LESLIE G. ROMAN

EDUCATION AND THE CONTESTED MEANINGS OF ‘GLOBALCITIZENSHIP’

ABSTRACT. This article examines the often taken-for-granted educational policy andcurricular discourses of “globalization” and “global citizenship” within their largercultural, political, and economically uneven histories and unequal consequences. Draw-ing upon evidence from recent scholarship on the implications for classroom pedagogyembodied in efforts to internationalize curricula in the North American university con-texts, as well as specific related efforts in one Canadian context, the University of BritishColumbia, this article unpacks the contested meanings of “global citizenship” from “aboveand below.” The author analyzes three dominant curricular discourses of global citizenship.Far from weakening the Canadian state and building instances of transnational democraticeducational communities, these dominant discourses may actually reinforce notions ofCanadian gendered and racialized nation-building and nationalism. The article raises ques-tions about what an alternative curricular and educational policy discourse “from below”premised upon efforts to decolonize curricula might look like. By way of provisional con-clusion, the author discusses some promising examples of such an alternative, showinghow they depend on seeing the relations between the local and global neither as fixedabstractions nor as a slogan system to be applied in absolutist racial, geographical, national,or culturally essentialist terms.

INTRODUCTION

It would seem that the events of September 11th have dealt a sobering,if only temporarily, shattering blow of humility to the promising andever-ambiguous slogan system of globalization, and its related ubiquitousnotion of global citizenship (Abowitz, 2002; CCR, 2001; Dolby &Burbules, 2002; Duerksen, 2002; Martin & Shohat, 2002; Sommers &Sommers-Willett, 2002). Dominant conceptions of globalization from“above” emphasize discourses of national and global competitiveness, effi-ciency, consumption, and productive citizenship. Yet, other contendingbut less prevalent counter-hegemonic conceptions from “below,” focuson and employ the discourses, among others, of values of civic globalresponsibility, service to community, respect for the environment, and ashared sense of belonging to a common human community across nationalborders (Cronin & De Greiff, 2002; Falk, 1996; Nussbaum, 2001, 1997,1996a, b).

Journal of Educational Change 4: 269–293, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

270 LESLIE G. ROMAN

This is not meant to suggest that globalization is merely a slogansystem. However, beneath the slippery surfaces of competing, if notconflicting and interested conceptions of globalization and global citizen-ship from ‘above’ and ‘below,’ are serious normative considerations inwhich gender interests and processes of racialization play an integral butmostly over-looked part. It is also to suggest that conceptions of globalcitizenship often beg questions of global justice and governance, includingthe role of the public university in educating for ‘global citizenship’, in theface of harsh global inequalities between and among so-called ‘advanced’and ‘developing’ nations.

Given the context of a new discourse of security and restrictivedraconian policies of immigration in a number of ‘advanced’ countries,some pressing questions surge forth: What frameworks might mobilize“global citizenship,” in whose interests, and to what normative ends?Is “citizenship” fundamentally and inextricably linked to the fabric ofcolonial and neo-colonial nation-building? Or, can citizenship be recon-ceived within anti-colonial global, transnational, local, and grassrootsforms of community and democracy?

In this article, I examine the dominant policy discourses concerning therole of education in fostering “global citizenship” by critically analyzingdebates at the University of British Columbia at a recently held confer-ence on “Global Citizenship” (e.g. http//.www.vpacademic.ubc.ca/global-citizenconf) and the University’s efforts to internationalize its curricula.While focusing much of my discussion on Canadian context, to providebackground, I draw upon the scholarly literature about efforts to globalizeand internationalize curricula in North American and European contexts.In addition, I analyze how three dominant curricular discursive frameworkscurrently inform what counts as the knowledge-power nexus in making“global citizens.” These discourses shape, in large part, how particularcurricular initiatives and practices operate. The first involves educators/learners as “intellectual tourists, voyeurs, and vagabonds” (Roman, 1993a;Bauman, 1998; Beilharz, 2001). The second comprises “educators/learnersas the agents of civility and democratic nation-builders” (Bannerji, 2000).The third regards the educator/learner as “multicultural consumer ofethnic, racial and (inter)national difference” (Roman, 1993c). I developand theorize three dominant curricular discourses, drawing upon evidencefrom the wider scholarly debates on classroom pedagogy in efforts toglobalize or internationalize curricula, particularly in the North AmericanUniversity context of various anti-oppression pedagogies (e.g. analyses ofcurricula from Women’s Studies, Area Studies, and in education, effortsto take up antiracist and decolonizing curricula). Analysis of this literature

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 271

enables me to better understand and identify the discourses articulated inthe local discursive curricular context and case I wish to analyze.

The discussion amplifies how these discursive frameworks articulatethe boundaries between the dominant curricular practices and mediate oneanother in a complex set of nation-building and globalizing educationalpractices and processes, often squeezing out much room for alternativepedagogical frameworks. Far from weakening the exercise of the powerof the Canadian government over its national space as many prominentglobalization theorists have argued, I will illustrate how these discoursesparticipate in strengthening a super-powered juridical state, already shapedby processes of globalization and a neo-liberal and right-wing retrench-ment of the public sphere. By tracing how discourses of “global citizen-ship” are organized and become articulated from the 1970s retrenchmentin North America more generally to the most recent changes in Canadianimmigration and security policy and law post-September 11th, we can seehow state practices concerning the regulation of global labor and capital setlimits on the forms of curricular discourse for “global citizenship” in NorthAmerica more generally, and specifically in one large Canadian University,the University of British Columbia.

This context and case I analyze involves the increasingly blurredspheres of public and private both articulated within a large Pacific North-western Canadian university, University of British Columbia, where Iteach. The first example of constellation of curricular initiatives consistsof the discourses employed by 850 participants from the Lower Mainlandand the wider University community who attended a “Global Citizen-ship Conference” at the University of British Columbia (herein, UBC),September 4th and 5th, 2002, nearly a year following the September 11th,2001. The conference was co-hosted by UBC President, Martha Piper andLloyd Axworthy, Director and CEO of the Liu Centre for the Study ofGlobal Issues on what has been described to me as a modest budget ofno more than $30,000, including the advertising, room rental and nominalhonoraria for speakers (Guppy, Personal Communication, 2003, Dec. 9).

Although in no way directly connected, it should be noted that the“Global Citizenship Conference” took place in the structural and socio-political context of growing privatization and corporatism of publicuniversities and higher education (Fisher & Rubenson, 1998). Summarycomments from the break out discussion groups of the audience havebeen provided on the web, which I draw upon to supplement the evidenceprovided in the wider critical globalization literature for my subsequentanalysis of the three dominant discourses, as well as resistances to them.Second, I analyze the official discourses embedded in the University’s own

272 LESLIE G. ROMAN

web page from the Vice President of International Education, MichaelGoldberg on the principles and goals underlying its efforts to interna-tionalize the University curriculum (Goldberg, 2002, n.p. (http://www.vpacademic.ubc.international), accessed 12/09/2002).

INTELLECTUAL TOURISTS, VOYEURS, AND VAGABONDS

The curricular, policy, and programmatic discourses of intellectual tour-ism, voyeurism,1 and vagabondism involve the pedagogical and researchstrategies well known to and employed by naturalistic ethnographers(Roman, 1991, 1993a; Roman & Apple, 1990). However, according tosociologist, Zygmunt Bauman (1998), “tourism” as a boundary-makingsocial practice is not confined to ethnographers; it is also taken up bydiplomats, commercial travelers and others, arguably, learners/educators,who, on “special occasions,”

. . . need to cross into a territory where they are bound to cause and encounter hermeneuticproblems, seek enclaves marked for the use of visitors and the service of functional medi-ators. Tourist countries, which expect a constant influx of large quantities of ‘culturallyunder-trained’ visitors, set aside such enclaves and train such mediators in anticipation.(Beilharz, 2001, p. 292)

By intellectual tourism in the curricular and pedagogical context – asopposed to that of naturalistic ethnographic discourse, which I havediscussed elsewhere (Roman, 1991, 1993a; Roman & Apple, 1990), Imean the discursive codes and cultural practices to which educatorsand learners consent when they view their pedagogical and curricularexperiences as brief excursions into “other” people’s lived cultures.

In educational contexts, increasingly globalization has provided therationale and justification for fundamentally intertwining educational goalswith educational experiences that amount to intellectual tourism – whetherthey involve actual travel to places foreign and unfamiliar or virtualencounters in cyberspace creating similar exchanges with the unfamiliarpeople, places and cultures. The discourse of intellectual tourism (which,I would argue, affects voyeurism and vagabondism) is premised noton the explicit desire to effect tourism but rather, on the attempt toachieve “cultural immersion” for the sake of promoting diversity andunderstanding through cultural exposure. Often, its rhetoric is basedon providing twenty-first century students with the knowledge seen asnecessary to deal with today’s complex and increasingly communicativepresumed “global village.” For example, it is commonplace to find aproliferation of curricular programs of major public and private univer-sities, as in the case of many distance education programs in which

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 273

class room learning environments are conceived as “special occasions” forintellectual tourism, and thus, conducted on-line to foreign countries andwith ESL students.

Explaining the logic of this discursive and material practice, Bauman(1998; Beilharz, 2001) wisely observes that intellectual tourism takesits subjects (in this case, educators and learners) outside their ordinaryroutines and is premised on a conception of deploying boundaries thatrender some people, cultures, and countries strange and unfamiliar butsubject to tourist exchanges and interchanges. For those touring, suchplaces and people are outside their ordinary range of interactions androutines. Intellectual tourism need not be confined to actual physical andgeographical travel as part of the educational experience. For example,Chandra Talpade Mohanty incisively critiques the use of the curricularperspective she terms the “intellectual tourist model” or as she says “in lesscharitable terms, the white woman’s burden or colonial discourse model”(Mohanty, 2003, p. 239) within feminist academic curricular practiceswithin Women’s Studies Programs in the United States.

Making striking parallels with my own discussion of intellectualtourism in naturalistic ethnographic discourse and practice (Roman,1993a), Mohanty (2003) describes this pedagogical strategy as oneinvolving brief forays by students and faculty through the curricula intonon-Euro-American cultures. Such ”add and stir“ approaches are wellcritiqued in feminist pedagogy literature (Hase, 2001; Morgan, 1994;Rosenfelt, 1998; Rosser, 1999). While not the predominant view, such anapproach was in at least evidence in one critical comment made within thecontext of at least one of the break out sessions of the “Global Citizen-ship” Conference at the University of British Columbia (2002, n.p.). Theforays of intellectual tourists aim to critique particular sexist practicesseen to be inherent in non-Western cultures from an otherwise EurocentricWomen’s gaze that leaves unquestioned the identities of Euro-Americanfeminists – whether they are students or educators. This “add and stir”approach might include in the curriculum, for example, topical discussionof genital mutilation in Africa for one day or a week without discussingor critiquing the Western practices of breast implantation, plastic or othercosmetic surgeries alongside the practices represented as “non-Western”(Morgan, 1994). While the two procedures are hardly analogous in theirconsequences, they nonetheless could bear a little more relational scrutiny.

An introductory Women’s Studies course (or course on globalization)might address on a one-off basis such topics as women workers in Nikefactories in Indonesia, dowry deaths in India, pre-colonial matriarchiesin West Africa or, the patriarchal practices of indigenous groups in a far

274 LESLIE G. ROMAN

off land (Mohanty, 2003; Hase, 2001). Left untouched in such discussionswould be the everyday lives and contexts of the women for making senseof their worlds in a larger set of geopolitical relations in which the Westand neo-colonialism are implicated. Such experiences confirm the senseof cultural (and geographical) difference between the local defined as theWestern self and the global constructed as the non-Western global “other.”They also confirm both racialized and nationalistic privilege (Roman,1997; Hage, 2000; Sharma, 2000b).

For example, one of the comments summarized from breakout groupnumber nine at the UBC “Global Citizenship Conference (2002, n.p.)recommended as a concrete action the University could take with inter-national students attending UBC through its exchange programs ”theUniversity should take advantage of exchange students to give constructivefeedback on our Canadian way of life” (2002, n.p.). This example of thediscourse illustrates the slide from the aim of mutual intercultural andglobal understanding to a one-way instruction of international students inthe assumed superior normative stance of a purportedly commonly held“Canadian” national cultural identity. As Mohanty (2003), Hage (2000),Hase (2001), Bauman (1998), I (Roman, 1997) and others have variouslynoted, the local is grounded in nationalist assumptions in which familiarbifurcations between centers and margins are reproduced in Eurocentricterms, that is, with the normative frame of reference still being a particularEuro-American nation-state and Anglo-North American-centric contexts.

Such nationalistic binary oppositions reinforce the division between theso-called “international” and the “national” spaces, creating the possibilityfor particular national spaces to function as legitimated hidden norms.While they exaggerate and reify “difference” as “international”, “foreign,”“Third World”, or “non-Western,” educational experiences of intellectualtourism freeze in time and space particular stereotypes of what such differ-ences mean. Such experiences are conceived as voluntary, enacted in theservice of acquiring more sensations of inter-cultural exchange, whetherthe intellectual tourism takes places as actual travel or virtual or imaginarycurricular tours or visits. Increasingly, they are seen as one of the mostimportant and immediate ways to internationalize and globalize curricula.2

However, for those trapped in states of class, racialized, and genderedimmobility, moving from place to place in global space and time becomesmuch the experience of being “unwanted vagabonds”, as Bauman argues(Belilarz, 2001; Bauman, 1998).

Not all wanderers are on the move because they prefer being on the move to staying put.Many would perhaps refuse to embark on a life of wandering were they asked, but theyhad not been asked in the first place. If they are on the move, it is because staying athome in a world made to the measure of the tourist is a humiliation and a drag. . . . The

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 275

vagabonds are the waste of the world which has dedicated itself to tourist services. . . . Thevagabonds know they won’t stay for long, however strongly they wish to, since nowherethey stop are they welcome. The tourists move because they find the world within theirreach, irresistibly attractive, vagabonds move because they find the world within theirreach unbearably inhospitable. The tourists travel because they want to; the vagabondsbecause they have no other bearable choice. (Bauman, 1998, p. 93)

If we take seriously Bauman’s stark contrast between tourists and vaga-bonds within globalization, then, globalization must be seen in politicizedstructural terms as the polarization of the effects and forms of social classmobility within and across differently gendered and racialized diasporas –between differentially mobile or confined social classes.

Bauman anticipates and glimpses a more relational understanding andanalysis of the effects of globalization and poverty in creating a new formof poverty in which the media can show those who are the world’s ”have-not’s“ what they do not have on a grand scale, thus increasing the scale ofclass polarization.

Globalization and localization may be inseparable sides of the same coin, but the two partsof the world population seem to be living on different sides, facing one side only muchlike people of the Earth see and scan only one hemisphere of the moon. Some inhabit theglobe; others are chained to place. (Beilharz, 2001, p. 207)

The contrasting and yet relational experiences of globalization andlocalization highlighted by Bauman (1998; Beilharz, 2001) call upon usto remember the newly created category of migrant temporary workers inCanada (Sharma, 2002). Their mobility or migratory experience consti-tutes only a form of indentured and vulnerable employment, a status ofnon-belonging lacking in any of the formal and substantive rights andprotections given to Canadian citizenships and immigrants under consider-ation for permanent residency and landed status. Hence, even while beinginside the Canadian nation as workers, they remain outside its rights ofentitlement, humane treatment, and social enfranchisement. It is in thissense that we must question just whose laboring bodies are free to bemobile and conversely, whose are contained or more aptly confined in largemeasure by the new immigration legal realities for being non-immigrantmigrants within Canada.

CONSUMERS OF MULTICULTURAL AND INTER(NATIONAL)DIFFERENCE: EATING “OUR” WAY THROUGH GLOBALIZATION?

The dominant discourse of the educator/learner as consumer of multi-cultural and inter(national) difference frames itself within the conception

276 LESLIE G. ROMAN

of education and learning as a commodified process. Within the refashion-ing and roll back of the post-War re-distributive Keynesnian social welfarestate, the invocation of the marketing and selling of “diversity” (Abu-Laban & Gabriel, 2002) becomes more commonplace. This discourseoff-loads the responsibility of social services previously offered throughthe public institutions of the state onto the already burdened shoulders ofindividuals, particularly women and families. The emergent form repres-ents collaboration between the public state institutions and the privatesector. “Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s vision of a just society” articu-lates the first public national declaration of how cultural diversity becameat once a commodity and a pluralist vision that blurred the divisionbetween private and public in the direction of greater privatization of thepublic:

. . . Now Canada seems to me a land blessed by the gods to pursue a policy of the greatestequality of opportunity. A young country, a rich country, a country with two languages,a pluralist country with its ethnicities and its religions, an immense country with variedgeographic regions, a federalist country. Canada had, besides, a political tradition that wasneither completely libertarian nor completely state dominated, but was based, rather on thecollaboration between government and the private sector and on direct action of the stateto protect the weak against the strong, the needy against the wealthy. (Markam: Viking,1990, 358–359)

This measures and demands the comportment of “cultural difference”against the ambivalently and ambiguously disclosed public secret ofbilingualism–the norms of Anglo-English and French-speaking culturalpractices as universal.

Framed as consumers of international and national difference, learnersand educators become differentially entitled citizen-consumers in a globalmarketplace in which cultural practices are mere commodities. Forexample, the idea of linguistic and other cultural differences becomesreduced to a marketplace commodity that can be bought or sold inexchange for particular cultural capital perceived as useful in the realmof social and workplace communication. The idea of the sovereign nationand of its redemptive (Roman, 1997) discourses of saving the purportedlymorally inferior or weak nations remains undisturbed because “differ-ence” is still intact as a commodity tied to nation-building and productive(READ: productivist national and imperial) citizenship, available for thepurchase by those who can afford it.

Not long after I began writing this paper, I received, along withpresumably hundreds of other faculty and students, a strangely fortuitousbroadcast e-mail advertisement neatly illustrating and perhaps typifyingthe discourse of the educator/learner as consumer of multicultural andinter(national) difference. The e-mail came from a company marketing

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 277

its product to universities, targeting international and ESL students andprograms. The advertisement at once touts the product’s alleged abilityto either “reduce” or accentuate linguistic and dialect accents spoken bythose whose first language is not English, notably aimed at the fictivehomogenous “Asian Lady”.

No More Accent is an accent reduction product, which helps to remove accents. Forexample, an Asian lady (or any nationality) may have communication problems with herEnglish when speaking to her work colleagues or friends. No More Accent has proved tobe a great asset for ESL Institutions and their students too . . . In fact, No More Accent canbe used in almost any situation where an accent reduction is required. Even Actors withinthe Entertainment Industry have turned to No More Accent as a way to lose or gain anaccent of another nationality.

No More Accent has proved to be a great asset for ESL Institutions and their studentstoo. No More Accent is available in two versions, CD-ROM and VHS Cassette Tape(PAL and NTSC formats) both can be purchased . . .. (Weinberg, Broadcast e-mailcommunication, Dec. 20, 2002, 21:07:05-0800. Emphasis added)

As consumers of inter(national) difference in the purportedly “free”marketplace, learners and educators are taught that cultural practices areturned into gendered, racialized, classist, ablest, and nationalistic notionsof “difference” to be played up or down, depending on the warrant forparticular forms of cultural capital.

Key to this discourse is the manner in which particular notions ofcultural and linguistic difference organize what counts as effective culturalcapital in a particular national space of the global labor market. Here, theglobal migrations of people as gendered, racialized, classed, able-bodied orpeople with disabilities, and nationally-specific are rendered nearly absentor invisible as are the ways in which national labor markets and globalizedmigrations have become inter-related through processes of globalization.Taken into the classroom, such commodified notions of “difference” de-politicize the social, economic, and political processes and consequencesof globalization for particular racial, gender, class and national groups.This discourse renders nearly invisible how globalized identities aresocially constituted and organized through extra-local processes (Gilroy,1993).

DEMOCRATIC CIVILIZERS AND NATION-BUILDERS

A common but perhaps underestimated discourse emerges from a largerredemptive narrative of nation-making where, educators/learners aredemocratic civilizers and nation-builders. This discourse originates inthe disciplinary practices of colonial and orientalist assumptions about

278 LESLIE G. ROMAN

knowledge divisions. Within the United States Women’s Studies context,Chandra Talpade Mohanty (2003) terms this discourse the “feminist asexplorer model” of pedagogy and curricula (p. 240). Yet, I find as much,if not more reason, to name and conceptualize this discursive and institu-tional practices under the rubric of nation-building, chiefly because theycomport with the emergence of Area Studies in universities (as Mohantyherself notes). Such divisions are well associated with the opposition ofmodernist Enlightenment notions of Western disciplines and the rest –non-Western purportedly homogeneous “Oriental” and Area Studies (Said,1979). As for the organization of knowledge about globalization in univer-sities, this discourse often assumes that various Area studies programs(e.g. Asian Studies) should be the programs or departments responsiblefor studies of globalization.

Long-standing, both before and after the post-War period, this discourseappears in residual and emergent forms that reinforce nationalism andwhite defensive nationalism in particular (Roman, 1993c, 1997; Hase,2001) and, in this instance, Canadian nationalism and nation-building. Thediscourse of educators and learners as neo-colonial “democratic civilizersand nation-builders,” often shows a lack of critical reflection or at times,a willful ignorance about the role of different branches of the Canadiangovernment and its private corporations in perpetuating its own or incontributing to U.S.-dominated international institutions that create differ-ential, if not destructive impact on those they seek to democratize or bringinto the space of the “international” or “global.”

Consider, for example, the language we find in the web descriptionof the University of British Columbia’s mission statement of its prin-ciples and goals for the internationalization of its curricula under theauspices of Associate Vice President, Michael Goldberg, one of the prin-cipal proponents and architects of Universitas 21.3 On the face of it, thisdiscourse is liberal and benign:

PrinciplesThe University of British Columbia is part of a network of learning that stretches aroundthe world, and in an increasingly global environment it encourages the development ofteaching, learning, and research intended to strengthen British Columbia’s and Canada’slinks to other nations.

GoalTo participate as an active member of the society of the twenty-first century by educatingfuture citizens to think globally and by advancing international scholarship and research.

Strategies1. Strengthen our efforts to “internationalize” the campus by increasing the numbers ofinternational students from around the world, and by encouraging more Canadian students

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 279

to enroll in study-abroad programs. We should also increase the numbers of internationalfaculty and staff exchanges, and invite more international events onto the campus.

Enrolling a significant number of international students from all parts of the worldand sending Canadian students to study abroad are important steps in developing cross-cultural awareness and international understanding, and in helping to lay the groundworkfor future social, political, and economic co-operation. We should also strengthen linkswith the faculty and staff of universities in other countries, and collaborate on academicand administrative programs of mutual interest.

2. Expand the study of aboriginal culture and history both in Canada and abroad, andincrease the numbers of aboriginal students.

Our First Nations faculty and students are a resource that will enable us to expand thestudy of aboriginal cultures both regionally and internationally. We should also increasethe numbers of aboriginal students, both from Canada and from other parts of the world.

3. Concentrate our international academic and research initiatives in three major areas:Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and Europe.

We should build upon our international liaisons and current research strengths in theseareas to complement the advantages offered by our geographical location, which positionsus well in relation to Pacific Rim studies and to North-South development.

4. Develop international initiatives promoting the contributions of research universities.We should draw on our international contacts, such as those offered by Universitas

21 or by the Association of Pacific Rim Universities, to build strategies for increasingacademic partnerships with universities in other countries, developing performance bench-marks, and promoting the importance to society of university research ((http://www.vpacademic.ubc.international), accessed 12/09/2002. Emphasis added).

However, what this liberal discourse does not attend to are the powerfuleconomic inequalities and political, and cultural differences that struc-ture and form the conditions, processes, and effects of globalization. Forexample, no discussion occurs here of the need to pay critical historicalattention to the colonial history of the First Nations peoples in Canada.Instead, First Nations are referred to in the mission statement ratherpossessively and paternalistically as “[o]urs,” only after noting how theyare a “resource”. Only by way of incidental mention, is the issue ofunder-representation of First Nations students in a Canadian universitydiscussed with the goal of increasing student representation of Aboriginalstudents locally and from abroad as part of the effort to internationalize.Here, First Nations students appear to be what Stuart Hall (1996) callsin other contexts, “a floating signifier” for internationalization, at oncethe exoticized and the newly appreciated “local” resource of a universityundergoing globalizing expansion.

Moreover, with respect to the University’s third principle to “[c]on-centrate our international academic and research initiatives in three majorareas: Asia-Pacific, the Americas, and Europe,” the discourse of oriental-izing Area Studies hums along well, undisturbed in the overall schema

280 LESLIE G. ROMAN

to globalize curricula. This is not simply because particular regions arementioned as geographical “areas”, while others stand as the hidden non-geographical norm. Yet, as Yvonne Browne (2002) notes, nowhere in thepresent curricular map for knowledge in the twenty-first century of UBCis the entire continent of Africa or related African Studies courses. Alsoabsent from the equation is the “area” of Canada (never mind, the UnitedStates), as having any bearing in the North-South relations so critical tounderstanding today’s global inequalities. Thus, this discourse relies on thesometimes polite, unspoken but nonetheless orientalist binary distinctionbetween the civilized and the barbaric, which is sometimes couched inlanguage that makes the “us” and “them” distinctions almost palatable;certainly less obvious (Hase, 2001). An example of this comes to mindin the contrast some of my Canadian teachers have made as graduatestudents in the anti-racist pedagogy course I teach (Roman & Stanley,1997). It is not unusual to hear of implicit comparisons suggesting thatracism is “over there” or somewhere other than Canada. For example, wecan hear some students speak of South Africa as the home of Apartheidor the United States as the only or predominant reference point for slaverywhile at the same time being astonished to learn of Nova Scotia’s implica-tion in slavery. This discourse travels across ages from adult students tothe young as Roman and Stanley (1997) found in an elementary socialstudies classroom. Such a logic underscores a two-fold notion of entitle-ment. Democratic rights and freedoms of particularly Anglo Canadians (orAmericans as part of North America) figure either as “natural entitlements”(i.e. Canadians or Americans are simply inherently born with certainrights and privileges). Or, they figure as meritocratic ones – purportedlyearned by opposing “oppressive” others who are thought not to appreciatedemocracy or freedom (i.e. “we worked hard to defend our freedom”).Hence, courses on the global economy, human rights, gendered violencein war, and so forth are framed as projects of modernist enlightenment anddemocracy.

Times of moral crisis expose this discourse’s orientalizing sentiments.The strains and fissures make it easier to recognize that the fascination withthe barbaric or not-the-quite-civilized is matched by an appalling lack ofcuriosity about the role of the Canadian government in adopting many ofthe dicta and preferences of the United States in globalization policies.Noted postcolonial educational scholar, John Willinsky (2002) observesin the aftermath of September 11th, how tempting it was for North Amer-icans to share the redemptive hope of and faith in [Western] education withthe spotlight focused on opening the schools in Afghanistan and Pakistanafter the United States sent its military troops to Afghanistan to root out

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 281

terrorists. In language that draws upon a ready reserve of images alreadyreadable through the racialized and gendered notions of the dangerousand “terrifying [Islamic] other,” Willinsky re-draws the New York Timescoverage:

In the Western press’s search for an answer as to why anyone would assume the hate-filled self-sacrificing life of terrorism, the Madrassa has repeatedly come up as a form ofeducation at the root of evil. Consider the New York Times’ photograph of a Madrassa thatportrayed a class of boys, in white cotton robes, with Gefeyas on their heads, sitting on anaquamarine floor with one leg pulled up beneath their chins, with the Korans open beforethem on low wooden desks. The caption reads, ‘Islamic teachings: Many religious schools,or Madrassas like this one in the Northwestern Frontier Province of Pakistan, have beenbreeding grounds for anti-Western sentiment and have sent Muslim fighters to the frontlines. (Willinsky, 2002, quoting New York Times, 31 December 2001, p. 21)

Willinsky troubles the equation of the West (e.g. North America andCanada) with all that is progress and modernity and conversely, of Pakistanand Islamic teaching with being “breeding grounds”(a term he findsdisturbing) for terrorism and all that resists Western modernity and culturalimperialism.

Yet if the effort to reduce the ignorance of Islam in the West is about more than a photo-opof George W. Bush attending a feast concluding Ramadan, then we must believe that“Islamic teaching” is something more diverse, more rich and varied, more thoughtful andengaged, than is suggested by a phrase like “breeding grounds for anti-Western sentiment.”It may be tempting to deny the Madrasa, with its emphasis on memorizing and reciting theKoran, the very name of education. Yet, to do so could limit the importance of educationat issue here to the importance of our most prized and progressive ideas about education.This can only restrict our ability to move beyond older imperial models of a world dividedbetween the civilized and the barbaric. (Willinsky, 2002)

This discourse imagined in the photo op of George W. Bush attendinga Ramadan feast conceives of democratic reforms as only being necessaryin the non-Western, non-Judeo-Christian (e.g. Islamic) world. However,Fazal Rizvi, convincingly argues in terms that deepen and extend, if not,exceed Willinsky’s discussion:

[D]emocratic reforms are not only necessary in schools in the Islamic world but alsoin the [W]est, where the goal of the internationalization of the curriculum needs to beviewed more broadly than those commercial modes of practice which enable some Muslimstudents to buy a [W]estern education. It must include a greater focus on the values ofintellectual complexity and openness. Students need to be taught to think and speak withsubtlety and depth, to listen to others. They must be taught to become more attentive toglobal issues and to cultures that they have taught in the past to consider as remote, anddisconnected from their everyday life. (Rizvi, 2003, pp. 37–38, clarification added)

As has been well evidenced and critiqued by feminists interested inpedagogies of de-colonization (Alexander & Mohanty, 1997; Bannerji,

282 LESLIE G. ROMAN

2000; Hase, 2001), this discourse of Western neo-colonial nation-makingpractices, which I have identified as “Western educators and learners asdemocratic civilizers and nation-builders,” tends to be underwritten bynationalist and pro-masculinist ideology. It is gendered in predominantlymasculinist terms with (white) men as its protectors and heroes and (white)women as its symbols of national honor, hearth, religion, and cultural home(Yuval-Davis, 2001). Conversely, particular racialized and gendered othersfrom specific “suspect” countries, increasingly fill the popular mediaimaginary as dangerous, fear-inspiring and threatening. Especially in timesof moral panic, it is a curricular discourse capable of inspiring zealous,narrowly conceived patriotism to country: that is, conceptions of patriotismthat fathom only a citizenry who defers or acquiesces to official govern-mental economic, social and military policy and not one who inquires,peacefully dissents or loyally protests such policies (Burbules, 2002). Thisdiscourse fails to link discussions of the internationalization of educa-tion with a critical understanding of both the expressions and sources ofdeep resentment, divisions, and disparities of wealth and power that existglobally.

All three dominant discourses fail to teach what Rizvi (2003) identifiesas the aforementioned habits of a moral imagination and civic responsi-bility. Such habits must be accompanied by a willingness to participate incommunities that extend beyond own nation and local spheres to developwhat Rizvi (2003) calls after feminist theorist, Benhabib, a critical “globalintelligence” (Benhabib, 2002, p. 253).

In democratic education, all assertions must be regarded as provisional, subject to discus-sion and debate. They [students and educators] must learn to develop a global intelligencethat prepares them to participate in the processes ‘of complex cultural negotiations asdialogue partners in a global civilization not only insofar as we make an effort to understandthe struggles of others whose idioms and terms may be unfamiliar to us but which, by thesame token, are also not so different from similar struggles at other times in our owncultures (Benhabib, 2002, p. 253). Global intelligence requires the development of a moralimagination to view the world through the other’s eye, and a commitment to build culturalbridges across regimes of fear and suspicion of others. In the end, it involves a range ofvalues central to democracy: reason, compassion and respect of all human life. (Rizvi,2003, p. 25, clarification and addition mine)

RELATIONAL GENEALOGISTS

A fourth curricular alternative conceives of the local and the global notas fixed geographic or essentialist cultural ways of locating people andtheir differential lived realities by geography, territory, gender, class,race, nation, or religion. Rather, it conceives of how communities of

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 283

people in specific material, temporal, discursive, and contextual placesor ubiquitously mobile places (as the case may be) come to be sociallyand historically related (or not) to land, place(s) and other people andcommunities throughout the world. This notion of genealogical relation-ality is not an abstraction. It depends upon and materializes in real,historically contingent global interactions, and relations between andamong nations, non-governmental organizations, international agencies,private multi-and transnational corporations, and voluntary associations.These can and do to varying degrees shift the balance of power towardsmore equitable distribution and use of resources, as well as being held andholding others accountable to democratic will in regulating how power andauthority are asserted.

Here, the conceptual framework for constituting this process of rela-tionality is what I term the geopolitical “official and structural registersof voice” (Roman, 2003, p. 307) and material and normative intereststhey signify and effect, in particular interconnected local and global rela-tions. The word “inter-connectedness” should not be underestimated forproviding a basis through which students and educators can examine incurricular terms how particular histories and genealogies register (or failto register) within global networks of power, whose interests count, andon whose ethical scale when comparative models are used. Comparisonamong and between nations, cultures and communities is not so muchthe objective of this curricular discourse as is historical genealogicalrelationality (Alexander & Mohanty, 1997).

This entails teaching educators and students how to pay historical atten-tion to the uneven, contradictory, and often conflicting interests of powerin the social relations that define the stakes in and boundaries of belongingto particular communities. For example, this curricular discourse askseducators and learners to call into question how communities, interests,and voices are constituted, and, in whose name. It necessitates learningabout whose voices are heard (or shut out) of larger public debates. Rela-tional genealogists develop a global intelligence to read how communitiesare constituted, particularly in relation to other larger structural interestsof national-state governments, private multi-or transnational corporationsand larger geo-political dynamics. The relational genealogy curriculardiscourse treats allegiances to other forms of community and interestsof humanity that exceed nation-states as urgently necessary if we are tocreate a “dialogical civilization which seeks shared elements in our valuesystems” (Yuval-Davis, 2001) but across uneven and unequal materialcontexts.

284 LESLIE G. ROMAN

Normative questions of belonging, membership and social justice arecrucial to the substantive formal and informal curricula of this alternativediscourse. This is a model for curricula that at the very least displacesnation as a taken-for-granted category of student understanding, ques-tioning not only Canadian (or for that matter, any) national myths ordominant truths but, also the exceptionally divisive aspects of nation-alism in larger global struggles for equality (Hase, 2001; Mohanty, 2003).Chandra Talpade Mohanty (2003), for example, emphasizes organizingsyllabi around social movement politics that draw out social and economicprocesses and histories of particular communities that presumably directlyaffect them.

With the aim of emphasizing the interconnections among and betweenlarger global processes of domination and local/global social struggle andresistance, the topics might include: sex work, militarization, human rights,environmentalism, the prison/industrial complex, migrant work in theimport-export zones, and movements to challenge partnerships betweenNGOs and corporations, etc. The implications are clear. The relationalgenealogical curricular discourse rejects the token add-on measures of thethree dominant curricular discourses I have discussed. Instead, it calls forevaluating all curricula from the standpoint from what Mohanty terms the“one third/two thirds world” (2003, p. 243) as both social relations thatshare differences and commonalities, inside and outside, and distance andproximity. Here, there is no clear essentialist or binary separation betweenthe “West and the rest,” the North and the South, the binaries of “us andthem” or post-September official rhetoric of the clash of separate civiliza-tions (Yuval-Davis, 2001, n.p.) because there are Souths within the North,and vice versa, and so forth. Such an approach focuses on what Mohantycalls “common differences” (2003, p. 244) among geographically distantor proximate communities in which presumed cultural differences havebeen used to separate and divide peoples.

The idea of common differences stresses how people may estab-lish what is interconnected, shared or different in their experiences. Thepurpose here is not to over-valorize differences or read universal samenessin the process of making interconnections, which would thus repeat thepast mistakes. Instead, it is to determine the bases and practice of solidarity.And, while Mohanty’s notion of “common differences” (2003, p. 244) andelements of a pedagogy of decolonization are grounded in feminist prac-tice in the United States Women’s Studies context, they are in principle,equally relevant to curricular reform in other contexts – taking up the issueof globalization and the contested meanings of “global citizenship.” It isa way to theorize curricular justice through a cross-structural, contingent,

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 285

and historically dynamic lens and so becomes salient to what I mean by a“relational genealogy of curricula.”

CONCLUSION: ALTERNATIVE KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL

COMMUNITIES, AND PUBLICS

Global citizenship is a much contested, as well as ambitious term inwhich the inevitability of a neo-liberal hegemonic consensus is currentlyunder protest and reconsideration. In many respects, as I have shown,the dominant discourses of globalization and their promise of “globalcitizenship” through the three corollary dominant curricular discourses Ihave outlined envisage the free flow of commerce, goods, ideas, and aworld belonging across borders in an unproblematic and inevitable way.The idea encapsulated in such narratives is that the free flow of capitalpromotes the extension of a new fluidity of higher educational opportu-nities and the “transnational” or “cosmopolitan global citizen” who cantravel, reside, and live a postmodern dream of detached belonging. Indeedthe term, “cosmopolitanism,” like the concept of “global citizenship” whenlinked to such dominant discourses of globalization, attracts suspicionfrom many quarters. Canadian sociologist of education of Kogila Moodley(1999), a colleague and supporter of the concept of “cosmopolitanism”in an alternative form that does not equate universalism with its Euro-centric definitions from the past, recently commented to me that eventhis alternative conception seems to provoke the reaction that the termis somehow inevitably linked to its Eurocentric core. In slightly differentterms, feminist postcolonial literary scholar, Josna Rege (2001) commentson the much contested concept of “cosmopolitanism”:

[T]he word cosmopolitan conjures up, from one perspective, a worldly, secular, mobileindividual. From another, it suggests an elitist vagrant opportunist who has betrayed reli-gion and homeland. The term has long contained contradictory connotations, and has . . .

long been used in opposition to nationalism. A cosmopolitan is someone who, dependingon one’s perspective, is either valorized or reviled as a citizen of the world, free from anynational restrictions or allegiances. (Rege, 2001, n.p.)

Some may even argue an intellectually and politically pessimistic positionthat there are no viable alternatives to adopting the neo-liberal versionof cosmopolitan citizenship as evidenced by the dominant curriculardiscourses of “intellectual tourism, voyeurism and vagabondism,” becom-ing “consumers of multicultural and (inter)national difference” or,“democratic civilizers and nation-builders.”4

Certainly, there is plenty of evidence within the present context toconcur with this assessment, as suggested by my discussion of recent

286 LESLIE G. ROMAN

changes in immigration and security policies in Canada, post-September11th. With the post-Keynesian privatization and retrenchment of publicinstitutions of the Canadian nation-state, efforts to internationalization ofuniversity curricula will increase opportunities predominantly for thosewith the economic and cultural capital to be the traveling elites, while theother two thirds are unlikely to benefit from such efforts (Sharma, 2000a,b, c, 2001, 2002; Hase, 2001; Mohanty, 2003; Fisher et al., 2001). WhileI have shown how such curricular discourses seek to win the consent ofeducators and learners to identify with the particular neo-liberal discoursesof “global citizenship” what is never secure in any struggle for hegemony,is the final resolution – that is, whose interests will speak in the name oflegitimate educational moral authority in the coming years? Indeed, theexpansion of what Barber (2002) calls “McWorld,” that “peculiar logicof U.S. technology, markets, and branded pop culture” (Barber, 2002,p. 17) is not cosmopolitanism in the moral sense of a global humanity ordiverse community. At best, it is a contested and uneven form of modernity,“progress” and education. In its current forms, globalization benefits somegroups and nations more than others (Held, 2000; Kellner, 2000; Lingard& Rizvi, 2003; Morrow & Torres, 2000; Lowe, 2000; Roman et al., 2000).

Yet, my arguments for the alternative of a relational genealogicalcurricula, demonstrate the existence of alternative knowledge and stand-points brought into view by newly burgeoning politicized examples ofthe interplay between and among “alternative publics” (Lowe, 2000,p. 89), political communities, and progressive scholarship, particularlyfeminist anti-colonial scholarship on globalization. I agree with global-ization theorist, Fazal Rizvi (2003), who argues that globalization calls forhistorcizing abstract notions of national sovereignty. Yet, let us not forgetBan Wang’s (2002) reminder that the historical memory of the Cold Warresonates today even while national sovereignty and borders are beingreshaped by globalization processes. If Ban Wang’s urgings are correct,then, so too must we think carefully about how sovereignty is to be re-theorized in light of what people and communities remember and how suchmemories can be mobilized and invoked in the name of making some asnot quite human.

A reading of globalization that challenges and transforms neo-liberalism by working within and across transnational and extra-nationalalliances and solidarities requires a focus on human rights. It also does notto look exclusively to the territorial legal systems of nation-states, inter-national law or even non-governmental organizations as the sole arbitersof what human rights can mean in cross-border dialogs and counter-public solidarity work (Lowe, 2000). Lowe (2000) describes the work of

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 287

the Support Committee Maquilladora Workers in San Diego, Californiafor Maquilladoras that assists the workers around issues of labor, health,safety, and sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Maquilladora women workers and not the First World womeninitiated the cross-border work to provide both groups with the toolsand alternative knowledge to “test” the limits of international law. Theycame to form a cross-border coalition that was interested whether TitleVII of the United States Civil Rights Act will extend extra-territorially tosubjects in the United States plants but outside its national territory, oralternatively, be used by women in the United States to publicize sexualabuses in U.S. plants (Lowe, 2000, p. 88). In other words, will it beused to squeeze U.S. companies to reorganize their workplace conductin the border factories. If so, it may form the basis for complaints againstNAFTA, as well as a publicity campaign to critique liberal feminist notionsof “sexual harassment.” that do not currently recognize the racialized andclassed components of the problem. In fact, it may be just such provi-sional grassroots cross-border alliances and democratic associations whichexceed the social imaginations of nations and thus, offer the greatest hopeand ethical consciousness against the present despair of resurgent ColdWar memories, grand nationalist narratives, and their exacting humantoll.

NOTES

1 Elsewhere (Roman, 1991, 1993a; Roman & Apple 1990), I have discussed and critiquedthe practices of intellectual tourism and voyeurism in relation to naturalistic ethnographybased on a set of ethnographic practices I ultimately came to reject in my field workwith Punk young women. I would argue that in the context of the internationalization ofhigher education such practices and discourses can also be found in highly elaboratedforms. In fact, the term “intellectual tourism” has come to be taken up independentlyby a number of other social theorists, chief among them are the sociologist ZygmuntBauman and in a related critique of the way feminism is practiced in American universitywomen studies’ programs, see Chandra Talpade Mohanty (2003). In the context of myethnographic fieldwork with Punk young women, I critiqued the discourses of intellectualtourism and voyeurism, defining them respectively as:

By “voyeurism,” I mean the discursive codes and cultural practices to which ethnographersconsent when they accept privileged vantage points from which they minimally disclose theprior theory they use to view, describe, interpret, frame questions, and represent the knowl-edge and meanings of their research subjects. Ethnographic voyeurism occurs both whenthe use-value of the research subjects’ knowledge is transformed within exchange relationsinto the reified or objectified pleasure of the researcher and when the group under studyfeels In intruded upon by the researcher. The voyeur’s rapport with the research subjectsis short-lived, being premised upon the idea that the ethnographer’s role is to extract their

288 LESLIE G. ROMAN

common-sense knowledge and then, once the research is completed, to withdraw from theintimacy and alliances formerly established. (Roman, 1993a, p. 279)

Unlike the voyeur, the ethnographer as intellectual tourist may, for short periods,become deeply involved in the daily lives of her research subjects so as to achieve “culturalimmersion” and the status of a participant-observer. Intellectual tourism occurs when theethnographer abruptly ends the intimacy and rapport with the research subjects to begindata analysis, removing herself from the daily practices and possible material inequalitiesof the research subjects’ lives to theorize abstractly about them (Roman 1993a, pp. 279–308).2 By contrast, Mohanty (2003) argues the “feminist as explorer model” collapses the localand the global into the study of the “foreign woman as the object and subject” of scrutiny.For Mohanty, the “explorer model” upholds cultural relativism in its perspective to havestudents explore cultures as discrete and relative with no real connection or common basisfor evaluation. Evaporated from the pedagogy and the curricula are questions of power,agency, justice, and a common criteria for critique and evaluation. For my purposes,though, these same practices seem to be encompassed well in what I am identifying as“intellectual tourism.”3 Universitas 21 is a new corporate venture that conjoins Thompson Corporation aspartners in selling courses, programs, and degrees to an international audience across 17universities in ten countries. By joining U21, UBC agreed to license its university name andcrest to U21. For a critique of this privatized venture by several faculty in the EducationalStudies Department at UBC, see Fisher et al. (2001).4 If we consider the economic and political policies adopted under British Labor PrimeMinister, Tony Blair, for example, we see a shining example of someone who has advo-cated, following Anthony Giddens, a “third way” position between the Keynesian welfarestate and neo-liberalism. I concur with Abu-Laban and Gabriel’s (2002) critical assess-ment of Blair’s neo-liberalism as largely reflecting the interests of dominant capital inves-tors.

REFERENCES

Abu-Laban, Y. & Gabriel, C. (2002). Selling Diversity: Immigration, Multiculturalism,Employment Equity, and Globalization. New York: Broadview Press.

Abowitz, K. (2002). Imagining citizenship: Cosmopolitanism or patriotism? TCRecord.org. Accessed 12/29/2002.

Alexander, M.J. & Mohanty, C.T. (eds) (1997). Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies,Democratic Futures. New York/London: Routledge.

Bannerji, H. (2000). The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nation-alism, and Gender. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Barber, B.R. (2002). Beyond Jihad vs. McWorld. The Nation 274(2), 11–18.Barber, B.R. (1996). Constitutional faith. In J. Cohen (ed), For Love of Country: Debating

the Limits of Patriotism (pp. 30–37). Boston: Beacon Press.Barber, B.R. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times Books.Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: Human Consequences. New York: Columbia Univer-

sity Press.Beilharz, P. (ed) (2001). The Bauman Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Inc.

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 289

Benhabib, S. (2002) Unholy wars. Reclaiming democratic virtues after September 11. InC. Calhoun, C. Price & A. Timmer (eds), Understanding September 11 (pp. 241–253).New York: The New Press.

Brand, D. (1993). A working paper on Black women in Toronto: Gender, race and class.In H. Bannerji (ed), Returning the Gaze: Essays on Racism, Feminism, and Politics.Toronto: Sister Vision Press.

Brown, Y. (2002). Lecture given in my graduate seminar for the sociology of education,EDST 570 at the University of British Columbia, November, 14, 2002.

Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (2000). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives.New York: Routledge.

Byrsk, A. (ed) (2002). Globalization and Human Rights. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) (2001). New immigration bill reduces newcomerrights. News Media Release, March 14. Montreal: CCR.

Crane, D., Kawashima, N. & Kawasaki, K. (eds) (2002). Global Culture: Media, Arts,Policy, and Globalization. Routledge: New York/London.

Cronin, C. & De Grieff, P. (eds) (2002). Global Justice and Transnational Politics: Essayson the Moral and Political Challenges of Globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dolby, N. & Burbules, N.C. (2002). Education and September 11: An introduction.Teachers’ College Record.org. www.tcrecord.org/Content.Asp? Accessed January 1,2003.

Duerksen, R. (2002). The anti-terrorism law and our civil rights. Peace Center Press 17(1),2–3.

Falk, R. (1996). Revisioning cosmopolitanism. In J. Cohen (ed), For Love of Country:Debating the Limits of Patriotism (pp. 53–60). Boston: Beacon Press.

Fisher, D. et al. (10 May, 2001). Say ‘no’ to commercialization, faculty members urge. InLetters to the editor of UBC Reports (p. 2). Vancouver: University of British Columbia,Public Affairs Office.

Fisher, D. & Rubenson, K. (1998). The changing political economy: The private andpublic lives of Canadian universities. In J. Currie & J. Newson (eds), Universitiesand Globalization: Critical Perspectives (pp. 77–98). Thousand Oaks, California: SagePublications, Inc.

Gilroy, P. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. London:Verso.

Globe and Mail (1999). Illegal Migrants Priority, Poll Finds. Toronto: Canada (November22).

Globe and Mail (2000). Immigration: Poll Shows Opposition to Minorities Rising. Toronto:Canada (March 11).

Goldberg, M. (2002). (http://www.vpacademic.ubc.international), accessed 12/09/2002(Vice President International), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BritishColumbia.

Gordon, A. (1997). Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination.Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.

Guppey, N. (2002). Personal Communication, 9 November. Vancouver, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Hage, G. (2000). White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society.New York: Routledge.

Hall, S. (1996). Race: The Floating Signifier. A video-taped lecture from Open University.Milton Keynes.

290 LESLIE G. ROMAN

Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Hase, M. (2001). Student resistance and nationalism in the classroom: Some reflections on

globalizing the curriculum. Feminist Teacher 13(2), 90–10.Held, D. (2000). Regulating globalization. In D. Held & A. McGrew (eds), The Global

Transformations Reader (pp. 420–430). Cambridge: Polity Press.Held, D. (2002). Violence, law, and justice in a global age. In C. Calhoun, P. Price &

A. Timmer (eds), Understanding September 11 (pp. 92–105). New York: The NewPress.

Jayasuriya, K. (2001) From Political to economic constitutionalism. Constellations 8(4),442–460.

Jayasuriya, K. (2002), September 11, security, and the new postliberal politics of fear. InE. Hershberg & K.W. Moore (eds), Critical Views of September 11 (pp. 131–150). NewYork: The New Press).

Kellner, D. (2000). Globalization and new social movements: Lessons for critical theoryand pedagogy. In N.C. Burbules & C.A. Torres (eds), Globalization and Education:Critical Perspectives (pp. 299–322). New York: Routledge.

Lowe, L. (Summer, 2000). Toward a critical modernity. Anglistica A.I.O.N. 4(1), 69–89.

Martin, R. & Shohat, E. (2002). 911 – A public emergency? Social Text 20(3), 1–8.Michalowski, M. (1996). Visitors and visa workers: Old wine in new bottles? In A.B.

Simmons (ed), International Migration, Refugee Flows and Human Rights in NorthAmerica: The Impact of Trade and Restructuring. New York: Centre for MigrationStudies.

Moodley, K. (1999). Anti-racism education through political literacy: The case of Canada.In S. May (ed.), Critical Multiculturalism: Rethinking Multicultural and Anti-RacistEducation. London/Philadelphia.

Moodely, K. (2003). Personal Communication, 9 January. University of British Columbia,Vancouver, British Columbia.

Mohanty, C.T. (2003). Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, PracticingSolidarity. North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Morgan, K. (1994). Women and the knife: Cosmetic surgery and the colonization ofwomen’s bodies. In A. Jaggar (ed), Living with Contradictions: Controversies inFeminist Social Ethics (pp. 239–256). Boulder: Westview Press.

Morrow, R.M. & Torres, C.A. (2000). The state, globalization, and educational policy. InN.C. Burbules & C.A. Torres (eds), Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives(pp. 27–56). New York: Routledge.

Nussbaum, M. (2001). Can patriotism be saved? The Nation, 17 December, pp. 11–13.Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal

Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Nussbaum, M. (1996a). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In J. Cohen (ed), For Love of

Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism (pp. 3–20). Boston: Beacon.Nussbaum, M. (1996b). Reply. In J. Cohen (ed), For Love of Country: Debating the Limits

of Patriotism (pp. 131–144). Boston: Beacon.Ramirez, J. (1982). Domestic workers organize! Canadian Woman Studies (Winter) 4, 2.Rege, J. (2000). Women and new cosmopolitanism, http://womencrossing.org/rege.htmlRizvi, F. (2003). Democracy and education after September 11. Journal of Globalization,

Societies and Education 1(1), 25–40.Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2000). Globalization and education: Complexities and contingen-

cies. Educational Theory 50(4), 419–426.

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 291

Roman, L.G. (1993a). Double exposure: The politics of feminist materialist ethnography.Educational Theory 43(3), 279–308.

Roman, L.G. (1993b). ‘On the ground’ with antiracist pedagogy and Raymond Williams’sunfinished project to articulate a socially transformative critical realism. In D. Dworkin& L.G. Roman (eds), Views Beyond the Border Country: Raymond Williams and CulturalPolitics (pp. 158–216). New York: Routledge.

Roman, L.G. (1993c). White is a color!: White defensiveness, postmodernism, andantiracist pedagogy. In C. McCarthy & W. Chrichlow (eds), Race, Identity, andRepresentation (pp. 279–378). New York: Routledge.

Roman, L.G. (1991). The political significance of other ways of narrating ethnography:A feminist materialist approach. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & J. Preissle Goetz(eds), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (pp. 556–594). San Diego:Academic Press.

Roman, L.G. (1997). Denying (White) racial privilege: Redemption discourses and theuses of fantasy. In M. Fine, L. Weis, M. Won et al. (eds), Off White: Readings on Race,Power and Society (pp. 270–282). New York: Routledge.

Roman, L.G. (in press, May/June 2003). Ghostly evidence: Official and structural registersof voice, avarice, veracity, and violence in the ‘Rigoberta Menchú controversy.’ InL.G. Roman (ed), Special Issue of the International Journal of Qualitative Studiesin Education entitled, “Conditions, Contexts and Controversies of Truth-making”, vol.16(3).

Roman, L.G. & Apple, M.W. (1990). Is naturalism a move away from positivism?: Materi-alist and feminist approaches to subjectivity in ethnographic research. In E. Eisner &A. Peshkin (eds), Qualitative Inquiry in Education (pp. 38–73). New York: Teachers’College Press.

Roman, L.G. & Stanley, T. (1997). Empires, emigrés and aliens: Young peoples’ under-standings of popular and official racism in Canada. In L.G. Roman & L. Eyre (eds),Dangerous Territories: Struggles for Difference and Equality (pp. 205–231). New York/London: Routledge.

Roman, L.G. and collectively authored with the members of “The Discipline andPlace Collective” (2000), and with support from the University of British ColumbiaHampton Fund, designed to promote interdisciplinary research. “The Discipline andPlace Collective” is an interdisciplinary group of scholars at the University of BritishColumbia, including: Richard Cavell (English); Gillian Creese (Anthropology andSociology); Sneja Gunew (English); Penny Gurstein (Planning); Becki Ross (Anthro-pology and Sociology); Geraldine Pratt (Geography); Rose Marie San Juan (Fine Arts);Patricia Vertinsky (Educational Studies). The limits of liberalism: A conversation withRey Chow, Lisa Lowe and Renata Salecl. Anglistica 4(1), 91–118.

Roman, L.G. & Pratt, G. (Summer 2000, published 2001 and backdated by the journaleditors to 2000). Special issue editorial introduction, ‘the university as/in contestedspace’. Anglistica 4(1), 21–24. Our introduction appears in the Special Issue ofAnglistica. Transitions: Transnational space and universities in transition. 4(1), 21–24.

Rosser, S.V. (1999). International experiences lead to using postcolonial feminism in thelife sciences curriculum. Women’s Studies International Forum 22, 3–15.

Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Said, E. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.Salecl, R. (1994). The Spoils of Freedom: Psychoanalysis and Feminism After the Fall of

Socialism. New York: Routledge.Seabrook. J. (1985). Landscapes of Poverty. Oxford: Blackwell.

292 LESLIE G. ROMAN

Sharma, N.R. (1995). The True North Strong and Unfree: Capitalist Restructuringand Non-Immigrant Employment in Canada, 1973–1993. MA thesis. Simon FraserUniversity: Burnaby, B.C.

Sharma, N.R. (2000a). ‘Citizenship’ and ‘difference’ as a restructuring device: Canada’snon-immigrant employment authorization program. In S. McBride & J. Wiseman (eds),Globalization and its Discontents. London/New York: MacMillan Press and St. Martin’sPress.

Sharma, N.R. (2000b). Race, class and gender and the making of ‘difference’: The socialorganization of migrant workers in Canada. Special Issue entitled, “Whose Canada IsIt?”. Atlantis: A Women’s Studies Journal 24(2), 5–15.

Sharma, N.R. (2000c). The Social Organization of Difference and Capitalist Restructuringin Canada: The Making of Migrant Workers Through the 1973 Non-Immigrant Employ-ment Authorization Program (NIEAP). Ph.D Dissertation, Ontario Institutes for Studiesin Education – University of Toronto, Canada.

Sharma, N.R. (2001), On being not Canadian: The social organization of ‘migrant workers’in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38(4), 415–439.

Sharma, N.R. (2002). Immigrant and migrant workers in Canada: Labour movements,racism and the expansion of globalization. Canadian Woman Studies, Special issue onWomen and Globalization (Spring/Summer) 21/22(4/1), 17–25.

Smith, D. (1990). The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge.Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press.

Smith, D. (1999). Writing the Social: Critique, Theory and Investigations. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press.

Sommers, P. & Sommers-Willett, S.B. (2002). Collateral damage: Faculty free speechin America after 9/11. Teachers’ College Record.org. www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?Accessed January 1, 2003.

Stetz, M.D. (1998). Globalizing the curriculum: Rewards and resistance. Feminist Teacher12(1), 1–11.

Strange, S. (2000). The declining authority of states. In D. Held & A. McGrew (eds), TheGlobal Transformations Reader (pp. 148–155). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Teeple, G. (1995). Globalization and the Decline of Social Reform. Toronto: GaramondPress.

Teeple, G. (2000). What is globalization? In S. McBride & J. Wiseman (eds), Globalizationand Its Discontents. London/N.Y.: Macmillan Press and St. Martin’s Press.

The University of British Columbia’s “Global Citizenship Conference”, http//www.vpacademic.ubc.ca/globalcitizenconf. Accessed 9 December, 2002.

The year in pictures: Drumbeat for War. New York Times, 31 December 2001, p. 21.Waltzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.Wang, B. (2002). The Cold War, imperial aesthetics, and area studies. Social Text 20(3),

45–65.Weinberg, J. (2002). Broadcast e-mail communication, Dec. 20, 2002, No more accent

received 21:07:05-0800. from e-mail: jackie_weinberg@nomoreaccent.comWeldes, J. (1999). Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban

Missile Crisis (in Borderlines book series, vol. 12). Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Weldes, J.M. Laffey, H. Gusterson & R. Duvall (eds) (1999). Foreward by G. Marcus.Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger (in Border-lines book series, vol. 14). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Williams, R. (1961). The Long Revolution. London: Chatto & Windus.

‘GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP’ 293

Willinsky, J. (2002, September 3). Hope within the limits of education. TeachersCollege Record. Retrieved January 28, 2003 from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=11030.

Wong, L. (1984). Canada’s guestworkers: Some comparisons of temporary workers inEurope and North America. International Migration Review, 196–204.

Yuval-Davis, N. (2001), The Binary War, http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/docu.

AUTHOR’S BIO

Leslie G. Roman is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Studiesat the University of British Columbia. She publishes widely in cultural studies andeducation on the inter-relations among various anti-oppression pedagogies, partic-ularly antiracism, feminist materialism, and critiques of neo-colonialism. Herwork may be found in journals such as Discourse, Educational Theory, Anglistica,an Italian cultural studies journal, Environment and Planning: Society and Space,and The International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, as well astranslated into a Spanish journal, Educacion y Sociedad (Education and Society).Her published books are: Becoming feminine: The politics of popular culture(co-edited with Linda Christian-Smith, Falmer Press, 1988), Views beyond theborder country: Raymond Williams and cultural politics (co-edited with DennisDworkin, Routledge, 1993) and Dangerous territories: Struggles for differenceand equality in education (co-edited with Linda Eyre, 1997, Routledge). She iscurrently working on a book tentatively entitled, Transgressive Knowledge: Rela-tional studies in feminist theory, politics, and pedagogies (forthcoming, Rowman& Littlefield).

Department of Educational StudiesFaculty of EducationUniversity of British Columbia2044 Lower Mall, Ponderosa G 22Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4E-mail: leslie.roman@ubc.ca