Universal values within UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education can be seen as a complementary vehicle for the imposition of western dominance. Values in society are said to act as social regulators of people’s actions such that people act in a way that serves power. Values influence people’s actions, but can also be used by the powerful as an excuse for unjust acts which originate from a desire to dominate. A desire to dominate can be seen in the view of top-down global citizenship with its basis in neoliberal globalisation, which can be seen as imposing reprehensible ventures resulting in inequality. Arkoun (2004, p49) states that ‘values become dangerous in all cultures and in all contexts when they are used as a cloak for inadmissible and reprehensible ventures motivated by the desire to dominate’. With criticism that top-down global citizenship imposes a western world view, a desire to dominate may be seen within its mission to citizenise people it considers inferior, using universal values within global citizenship education to influence the subjectivities and subsequent actions of citizens to serve the dominance of western powers (Tully 2014, Biccum 2010). Education promotes, amplifies and transmits values both within education itself and wider society (Welzel 2013, Fives 2013, Vaughn and
Walker 2012). The individual, motivated by their values towards actions they deem worthwhile will subsequently act within society. Society, with a prevailing values emphasis, may also influence an individual’s actions towards those considered desirable, influenced perhaps through social pressure to conform or through social confirmation of values seen as desirable (Schwartz 2006, Welzel 2013). These values then influence how people are motivated to act as citizens and how identities and actions as global citizens are confirmed. Where the focus is on universal values within top-down citizenship, education can be used to influence not just learners but wider society towards the agenda of western powers.
As discussed, a critical attitude may resist the agenda of western powers. When a critical attitude is applied to universal values, the intersections between global, national, local and individual may create space to consider alternative values negotiated locally and seen as more relevant to local people. Alternative values may motivate people and society towards action for mutual human wellbeing that they see as relevant rather than abstract and chosen rather than imposed, increasing participatory parity. Welzel (2013) asserts that education contains a tendency towards emancipation. Emancipation through education occurs through social cross-fertilisation - the more education there is in a society, the
more values will be communicated through social interaction. This has an
amplifying effect on values - those more highly educated feel socially confirmed in their values and exercise them more freely. This is also reported to influence those who are less educated as they adapt their values to keep up with the changes in their societies – the ‘elevator effect’(Welzel, 2013, p110). Education
both amplifies values in society through social interaction and elevates those without an education as they, as individuals, become influenced by them.
Welzel asserts the emancipatory tendency in the context of an education where learners are taught to think for themselves. However, in the context of UNESCO’s GCED where a particular set of universal values is promoted and criticality is not the dominant message, learners are not encouraged to think for themselves. This reduces the emancipatory potential of UNESCO’s GCED and reinforces western dominance.
However, not everyone sees universal values negatively. The amplifier and elevator effects applied to universal values may be positive in nations whose values do not currently align with mutual human wellbeing. This perspective is
flawed though since it is in danger of citizenising the ‘other’. Vaughn and Walker
(2012) see the positive aspect of universal values and acknowledge that ‘communities might choose educational values that are not to the benefit of all (e.g. girls), so either there needs to be some core of universal values arising from the goal of ‘human development’, and/or a process that subjects a particular community’s or society’s reasoning about education to impartial scrutiny’ (Vaughn and Walker, 2012, p497). Their perspective affirms universal values. However, this reinforces the worst of western dominance where, through global citizenship education, western nations try to citizenise those they consider inferior. Welzel (2013) would disagree because he asserts that it is only education’s emancipatory tendency that is amplified and elevated and with the quest for human freedom as universal, emancipation will happen in all cultures. However, considering the interaction between education, society and
values, it would seem strange if the amplifier and elevator effects were only true of education’s emancipative tendencies. Perhaps like Tully, Welzel is an idealist.
The interplay between education, society and values is complex and can be used to regulate people’s actions so that they serve power. This complex interplay further influences how people are motivated to act as citizens and how identities and actions as global citizens are confirmed. But the interplay can also provide room for resistance to this top-down social regulation when values are negotiated in local contexts. This reflects Tully’s Diverse global citizenship (Tully, 2014) where the ability to act otherwise can help to equalise power relations. Acting otherwise will be motivated by values that are negotiated by those directly involved and seen as relevant. Where these differ from the universal values of top-down citizenship, resistance could occur which carries the potential for change. However, as stated previously, the Diverse model is not realistic and cannot on its own resist power. The inclusion of a critical attitude towards both universal and local values within global citizenship education would provide a constructive way forward and may create space for the creation of values resistant to hegemony. As Arkoun (2004, p48) states, ‘Values must be constantly reflected upon and recreated in response to the actions of the powerful such that potential oppression is resisted’.