people could design and implement solutions for everyone? 1b) does this initiative invite people to think about its own limitations and insufficiencies?
ETHNOCENTRISM (projecting one view as universal): 2a) does this initiative imply that anyone who disagrees with what is proposed is immoral or ignorant? 2b) does this initiative acknowledge that there are other logical ways of looking at the same issue?
AHISTORICISM (forgetting historical legacies and complicities): 3a) does this initiative introduce a problem in the present without reference to why it is like that and how ‘we’ are connected to that? 3b) does this initiative offer a complex historical analysis of the issue?
DEPOLITICIZATION (disregarding power inequalities and ideological roots of analyses and proposals): 4a) does this initiative present the problem/solution as disconnected from power and ideology? 4b) does this initiative acknowledge its own ideological location and offer a robust analysis of power relations?
SALVATIONISM (framing help as the burden of the fittest): 5a) does this initiative present people ‘in need’ as helpless victims of local violence or misfortunes and helpers or adopters as the chosen ‘global’ people capable of leading humanity towards its destiny of order, progress and harmony? 5b) does this initiative acknowledge that the desire to be better than/superior to others and the imposition of aspirations for singular ideas of progress and development have historically been part of the problem?
UN-COMPLICATED SOLUTIONS (offering easy solutions that do not require systemic change): 6a) does this initiative offer simplistic analyses and answers that do not invite people to engage with complexity or think more deeply? 6b)does this initiative offer a complex analysis of the problem acknowledging the possible adverse effects of proposed solutions?
PATERNALISM (seeking affirmation of superiority through the provision of help): 7a) does this initiative portray people in need as people who lack education, resources, civilization and who would and should be very grateful for your help? 7b)does this initiative portray people in need as people who are entitled to disagree with their saviours and to legitimately want to implement different solutions to what their helpers have in mind?
Questions type ‘a’ aim to identify the reproduction of the patterns in the checklist, questions type ‘b’ aim to identify awareness of and challenges to those patterns. It is important to acknowledge that many initiatives may do both at the same time (in different ways). It is also important to recognize that in any initiative/resource it will be very difficult to move completely beyond those patters – and this is due to our historical conditioning, specially when it comes to mass communication or institutional politics. For example, if a media campaign was to break with these patterns all at once, it will probably become un-intelligible for most people, and therefore it would be an ineffective campaign. The aim of HEADS UP is not to find a perfect ultimate solution for engaging with global issues, but to support people with the on-going wrestling with concepts and contexts, choices and implications, that we face every day as teachers and learners working towards deeper and more ethical ways of relating to others and to the world.
I hope HEADS UP can be useful in your context and I look forward for your comments. Vanessa de Oliveira
Which skills are needed for living and working in a global economy? Since some years, the discussion on skills and competences penetrates education (see, for example, European Commissions reference framework “Key competences for livelong learning” or the most recently renewed “European agenda for adult learning”) – and with globalisation came “global skills”.
However, the skills agenda, including the discussion on „global skills“ seems to be highly dominated by economic, and in particular neo-liberal thinking based on notions such as growth, competition and employability. From this viewpoint, education is regarded mainly as (collective or individual) investment, which is “lost” without any measurable return on investment, such as employment with highest possible pay. So states a UNESCO/British Council seminar report on “Skills for Work, Growth and Poverty Reduction” (sic!) already in the second paragraph of the foreword that “if young people cannot acquire the skills they need for the labour market when they finish school, the investment in primary education may be wasted”. To my opinion, this is a very dangerous view: It reduces education and the acquisition of skills to the requirements of the market (no matter if the learner actually wants to be part of this market) and leaves alone the aspect of personal (and collective) development as purpose of education. The school education of people outside the formal labour market (such as housewives, open source IT developers, volunteers etc) would be useless according to this view, as they are not seeking market based pay for their work.
Furthermore, it seems that the global skills agenda is “hijacked” by actors who’s main motivation is certainly not the transformation of the current exploitative system, but profit and economic competitiveness. So expects the German Employers Association its employees to have “integrated thinking and knowledge about world economics and ecology, as well as [..] a stable set of values, feel empathy and be interculturally competent.”. PriceWaterhouseCoopers claims that people should “be socially aware, possess intercultural communication skills, be thoughtful, committed to accountability and above all compassionate” (quoted by Doug Bourn in a report on “Global Skills”).
What Global Skills are these, that are so appreciated by German employers and a multinational company that has as one of three main activities “tax advisory” (a nice euphemism for tax evasion)? Can you feel empathy, be socially aware, compassionate etc while doing big business as usual?
The development education online resource “Through other Eyes”, designed by global education Professor Vanessa Andreotti and critical literacy Professor Lynn Mario de Souza, aims to help “learning to read the world”. The authors’ conception of global education is based on post-colonial theory, which questions interiorized ways of seeing the world in order to learn to live with uncertainty, complexity and multiple perspectives. However, there is the danger that the underlying colonial binary between “western” oppressors and “indigenous” oppressed perpetuates through the learning process in a reversed sense: The critical deconstruction of a normative progress based “western” worldview, might lead – though not being intended – to a normative elevation of “indigenous” knowledge.
The attached paper, submitted in the frame of the “Principles and Practices of Development Education” module in the DE Master at the Institute of Education/University of London, takes a closer look on the conflict between the supposed deconstruction and, in my view, the de facto reconstruction of cultural and moral binaries, and the possible fault lines that lead to this impression, despite the stated opposite intention of the authors. It uses a discussion paper on “Quality criteria in Development Education” by the German NGDO platform VENRO as analytical framework:
Enjoy the reading! As always, critical comments and feedback are appreciated.
Development education, global education, citizenship education, human rights education, peace education, education for sustainable development – there is an ever increasing number of “educations”, all with their own history and rationale. How to make sense of this multitude, and to to avoid that teachers get overwhelmed by various, always legitimate demands to their classroom practice?
Understanding how these different concepts relate can be a first useful step to create some order (and logical hierarchy) between the different concept. There is certainly not one right answer, but the chart above seems (though a little complex) quite useful to me (however, I don’t know the source, so if anyone knows where this comes from – please put a comment! And sorry to the author if any copyrights are violated..). A more simple version is my personal attempt below, which puts development education and education for sustainable development as “twins separated at birth” under the umbrella of global education and global learning (the latter emphasising the learner centred aspect of empowerment and self-directed learning, while the former is rooted in the more instructive concept of education of someone by someone else).